Fields of Magnetisim

You could post a link. Some of us might go check it out.

I think it's a curiosity, and that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, no matted haw misguided.

The Physics of Bruce Harvey

Thanks for the link. Some of the sublinks there don't work (but some do)--I don't know if I have a browser problem or what.

Anyway, looks like more than I'll try to read today, but doesn't immediately look totally crazy. The guy was apparently a university level physics student at some point, so at least he starts with considering things like the Lorentz transformation and Einsteins theories. (I read maybe the first three paragraphs on this page: A New Relativity A Development of the Relativity of Lorentz and Poincare

This link did not work for me--it acted like it was loading something, but my screen ended up blank:

Electric and magnetic fields

This is of little interest to me, too abstract and has no immediate impact on me or mine.

I'll leave the postulating to those of you with big brains.

Thanks for posting the link Lyn

Oops, I got the wrong link up above (for the one that doesn't work), it should be:

Electric and magnetic fields

And, apparently I've got a temporary problem with my Firefox (Iceweasel) browser, it doesn't want to load .pdfs at the moment. The link works fine in konqueror (it's usually konqueror that is picky ;-)

It appears, by his own words, that Bruce Harvey started his site specifically because he had trouble finding acceptance of his theories from his peers. He is an ex-physics professor, although it seems he's somewhat of a fringe scientist. I haven't dove into the site at all, but am sure he's able to communicate his theories in a way that would convince those of us who have only taken a couple classes, but obviously not well enough to convince his peers.

So, IMO, his information is probably great if you're looking to learn conventional physics, but remember his theories have not been accepted. Learn from them, but understand there's a good chance they're wrong.

I gave you a GA for your first paragraph. (That was well stated, I was trying to think of something similar to say.)

Re the second, I'm not sure that anyone should try to learn from them (as, as you say, he may be wrong).

Even accepted theories have flaws. IMO, it is important to learn from both the successes and the failures, as either could spark the concept that flows to the next succeeding theory or invention. Perhaps, this man's theories are tapping into the right area, but isn't quite right and perhaps one brilliant mind reading it can see how it can be modified or corrected to work. At worst the road he points to leads to non-sense, but in the end you've learned why.

An important thought I always keep at the front of my mind when listening to new things comes from Einstein (I think). The thought is basically that our theories are "off", not quite right and to tie everything together it is going to take radical ideas that will shake the foundations of our science. Foundation shaking. Imagine that for a second. How will the person who comes up with earthquake ideas be treated by his peers in today's world? I'm guessing it would be exactly what this professor faces. I won't say he's the next revolution in physics, but I won't dismiss what he has to say either without a thorough understanding of his ideas.

Another good answer. When I was thinking about learning it was for a novice in the field. I think they need to learn from what is generally accepted to be correct, with perhaps some exposure to foundation shaking, maybe as food for thought. (And, ideally, some warning signs that they are out there in a potential foundation shaking area.)

Experienced "practioners" in the field should be ready (and eager) to learn from all sources.