This is not a new model. People working with electromagnetic equipment use it more or less all the time. It is about using fields to describe and explain what is happening around us, and in this connection, it is not controversial. It is when this model is presented as an alternative to quantum mechanics and the theories of relativity, that different sanctions appear. When some people say that this model can explain everything from behaviour of atoms and molecules to gravitation forces in the universe, the reactions from the scientific establishment often become hostile in stead of giving gentle explanations showing where these people make false statements.
Why this website?
1) Years of teaching science have led to the conclusion that basic models in science textbooks may be a main reason for the problems we experience in communicating science in our science classes. Textbooks of physics very often seem to avoid answering natural and logical questions and instead they present paradoxal explanations that seem to undermine a physical understanding of nature. The result is confusion. Students stop thinking and instead start to memorize what authorities say.
2) Authorities, who control different scientific publications and textbooks, have established a sort of censorship which, in an effective way, stops this sort of fundamental questions from reaching science classes. Internet, on the other hand, is not controlled by orthodox scientists and it is my hope that someone surfing on internet finds this site helpful and will support a demand for more openness in science.
better scientific model?
As a human being, I understand both the students who find it easier to memorize, and the orthodox scientists who find it uncomfortable when someone tries to undermine what they think is fundamental. But if there exists a better model for understanding nature, it is not a good ting to hear about it? Science is about presenting and evaluating theories and models and everyone involved in science should be open-minded enough to evaluate alternatives to their own favorite. The response to presentations of the em-model this far has been a sort of silent ignorance without giving any scientific reasons for why this model do not deserve a fair scientific evaluation.
About using the
same scientific criteria
It may be a problem to get involved in a discussion with people who are so predisposed that they never admit facts that seem to be against their position. Some scientists may think that people that propose alternatives to "established scientific models" are that sort of people that do not deserve attention. An answer to this "argument of silence" may be a declaration. I see no reason for arguing for the em-model if it can be shown that this model includes fundamental problems like paradoxes, or if it can be shown that there is no way that it can explain fundamental properties in nature. But what we expect from one side should also be expected from the other side! It is for example hard to understand why some people who claim to be scientific, apparently defend with all means, models which include both paradoxes and fail to explain many different phenomena which we can observe in nature. A possible reason for this may be that also our scientific establishment has ceased thinking and instead has chosen just to accept what authorities have said. I hope that this is false, and that it is possible to get a deeper discussion about fundamental models in science. I also hope to be spared from the statement "science has shown" which is not a genuine scientific statement if it is not followed by real scientific evidence. As long as the em-model is not proven to be false, it is not valid to say that we have to accept the common models since there is no alternative.
16.12.03 Erling Skaar