From: jon_devlin
Date: 2015-04-16 12:27:21
Thanks for this information Andrew, I really enjoyed the first interview with Peter Woodhead and it just seemed to make so much sense how he presented it, as did James Maxlow’s work that I’d listened to several years earlier. I believe that whilst the explanation of things can get very technical and often those deep details might/probably will not be understood by the lay person at that level? The initial message should always contain the reoccurring kernel of simplicity that makes it both understandable and the ability to demonstrable an unbroken chain of steps backwards to the initial empirical evidence being presented. I’d cite modern physics and quantum as a case where in my opinion (and listening to those that do understand the detail) this isn’t the case and is in fact more contrived modern nonsense that the world now endorses as fact at the expense of real progress that was being made at the time of Maxwell. Anyway, I’m sure I’ll not understand most of the technical details you and Peter have worked so hard on Andrew but I’ll bet I’ll still be able to follow the logic of what I believe is probably fact?
