"Then try an alternate route."
I can do that; but should I HAVE to?
For what purpose? To supposedly kneel ? before numbers ? say hope not.
Maybe to get idea across more easily in certain context, try something else (but not compulsory).
"Do not stubbornly hold to justifying the use of nursery rhymes in a no nonsense field like physics (or any intellectual debate)".
Stubborness is an interesting concept.
"I will give you a logic that requires no rehearsal" I think Jesus said. I'm sure there a lots of ways; just happened that I thought it might help to explain why the nursery rhyme seemed cool to map those ideas.
It was a way; there are it appears many ways; but it seems like a revealing way. I think you'll find this sort of thing has been done before; even by experts.
"Could you imagine an esteemed theoretical physicist stepping up to a podium in a lecture hall at a university and starting, "Ladies and Gentlemen, Mary had a little lamb..."
But is "esteemed" compulsory; do we have to "like lick someones boots"? (do we have to even, say, not lick them then ?)
Esteem can be voluntary; there are very clever people (like Dirac); funny thing is I've heard that at a physics meeting Dirac is reported to have said, of some theory: "But is it crazy enough?" (approximate quote).
"What about President Bush on CNN: "My fellow Americans, Jack be nimble ... Jack be quick." I'd vouch for immediate impeachment and committal to a hospital."
Presidents are capable of having fun, being cool, taking it easy, being serious also. What is what there anyway?
"In resorting to nursery rhymes, you relieve yourself of any credability in knowing what your talking about".
But look at the content; prejudice can blind? I'm not saying you are prejudice against nursery rhymes; but the idea is look at the quality of the substance...
I did actually come up with "Mary had a little lamb, its fleece is white as snow. And everywhere that Mary went, the lamb was sure to go" as a map of the colour charge (check the texts: "colours" are supposed they say to add to "white").
But I've found the game of Chess to map very well into the physics standard model.
"Metaphors and analogies can potentialy give insightful perspective to an abstract concept. Nursery rhymes, however, are taking it too far".
"Just a humble opinion".
Hope to show the Chess model and golf model.
Imagine the board fashes on and off; with squares swapping colour each flash.
64 squares gives 8 Yang-Mills fields.
Knight moves seems can give beautiful map of quantum electrodynamics; square root of minus one; ... (imagine a 3x3 grid: the squares can swap places anywhere; the 2 forward 1 to the side, knight pattern can fit many ways on 3x3 grid; consider second Chess board: how transform it onto second board?)
pawns give 8 gluons
Rook move rule and bishop move rule give electro-magnetism
King as proton; Queen as neutron (if I recall right)
If you can play Chess you can do physics well perhaps?
scarce details here
A well qualified math graduate sees that it is reasonable as a possibile concept to map physics with Chess: as very nice math and symmetries in both physics and Chess.
Idea: reality speaks any language it appears?