Censorship of non-mainstream ideas in physics leads to opportunities for independent scientists

I have had a short visit to your site and it wont be my last.?
You have some great captures.
I am rather lucky as I live on 200 acres of bush 30 klms out of the closest (one horse town) with the closest neighbour 1.5 klms away who only use 12vlt lights.
To the South I have 100 klms before we have a modest town so it is excellent for astrophotography.
I have a small set up but its in a roll off shed so there is little set up.
I will probably get hit for off topic but hey fellow astronomers and all that.
Alex

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Actually as one who emphasises that no theory will ever be constructed or over thrown on any science forums, I must bow and give credit to the many world wide amateur astronomers and star gazers that at times can make a difference and have made discoveries.
Although just as obviously as a pure observation science, it differs somewhat from the deep cosmological questions and instruments supporting and accessing data to that end.
I dips me lid to those amateur astronomers!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Do yourself a favour and visit Russ Watters site.
Alex

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There are orders of magnitude more physicists today than during the time of Einstein. The fathers of modern physics did not need large numbers of scientists to make large contributions. They built the foundation and framework of modern physics. The question is how do you gainfully employ all the extra bodies we have today, when less was more?

One way is to build inefficiency into the system. For example, if you build a house on a swamp, the larger and the more complex house becomes, the more people you will need, to maintain grandeur, it as it increasingly sinks into the swamp. It will require a lot of extra manpower to deal with all the constant cracking in the plaster, wood trim splitting and pulling way from the walls, and the doors not shutting properly. We will need a small army of plasterers, painters, carpenters, etc.

Once the large grand house on the swamp nears the point of no return; too much invested, if you had the option to rebuild on a solid foundation, where few if any cracks and defects will form, would you build there? One problem is you may only need a small group of maintenance people. The question is, how would you employ all the support staff if the maintenance requirement falls very low? After weighing the options, it may be better not to build on the rock, but add a new wing to the swamp mansion, so we can expands jobs.

The speed of light is the ground state of the universe. This is a rock that does not change. It is the best place to build. Relative reference is a swamp that can change with rainfall and drought. It is not steady and reliable. But then again, what do we do with all the extra help needed for the swamp use, that may not be needed for maintenance?

We could invent new technology connected to hooking up to the ground state, to generate endless energy. That will open up new corridors.

 

Please do not post pseudoscience in the science section. Reported.

 

Today we need to use a lot more data at a much higher accuracy because that's where the physics advances are. This same increase in data and accuracy was what really established General Relativity in the 50s through the 60s.

 

From the opening post:

I would add about the peer review procedure that may be the best case of a peer reviewed publication by selected wisdoms and in which the majority of the people believe so being the mundial mainstream is the Bible!
Peer review actually does not grant anything...

 

If we're going to do that, we ought to explore whether or not it's easier to just tap Dimension W, which exists in a condition including much greater potential energy.

And apparently this requires a gynoid with a tail for an assistant.

This is the important part: Once you find a way to turn cartoons into reality, you'll actually have a point.

Which leads to the obvious question: Do you actually have a point?

Do you ever actually have a point?

 

Not necessary, infact it can suffocate people and it has potential to suffocate progress of that field in right direction, at least for sometime.

Take for example...

1. Chandra, a young chap of around 19, in 1921 or so proposed Chandra Limit for compacting stars under gravitational influence. This was new but not liked by established mainstream badge holder Eddington who was basking in the glory of his famed 1919 experiment. He dismissed chandra, well it could not have been a smooth walk for Chandra after that. But to his credit Eddington supported him later.

2. In late sixties or so Vera Rubin (of DM fame) was also troubled by mainstream badge holders, later to agree with her.

3. In late nineties Abhas Mitra was ruined (promotions stopped, funds stopped, sidelined etc) by mainstream badge holders for proposing ECO/MECO as against BH. Now things are brightening up for him.

4. Latest is Laura Mercini Haughten, I do not know, but trolls on internet are calling her disparagingly victoria etc. Some resident guys here are also dismissing her by a simple suggestion that it is just an ArXiv paper..

5. List is endless. Even the ignorant posters on internet forums, who have no idea of even the basic Physics, start claiming superiority over well educated people who attempt to go against mainstream.

No doubt in the end truth triumphs, but many are sacrificed.

 

Actually all great examples of science in progress, and the fact that any new hypothesis needs to run the gauntlet before it is deemed acceptable as aligning with scientific methodology and peer review...and of course most of those you mentioned would certainly agree.

Not at all: Even in mainstream we will always have contrarians, just as we do in any discipline. At this stage of her claim, she has not shown anything beyond a couple of hypothetical quantum scenarios, which most mainstream disagree with.

Agreed the list is endless with examples of scientific progress.
And yes the few contrarians that claim to invalidate what the core of mainstream dismiss, [as per Haughton] will obviously also be dismissed by the average internet forum poster, according to the available evidence at that time.
Of more concern of course is the ignorance shown by some that claim that reputable experiments [GP-B and aLIGO] and reputable professionals [Thorne, Hamilton] are pushing fraudulent claims.
Of course though most know scientific forums are simply theatres for "talk, talk, talk etc" by amateurs, while mainstream academia, with the state of the art equipment and professionals operating them, along with proper unbiased research is for the making of policy, the scientific method, peer review, establishment of theories as per observations and experimentations, and the progress of the scientific discipline in general.

In essence and summing as I recently said somewhere else.....
Real scientists know their limitations and work hard to understand the fields they chose.
Cranks substitute their limited knowledge with anger, conviction and volume, then go preach their evangelistic Gospel to anyone that wants to listen.

 

A good applied example of the premise of this topic will be Jupiter. The Juno probe will be looking at Jupiter with closer scrutiny than ever before. This will give us a chance to see if all the experts are always right, by looking at something easy that is close and provable. We will see if easiest to prove physics is a done deal, and whether only physics too far away to prove, is a done deal.

If they discover new things that disprove what is assumed to be true, does that mean those in charge, and those mimic those in charge, had been cranks all along? If you pay a crank, does than make them an expert?

Jupiter is easy prove compare to a black hole, so why would any expert assume a black hole is a done deal? I remember when we first went to Mars, which is even easier than Jupiter. There were many thing nobody expected, which would have been called pseudo-science if suggested by any of the amateurs. If they insisted, they would be called cranks.

Let us visit this topic after the Jupiter data is processed to see where the cranks begin and end. Often a collective delusion is part of company politics, which one needs to play to be paid. Cranks can become experts this way.

 

Mod Hat ― The robot's pretense

I think we're done with these posts that read like an autogenerator, have only the slightest connection to the topic, and tend toward the quasi-delusional manner of paranoia we simply describe as "stupid".

Meanwhile, you don't bother defending your posts or responding to the responses; you just move on and drop another post that reads like autogenerated excrement.

Stop wasting our time. Start being useful.

If you would like to take the time to explain to me just what you're doing, you can always send me a message. But as it is, you're about to find your posting privileges in the Science subfora, at the very least, quashed again.

You write posts so stupid as to be incendiary for their human failures. The first thing you need to do is get a clue. The second is to communicate in some manner that demonstrates you have it. If you are capable of interacting with others in such a manner as to carry out an actual discussion, I can only wonder when the last time you actually engaged that faculty.

Get it together; the curtain is about to drop in the Science subfora, and when it does, it's likely going to drop in other subfora―you've managed to be nothing but a detriment to this commmunity for far too long.

Start responding to people instead of spraying bigoted, superstitious, and stupid shit all over the walls. Prove to them you're not a Bigotry/Stupidity Autogenerator. We would very much like to witness your humanity at some point before you're thrown out. Many of them buckle and bawl afterward, and the history already tells us what happens if we keep giving them chances; we only ever see their human side when they're bawling and screaming about how we've just violated their human rights because they're not allowed to promote bigotry, fake science, or otherwise be so disruptively stupid as to require their removal.

So why don't you show us a little bit of the person behind that robot pretense, or at least tell us what's up? Because your posts make no sense, seem composed with strings of wilful offense and influential delusion, and you seem utterly incapable of defending their woeful content. If there is some circumstance obliging reasonable accommodation resulting in allowing you to continue behaving like a soulless hate machine, do let us know. For the time being, your anti-social behavior is exactly unacceptable.

 

I look at things from every angle. Not every angle will be useful, but you can learn from mistakes. I am not the one calling names. Is name calling proper social behavior? Or is name calling used when you can't answer a point in a rational way?

If I was linear, you could counter me with a couple well though out arguments. But if I generate a lot of angles, to be a mature critic, you need to generate counter arguments for each angle. If you can't keep up, some people resort to name calling. What you are trying to do is kill the messenger, so this and all future messages will be not received. It is easier than being rational and having to counter argue.

The point I made previously is, if the consensus assumes something is right; done deal Jupiter, and everyone who does not accept the thoughts of consensus, is a crank, what happens if new Juno discoveries show what was assumed to be right, was wrong. Does than mean that cranks were in charge, standing in the way of progress ? It is a valid question?

An expert is someone who is right, until something proves them wrong. If they concede and change direction with the data, they can once again be an expert. But if they continue to assume the same thing, they become a crank. How can this be, since the next iteration may also be wrong in the future? I look at things and generate many angles to stay ahead of the future, since nothing is forever.

 

His background and earlier posts apart, I see nothing wrong with his this post and subsequent explanation given by him.

People are saying BHs are done deal, you have heard it hundreds of time from Paddoboy's noise, the nearest BH is not so close as Jupiter. So if Juno gives us something which is contrary to well established aspects about Jupiter then obviously ours (and theirs too) confidence will be shaken about veracity of whatever we are fed about things which are 1.3 bly away....perfectly valid point.

 

Mod Hat ― Works for me, you're on your own?

A'ight, how 'bout this: Okay, you know what? Screw you all. You can wait for Penner, you can wait for James.

You want to defend crackpottery, go ahead.

No, really, we'll be happy to attend a valid defense once you actually have one.

Meanwhile, spambots and autogenerators for everyone?

More realistically, we're not wasting the rest of this thread so we can attend a crackpot defending another crackpot without either of them having a point.

It's the same thing in every subforum: Overwritten posts that have little or nothing to do with the subject and, for the amount they are overwritten, actually terribly written.

†
​

I would note aside that delusional self-aggrandizement isn't useful. Nor does saying, "I am not the one calling names", when one is known for name-calling and other insistent denigration. You know, when one has to be told to stop being a godawful bigot?

Look, for whatever reason you present yourself as a terrible human being. You only remain at Sciforums at all because we've never figured out the limit for reasonable accommodation of your apparent handicap, and since you won't tell us what the problem is, we're pretty much out of patience.

To wit, nobody is surprised that after your obnoxious posts at #8↑, 24↑, and 31↑, you can't even be bothered to tell us what you're on about; the best you can manage is constipated self-aggrandizement.

I mean, you can't even apply your Juno rant:

You can't name the point of dispute you're working with because it doesn't exist; you're just filling in the blanks with an issue of the day, like a mad-lib.

So if you want "mature critics" to counter your arguments, you probably ought to have an actual argument in the first place.

That you're even here at all today, and not already permanently banned, should be a reminder of just how much rope this staff has granted you.

Thus you will either start contributing useful posts that are not intentionally disruptive to these threads or the community, or we aren't going to bother putting up with you anymore.

You are officially out of time.

 

Tiassa:

Dear Sir or Madam,

With the greatest respect for you as a person and as a moderator, I would like to draw your attention to the title of this thread OP, namely:

Having proper regard to that title and OP topic, any objective reader may be forgiven for seeing wellwisher's post as both on-topic and pertinent, fair argument for his relevant participation and opinion offered in this thread.

I realize you may have been influenced by his other postings elsewhere, and have made a blanket across-the-board judgement which you brought to your moderator opinion and warning in this thread. That is understandable; as I myself sometimes (however rarely) allow frustration with the goings-on get the better of my patient and tolerant nature and so finally 'vent' said frustration in open forum (as I did for the first time recently; so I can hardly blame you for 'venting' also whatever frustration has built up in you as person and moderator!).

But may I humbly submit that on a science site every instance must be taken in isolation on its immediate merits regarding being on-topic and scientifically relevant to the observation made in the OP. On that basis, it seems a little unfair to cast aspersions on his on-topic and relevant fair contribution to this thread just because he may have failed the test elsewhere.

May I suggest a course of action? Wait until wellwisher actually transgresses as you have (generally) described, whether in this thread or elsewhere, and resume your moderation accordingly at that instance. That way no question or blame can attach to you personally or your moderation basis; and all will be seen to be fair and above board instead of being accused of bias or uninformed personal animus. I hope this observation and suggestion from me is taken in the same friendly, helpful, humble spirit in which it was intended from a grateful member of this discussion forum. Thankyou.

 

Cheer up !! You appear to be stressed, take some rest.

 

Look, ignoring Tiassa's unnecessarily lengthy and personal post, let me say this......

I quite honestly do not understand what is meant my "mainstream" versus "non-mainstream" science. Sure, there is good science and there is bad science - our early training as professional scientists teaches us to distinguish the two.

There is also reasonable hypothesis informed by available data, and there is idle speculation based on not very much at all.

But what exactly is "mainstream science"?

 

If one were to rely solely on the evidence/information culled from these Forums, "mainstream science" seems to be, for lack of a better word, a "Religion"...?
It also "seems" to be a "Religion" that is primarily practiced by fervent ''acolytes" that, for the most part, have never actually been properly educated in or seriously employed in any of the Disciplines of the Real Sciences...

But...that is, QuarkHead, and I repeat this, emphatically - If one were to rely solely on the evidence/information culled from these Forums...

Possibly though, QuarkHead, it is what, in the REAL WORLD, is referred to as simply extreme Scientism.

 

Mainstream science is science in institutions, paid for mainly by government. It contains as good science as bad science, as reasonable hypothesis as idle speculation. It is what you can read in established scientific journals.

The definition fits not exactly, there are a few non-mainstream scientists with paid positions, but these are exceptions. Usually mainstream science does not contain much idle speculation, among the natural sciences physics is now in an especially critical position, because the whole mainstream beyond the standard model (which is good science based on observation) is actually idle speculation. But there is idle speculation paid by the government.

But even in comparison with physics, humanities are much worse. There are whole sciences full of idle speculation.