Le Repteux

I suspected that this respite could not last long and I was right: xyzt had another alter ego in his hat.

I also find that most of the fringe theories that are presented on different forums are evidently wrong. Does that mean I am a scientist? Sorry, I should have added that I was talking about fringe theories. You are right, xyzt has stopped calling me names, for the moment, and this a lot more interesting, at least for me.

I guess I would stop discussing after having wished you good luck.

It was on a skeptic french forum Swansont, a few years ago, the moderator was arguing that he had the right to call names to participants proposing esoteric ideas, and I was included in the category. When participants do that, it is difficult to defend ourselves, but when it is a moderator, it is impossible.

OK, then why do you answer me? I could say the same from your answers but I don't! I just try to be more comprehensible. Nobody forces you to discuss with me you know. I am delighted to talk about my ideas, but not to be boring.

To me, it is evident that god is only an idea, but many scientists think that I am wrong. Does that mean that they have evidence that I am wrong? That evidence argument is a lure. I also find that some theories are evidently wrong, but I am not telling it that way. What's the use of being so rude? I did, but with other words. I repeat with different manners in case it would be better understood. Some might be afraid of that, I am not. My pride is somewhere else. When I am confident in an idea, I try it in case it would work, thats all. This is what I did, but you don't believe me, or you don't believe in my capacity to recognize what is scientific or not. When people call me names, I don't feel embarrassed, I just want to kill them. I agree with you though that it must be frustrating to have to answer so many people presenting unscientific ideas on a scientific forum, and not being able to help them because they do not understand the principles, or not being able to convince them either that they are wrong because they love their idea. I guess it would take an angel to do that job, but a scientific one of course. Maybe someday there will be a team dedicated to that, one that would be more comprehensive with people, and more convincing too because more recognized, as with the AA organization for instance. Scientific Anonymous, here we are, and our motto is: ???.

Would you if I told you that it was a moderator that was calling me names? I believe you, so I withdraw what I said about you. This goes for planning a resistance, but what did you think when you said "wrong" at the beginning of your phrase; were you planning to resist or were you unconsciously preventing my future resistance?

Seeing the unexpected is difficult for people certainly because of language, but also because the unexpected is about applying the past to the future, the known to the unknown. We may calculate that a new idea will work, but even if it would at the moment it is calculated, it might not work at the moment it is tested if it takes time to test it, because things change with time. I might calculate that I have time to cross at an intersection, but if I did not see a car coming, I might get hurt nevertheless. My new idea is about mass being caused by interactions not being instantaneous, and yours is about words not being understood the same with time and with the different people. The two ideas have something in common: time and resisting to change. I like your idea, and I wonder if you would like mine... It is remarkable to see how people sometimes understand exactly the contrary to what was proposed by somebody else in a discussion. As Cladking was saying, most of the time, we see what we expect to see, and when the proposition is too strange, we cannot see it, so we see what we can see from our own information. I will repeat what I said, even if I expect almost no chance of getting anything new, its no big risk anyway: I said that we had to be optimistic to tell others about a new idea we have, to expect a positive response, otherwise it would be useless to talk about it. More precisely, since we are talking about intelligence, to learn something, we have to believe we will be able to, otherwise we don't even try. To do something new, we have to believe it will work. To build a bridge, people around will give their opinions and the decision may be taken altogether, but nevertheless, if somebody has a new idea, he has to believe in it to tell it.

The last time I did that, I was banned. When you see an injustice, you turn your eyes? There is indeed a big difference, but there is a big similitude too: both resistances are subconscious, in such a way that, if one of the sides points at it, the other side will never be able to recognize it, and vice-versa. Because of that, it takes a certain time to change an idea, and giving bad feelings to people cannot accelerate time. Engineers are normal people: they use what they already know to build known structures, and they take risks if they build something new. The newer the structure, the more important the risks. Its the same for any new idea: if you don't like to take risks, you will never invent new things. We have to be careful with our new ideas though, because the success anticipated when we take a risk might kill us if we take a too big one.

Names. You don't hijack a subject when you add your personal opinion to it! Names again. Debunk has a negative meaning.

OK then, I suppose that the crackpots are the only ones who like to take chances. But this means that a big percentage of the population is crackpot, because otherwise, there would be no lottery! By the way, do you know the % of the engeneer community that byes regularly lottery tickets?

You let the others do so, and you approve their arguments when they defend their position about crackpots. Even if nobody noticed, what I do here is defend my original idea about mass. Resisting to change, remember?

As Strange already said, there still is a doubt, nevertheless, the chance is taken, because there is benefit from taking chances, and it sort of creates pleasure in our minds, the pleasure to think that it will work. This is the pleasure that helps me to continue here, not the one that comes from being treated as a crackpot.

It is no reason to call me names. If you do so, it is because it gives you pleasure, the pleasure to feel superior, to belong to a superior group. If nobody would do so, we would not be discussing that subject here. We are all the same when it comes to instinct, when comes the time to protect ourselves or our community. Were you calling names to those who believed they were right? Then do the same with me, doubt a little and I will be satisfied. Stop calling names and I wont mind being compared to others.

We see the progress that we made, but we can't see the one we are going to make. Simply because I like them, and because I am not satisfied with the arguments against them. Being told that you are a crackpot is not an argument, and it does not help you to understand you are wrong. It only satisfies the ego of the person that does so. It is a superiority move, an instinctive reaction, not an intelligent one. Its not a reason to call me a crackpot: nothing is! It is a possibility that I will have no help from scientific community, and quite an important one, I admit!

I don't consider that my ideas are right, and I am nevertheless considered as crackpot without my ideas being properly studied. How do you explain that? How can an engineer start to build a new structure while assuming that his idea might be wrong? As I said, I am not assuming that, and I am still considered as a crackpot. How do you explain that. Yes you do, but if it is a whole new structure, there still will be a doubt, no? Scientists are not the only ones to detect the problems with new theories, I do too quite often, but I respect people, and I will never say to them that their idea is idiot like you do. How is it so? Are some scientists less intelligent than me, a crackpot?

To see the progress in advance, and to realize progress has been done, is two different things. The first one is about the future, an the other about the past.

Cladking, I come to the same conclusion than you, but from a different point of view, from a particular idea I had about mass. Its very interesting! I have to give it a second though to be able to join the two point of views. As you say, it is not easy to talk about a new idea, because it is necessarily imprecise, and the words don't come easily. And it is not easy to cope with two point of views at the same time either, in fact, i believe it is impossible, I believe that we have to change from one point of view to the other and notice the differences that appears naturally.

Of course, I meant "universal" to human universe. What if that mistake was a property of the mind? Don't we have to assume that a new idea will work before trying it? If you are convince that your idea is flawed, will you talk about it?

People that use the word idiot to qualify others' ideas are probably the last ones that will change their mind about it if ever it happens to be true.

Pot sees bull shit in the kettle, xyzt!

Hi Swansont, I was wrong, that idea hurts a bit! Isn't it what a new law should be: universal? What is the use of proposing a new law that won't apply to everybody? Scientists are normal human beings, no? Yes, language has a lot to do with the structure of our ideas, but why a communication tool should produce an idea that forces our other ideas to go straight line until it hurts? Aren't animals resisting to change too, and in some way, more drastically than humans? What about plants, what about rocks?

"We still will see what we expect until we learn ways not to and there's hardly a mad rush to study the issue." Hi Cladking, I agee with that. We are on the automatic pilot almost all the time. We expect no change until it hurts. So I expect that it is probably the same for scientists, and that it will not change, but for eternity, so I expect no harm from this idea. Is it a law of nature? And if so, why all that change around us? Why so much resistance, and so much change? Is it also a law?

Hi xyzt, does the name Howard tell you something? He also chases cranks on another scientific forum, proudly exhibiting their heads on the top of its car as if they were deers. You may understand maths, but you certainly do not understand individuals. What you do is not intelligent, it is instinct.

You may be right, but how to tell? There are so many discussions on relativity, and so many not discussing the data but the logic, that it is normal to doubt. These do not happen about the laws of gravitation, or about the laws of electromagnetism. When will Relativity become a law so that we stop arguing about it?