/ Independent Physics
Ricardo Flor
Research in theoretical physics and philosophy of physics has been conducted autonomously and independently for over forty years, free from traditional institutional constraints.
+ Next Release
Shortly:
In the Shadow of Giants
The complete exposition of the work of more than four decades of independent work and precise logic. From the analysis of the philosophical foundations of knowledge, science and physics, to the proposal of simple experiments that challenge some of the main current theses, to the proposal of a new interpretation of physical phenomena that is more logical, uniform and comprehensive than current ones.
The search for what has remained hidden and forgotten in the shadows of our most "perfect" theories.
The manuscript is in its final stage of technical review and will soon be available to project supporters before the official launch.
■ Science Communication
YouTube channel
Lessons and Derivations
Videos explaining each article, with subtitles in 8 languages, bringing academic science closer to the general public.
▸ Open Science
Articles
Complete academic papers published under an open access license, available for download and scientific scrutiny.
This demonstrates why physics needs to be viewed as formed from three perspectives: observed data, the relationships between that data, and interpretations. It shows how this simple division dissolves important problems such as the divide between realists and instrumentalists, renormalization, the vacuum catastrophe, and quantum measurement. It also proposes the concept of half-truth, which allows false concepts to persist and propagate when combined with concepts considered strong and true.
New research is underway and will be gradually made available in the public archive.
It explores the limits of doubt and certainty, where the usefulness of each needs a practical limit. It concludes that personal dogmas are necessary and useful, but collective dogmas, where everyone has the same certainty at the same time, need to be avoided. Since divergence is a burden for the individual, although vital for society, society needs to encourage and finance dissent.
It proposes that the illusion of completeness in physics at the end of the 19th century was not an accident, but a characteristic of knowledge. It proposes the Yin-Yang heuristic to consider the incompleteness of theories, where each contains the seed of its successor that will complement it. Criticisms cease to be seen as attacks and are perceived as collaboration.
The text proposes the concept of the "Babel Effect" as an inevitable, gradual, and generally imperceptible tendency for every organization to deviate from its formal objectives, often opposing them in practice. While acknowledging the inevitability and advantages of organization, it warns that preserving objectives is even more important, and therefore the effect needs to be recognized. The fight against dissenting thought by scientific organizations would be an example of the Babel Effect.
The article challenges the notion that the Dark Ages were an isolated period in history, demonstrating that while it was a peak, its main characteristics were present before and even in contemporary physics.
The article uses the metaphor of the scientific field as a labyrinth to analyze flaws in the formation, transmission, and dissemination of scientific knowledge.
This work proposes an objective demarcation criterion for the empirical sciences, in opposition to the sociological concept currently dominant in institutional practice — a criterion grounded in actual observation and logical consistency. Popperian falsifiability, predictive power, scope, and the Dialectical Robustness Index (DRI) are repositioned as internal qualifiers rather than demarcation criteria themselves.
The article employs the metaphor of a dam to describe scientific dogmas: structures that protect professional stability yet accumulate the growing pressure of anomalies and new data. It argues that adherence to dogma is, for many researchers, a rational survival strategy; nevertheless, the rupture of the dam is inevitable. But for the scientist who has already attained material security, the re‑exploration of foundations may represent the most authentic form of success.
This article argues that scientific evaluation is never neutral, because it is conditioned by the “Observer’s Lens” – an interpretative filter shaped by theoretical commitments, community consensus, and institutional pressures. This lens makes periodic reassessment insufficient when conducted within the same interpretative framework. It propose “metatheoretical suspension”: a practice of temporarily examining scientific questions without the filters of current models, analogous to the phenomenological epoché.
This paper proposes that the speed of light (c) is not a universal constant but a local limit set by combined electromagnetic and gravitational field responses, where c = 1/√(ε(E)·μ(B) + ρ(g)). It keeps relativity's equations but replaces spacetime geometry with a causal field-medium physics, eliminating c, ε₀, and μ₀ as fundamental constants. The model explains Michelson-Morley via local rest in the dominant gravitational field, reinterprets stellar aberration as field-gradient refraction, and offers a kinematic account of the Pioneer anomaly and gravitational redshift (Δf/f = −ΔΦ/c²) without spacetime curvature. It proposes two lab tests: a Michelson-Morley interferometer with an intense electromagnetic field in one arm, and one moving relative to Earth's surface, both predicted to reveal anisotropy in c.
This article concludes the series on the epistemology of physics, completing the analysis of the first epistemic perspective: observational data. It argue that the distinction between raw data and interpreted data — frequently neglected or considered trivial — is fundamental to understanding the limits of contemporary physical knowledge. Using the detection of gravitational waves by LIGO as a detailed case study, as well as other major experiments, we demonstrate that experiments, especially large ones, produce not raw data but data deeply interpreted through layers of algorithmic processing, theoretical models, and human decisions. This interpretive contamination creates an epistemic circularity that compromises the validity of announced discoveries and the possibility of independent verification.
This article begins the proposal of a model that seeks to address the epistemological questions raised in previous articles. It applies the distinction between the abstract mathematical equation and the qualified equation with the limits of its empirical confirmation to four "fantasies" of contemporary physics: singularities (Big Bang, black holes), information loss (Hawking's paradox), temporal reversibility (time travel), and the mystery of renormalization (infinities of quantum electrodynamics). We demonstrate that these fantasies arise from a systematic confusion between what mathematics allows and what observation confirms. We argue that the unrecorded past is unobservable and irrecoverable, and that the so-called "conservation of information" is a mathematical artifact, not a physical law. The time variable possesses an implicit negative limit — the moment from which we have a record. Physical equations describe current relations, not histories. Singularities — where equations diverge to infinity — are symptoms of the extrapolation of equations beyond their empirical domain, not characteristics of nature. The article concludes with a reflection on the emotional attachment that physicists have developed to these narratives and the courage necessary to abandon the fantasies we love.