Sunday, July 10, 2016

Crawfrod and Blarnye think of heat and photons in an awfully mechanistic way. They see only one, or a handful, of the dimensions of a photon, and of matter. They see a photon with one frequency traveling from the Sun, through space, through air, through glass, and the one frequency degrades to infrared and interacts with molecules to produce kinetic motion in the bonds, or whatever.

But, I protest again, such is an awfully mechanistic view. Photons can also be seen as radiating all frequencies in different dimensions. Just add a basis; there are an infinity of them. The photon is an infrared photon in one dimension, and an ultraviolet frequency in another dimension. The Complex Hilbert Space is infinite and the photon can have a frequency in each dimension.

Flatlanders such as Crawfraud and Blarnaye see only a couple dimensions. They get mad if anyone sees anything other than what they do. They try to use whatever authority they have to smack down anyone proposing an alternate view to their Flatland Orthodoxy.

Crawfraud at least has the excuse of having had his brain been beaten around, both physically and with drugs forced on him, by government authorities. 

Blarney's just an unimaginative old coward, I reckon. Relies on grades to command kids' attention. Can't do it with his personality, nor his knowledge; grades it is then!

---

Blarney and Crawfraud perpetuate and promote a system that marginalizes me. I am devalued. Resources are held artificially scarce, to punish me. I must conform to the One True Way of Science and Logic. All social and economic efforts must reform my heretical views.

What if Crawfraud and Blearyeye instead encouraged nonconformity? What if in their own minds they explored new concepts and busied themselves with their own creativity, rather than learn-by-rote outdated physical models, and spending their time asserting such models confidently whenever they are questioned? Is it possible Blarney and Crawford are more titillated by social interaction, and simply use science as a convenient tool with which to bludgeon someone using arguments from authority?

Crawford is more interested in writing about how he met Feynman, rather than thinking about the implications of what Feynman's theories suggest?