Anilkumar

My link

I feel these two discussions, here & here, are relevant to this discussion. Thank you.

That was really a very simple, short, up to the mark, sweet, nicely put and perfectly correct description of the motto of the mainstream science forum. However, it doesn't completely give a description of the motto of SFN. Please give a similarly very simple, short, up to the mark, sweet, nicely put and perfectly correct description of the motto of the Speculation forum to complete it. Saying 'everything else' doesn't much give a description of the motto of the Speculation forum. Having said that; Which one would you choose, when suppose you face the dilemma of selecting between a mainstream Untruth and an offbeat Truth? And if I ask you to help me choose, what would be your advice? So in that sense; Is Science mainstream or offbeat? Does some idea become mainstream all of a sudden, or gradually from its initial stage of when it was offbeat once? So in that sense, Is Science Really mainstream or offbeat? Or; is it that; when something becomes mainstream it becomes Science? And so all that is non-mainstream is not Science? Ether was once Science & GR was once offbeat. So in that sense; Is Science mainstream or offbeat? Does the value of any Truth increase, by any amount, when it becomes mainstream? Does the value of any Truth decrease, by any amount, because it is offbeat? What makes an offbeat thought mainstream? Don't; 'Scrutiny', and then if found well-substantiated, 'Consideration', and then 'Verification', take an offbeat Truth on the journey to become Mainstream? So it is Scrutiny, Consideration, Verification that generate Scientific Truths. Guarding the mainstream theories doesn't create Science and isn't Science. In that sense; Is Science mainstream or offbeat? Isn't promoting and guarding a theory because it is mainstream even when an offbeat thought stringently disproves it, using the scientific method, a social dogma but not a scientific procedure? Whether an idea should be expressed in the mainstream forum, should not be decided by the criteria that whether it is Mainstream or Offbeat but it should be decided on the fact whether it is scientific or not. In that sense; Is Science mainstream or offbeat? And in every other sense; Is Science mainstream or offbeat? Is Truth mainstream or offbeat? Science is neither Mainstream nor Offbeat. Science is scientific. Truth is neither Mainstream nor Offbeat. Truth is Truthful. Dogmas are either Mainstream or Offbeat. They are not Science. They are not Truth. The Maxi was Mainstream once. However, the Mini was offbeat then. The Mini is Mainstream now. The Maxi is offbeat now. [i don't know exactly but we would have to ask the Fashion designers. That was just an analogy.] Dogmas are not Truths. They are just Trends; Personal Likings. To believe that space-time curves is just a Trend. A personal liking for the popular thought, without any scientific base. It is traditionally being followed & carried on, due to the lack of something to assign the Curvature to. The Curvature, a Physical characteristic or a Structural attribute has been laden/assigned to the Non-physical, the Non-structural entities, the Space & Time. All the interactions of the Universe are done through the Physical structures and the Forces. Space & Time have neither Structure nor Force, with them to interact with those who have it. This is a very simple, Truth. No Dogma, Personal liking, Popular belief, or Trend can have the ability to deny it. Thank you, for your kind interaction. How is an argument on an offbeat theory with the proficient on the forum, different from the argument with the referees for a journal submission? Thanks Ajb, for the interaction. That is well-founded. That's gallant. The world is indebted to the Gallant. It is because of the Righteousness of the Gallant, that the world lives happily, if it does. And it is because of the Fear of the Coward and the Rudeness of the Greedy that the world lives in sorrow, if it does. It is the Gallant who fight the Coward & the Rude to establish Truth, so that They & All else live happily. So nothing can repay what the Gallant & Righteous do to this world. I have placed well-founded, Logical, ways to potentially falsify, Model with testable predictions and indisputable evidence based on current scientific thinking that pinpoint the holes and gaps in our understanding of the space-time curvature hypothesis. Example here, on the relevant post. We all sustain on one thing, it's not Petrol, Money, Military power etc but it is Truth. Our Machines Run not on Petrol, but on the Truth we know about Petrol that it burns. When we buy something, we don't buy it with the money in our possession, but with the Truth we abide by & that we have attached to the currency bill that says, 'this bill will not fail to give the possessor the promised worth conferred by us on this bill'. We wage wars not with the help of the soldiers, but with the Truth that the soldiers abide by, True-fully, to die for their nation. When someone utters the word 'Truth', whether capitalized or not, this face of Truth comes to my mind; not Jack Nicholson's. And Logic is the thing that holds my hand and helps me differentiate between Truth & Truth-like. No power in this Universe can HAVE Truth. All one can do is, pitifully abide by it, to exist, after seeing it. It is something like Oxygen for the Living. You go in search of it from, a place where there is Lack of it, to, a place where it is Available, to exist. And I consider this Forum/Discussion, a Vehicle to search for it. I don't believe I HAVE Truth. I want this Vehicle to take me there, where it exists. And all else. Here, the Righteous and the Courageous would be of great help in the search. Everybody feels that they have seen the Truth. However, Truth can only be seen when we have three main things with us among others, and those are; one is the Humility that 'I could be wrong' and the other is the Courage to say it if Right & face it if Wrong and the third is the Restraint from the temporary pleasure one may get by fanatically maintaining that theirs is the Truth. If we have these things with us, our search would become Truth-full and lead to Rational thought & Righteous discussion, and then we can rest assured that we will see Truth, the tools of search being Rational thought & Discussion. No, it does not increase or decrease the probability. Thousands of people saw that the Earth is at the center of the Universe, or that there is Ether, but that did not increase the probability of them being the truths, a bit. Though everyone thinks, they have seen the Truth; Truth is only one. We can arrive at it by Rational discussion. I am not advocating the posting of every thought in every thread. I have already mentioned that a new idea should be presented in the speculations forum for scrutiny first. Then if it is well-founded, it should be allowed to be mentioned as an offbeat alternative thought in the mainstream forum. That is the service we can do to Science & Truth and ultimately help ourselves and society. Truth is not established by promoting it. It is established by the Truth contained in it and that in turn is established by the scientific methods. I have resolved all the Skeptical questions raised. However, the Skepitical questions raised by me have been eluded. This SURELY increases the Probability that what I have seen, could be the Truth. I have done it. Thank you for your wishes. Good luck to us, all. When a person's opinion is found to be true, that person is not the sole beneficiary, we all are benefited. We all benefit from Truth. But if it is rejected on some dogmatic ground then all are deprived of the benefit. As to Gumming up; While I am gumming the discussions of mainstream Science, and I am Rightly doing it, with the Truth found by scientific methods, the mainstream thought is gumming up Science itself, and Wrongly doing it, by eluding a Truth established by scientific methods and promoting an Illicit, False Assumption, misleading the world. Thank you Ophiolite, for your interaction, thank you all.

[To the moderators:- Since I am being asked for the presenting of the inconsistencies and the objections notified/raised by me, it becomes my responsibility and so I am presenting the scientific Methods by which those inconsistencies can be established scientifically. I suppose, that does not violate any Rule of the forum, that I am aware of, since I am limiting myself just to presenting & establishing scientifically, only the objections and hence not giving any offbeat solutions here.] I would also like to post these following contesting inquiries from another thread also here because, my following response would satisfy them and also because my reply which is relevant to this thread as well as to those posts from the other thread, cannot be posted there where the above two inquiries were raised because my reply is not the subject of that thread. I.E. those questions are relevant to this thread whereas my reply is not relevant to that thread where they were posted. So I have to give an answer to those posts here since, my reply would be relevant to this thread as well as those posts from the other thread as an Example. Swansont & Ajb, I have placed well-founded, Logical, ways to potentially falsify, Model with testable predictions and indisputable evidence based on current scientific thinking that pinpoint the holes and gaps in our understanding of the space-time curvature hypothesis. The following are the Methods that establish scientifically, the inconsistencies in the space-time curvature hypothesis:- Method 1:- Let us consider two axioms first; All the physical Matter of the Universe i.e. the Galaxies, Stars, Planets etc that have a shape and size, occupy space. To prove or falsify this Axiom, umpteen numbers of experiments can be conducted. Now I suppose; I don't have to get into the nitty-gritty of saying 'Take a lump of physical matter of volume x cubic centimeters and . . .' All physical objects move freely in Space. [Newton's first law, can be taken as a reference. – "Every object continues in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a straight line, unless compelled to change that state by external forces acted upon it."] To prove or falsify this Axiom also, umpteen numbers of experiments can be conducted. Axiom 1 implies that; Space exists. Axiom 2 implies that; The Space lets itself to be occupied without resistance. This again implies that, Space must be devoid of any structure or forces. This again implies that, Space is formless & vacuous. [see also, Method-2] By the implications of Axioms 1 & 2 we conclude that:- Space is a structure-less, formless, vacuous; so it cannot get curved. Prediction to test the correctness of this Method:- Every physical matter particle in this Universe can be moved or displaced to any part of the Universe by applying a force equal to counter the following factors; A. The inertial mass of that object. B. The Gravitational, Magnetic and Electrical forces that are holding that particle in its current position/state. C. Any other factor which is holding that particle in its current position/state or is hindering its displacement, the origin of which [or the cause of which] is physical Matter and nothing else. "No other factor, that does not originate from [or the cause of which is not] the Physical matter of this Universe, needs to be countered." Because; "The Space which is the fundamental entity responsible for the existence of this Universe, which gives space to all the physical Matter of this Universe, to remain stationary in one place or to move about freely, is nothing but an empty vacuous that does not have a structure, inertial mass or any other physical attribute like the Gravitational, Magnetic and Electrical forces, so doesn't exert and is incapable of exerting any force on any Matter particle of this Universe." Method 2:- Let us consider the axiom; 1. The "Physical structures" of all the physical Matter of the Universe is caused by the four fundamental forces i.e. the Electromagnetic force, Strong & Weak nuclear forces & the Gravitational force. OR The "Physical structures" of all the physical Matter is a consequence of their constituent four fundamental forces i.e. the Electromagnetic force, Strong & Weak nuclear forces & the Gravitational force. I.E. these four fundamental forces give Physical structure to all the physical matter of the Universe. This axiom implies that; Any entity that possesses a physical structure emanates the four Fundamental forces. Prediction to test the correctness of this Method:- Wherever the four fundamental forces are detected, there will be detected, the presence of a 'Physical matter' from which they are being emanated. Empty Space does not emanate any fundamental forces. Because; "Space does not have a physical structure and it cannot emanate any fundamental forces. So Space cannot get curved. And the case of the Time is similar too." Method 3:- Let us consider the following axioms; 1. Riemann geometry is a mathematical tool to study the curved surfaces/manifolds in higher dimensions. 2. Riemann geometry is a mathematical tool which when employed presents its results in terms of description of the extent of Curvature. These Axioms imply that; Riemann geometry studies the Curvature of the surfaces of bodies, but it cannot ascertain as to which the corpus is, that is responsible for that Curvature. Prediction to test the correctness of this Method:- With the help of Riemann geometry we can study the Curvature of surfaces/manifolds but we cannot determine or decide anything about the corpus that has caused that Curvature. So; "When Riemannian geometry attributes Curvature to things, on the basis of that, we cannot come to any conclusions regarding the corpus that underlies the curvature." And finally; Why GR/Riemann geometry works? That takes us to method 4. Method 4:- Let us consider the following axioms; 1. Riemann geometry is a mathematical tool to study the curved surfaces/manifolds in higher dimensions. 2. Riemann geometry is a mathematical tool which when employed presents its results in terms of Curvature. 3. All the events in the Universe occur in 3 spatial + 1 temporal = 4 dimensions. 4. Minkowski space is a 4-dimensional coordinate system; the coordinates of which are 3 spatial + 1 temporal = 4 dimensions. 5. Riemann geometry was employed to study the events in the universe because of the axioms 1, 3 & 4. 6. The Curvature of the paths of motions of the Matter particles or its manifestations, moving/passing through the Gravitational field of a body, is directly proportional to the magnitude of the Gravitational force of that body. [Like for example- The curvature of the path of light passing in the vicinity of Sun is directly proportional to the magnitude of the Sun's Gravity.] These above axioms imply that; Riemannian geometry studies the Curvature/alteration of the path of motion. - 1 Gravity leads to Curvature/alteration of the path of motion. – 2 From 1 & 2; Riemannian geometry studies Gravity. This is the Overlap/match/concurrence. Prediction to test the correctness of this Method:- When any Particles of matter which are in motion are passed in the area of influence of an applied Force [even artificial force acting at a distance works] their paths of motion are altered/curved and subsequently if the resultant curved path of the particles is studied with the help of Riemannian geometry, then the Riemannian geometry presents the magnitude and effects of the Force applied in terms of the extent of the Curvature/alteration of the paths of motion. I.E. Riemannian geometry is incapable of measuring the magnitude of the Force applied, but instead it measures the effect of that force in terms of the curvature created by that applied Force; accurately. But just because Riemannian geometry cannot determine what caused the curvature/alteration in the path, we cannot deny the existence of the Force applied and say that the space-time coordinates of the path of motion are curved. And so; "The quantity of the Force applied is directly proportional to the quantity of the Curvature of the paths of motions of the Matter particles passing through the area of influence of the Force applied." I.E. Curvature is proportional to Force. So when we get the measure of the Curvature correctly, we are in fact getting the measure of the effects of Gravity accurately. That is precisely the reason why GR/Riemann geometry works. So here; "The magnitude of the Gravitational force of a body is directly proportional to the extent of the Curvature/alteration of the path of the motion of matter & its manifestations passing through the Gravitational field of that body." And; This concurrence or the matching of the mathematical results of GR/Riemannian geometry & the observed facts, do not sanction us the authority to deny the existence of Gravitational force and substitute it with curvature of space-time. Thus the curvature of space-time is just an interpretation of Gravitational force by Riemann geometry. The concurrence occurs purely due to the proportionality. The above implications can be restated as follows:- Riemannian geometry measures the extent of Curvature/alteration of the path of motion. - 3 Magnitude of Gravitational force is proportional to extent of Curvature/alteration of the path of motion. – 4 From 3 & 4; "Riemannian geometry measures the effect & magnitude of the Gravitational force in terms of quantity of Curvature/alteration of the path of motion." "I.E. Riemannian geometry interprets the effects of Gravity in terms of extent of Curvature." And this is the reason why, we are able to measure/predict accurately the Curvature of the paths of motion of matter in the Gravitational field of macro bodies with the help of GR/Riemannian geometry. GR is nothing but Riemannian geometry as applied to the events occurring in the 4-dimensional space-time coordinate system. So from all the above methods we can deduce that "Space cannot get curved" and consequently Time too should not warp. Please clarify; why from these Methods, we cannot infer that Gravity is not space-time curvature?

Immortal, I would conclude that there is something missing with both Science & Religion, which can convince each other.

Immortal, Religious Traditions are the laws, regulations, beliefs, doctrines, set of customs, usages and practices which are handed down from one generation to another. Nevertheless, the list of seven given by you is the links to information on different religions with glimpses of some customs. However, like you said; I had asked for clear-cut Methods, Set of Customs, Practices, and Regulations that would help us To attain Truth i.e. as defined by you, to know what the world is made of, whether we have free will, where do we come from and understand how nature works to build testable models. To attain mastery over nature To attain the understanding of the working of the cosmos To make it more precise; What precisely is the Method by which we would know what the world is made of? What precisely is the Method by which we would know whether we have free will or not? What precisely is the Method by which we could know where do we come from? What precisely is the Method by which we could know the working of the Cosmos? What precisely is the Method by which we could attain mastery over nature? Which are the testable models by which we could achieve all the above?

Of course, I would not do it there. I was just indicating it is necessary. Whatever I said in the thread I did it to show what is necessary. I was not going discuss there, why & how it is necessary. I was indicating the necessity where the necessity arose. When the inconsistencies in a Mainstream theory are made obvious by an offbeat thought isn't it appropriate to appraise the inquirer of it. If not done, would it not amount to concealing the Truth in order to protect the Mainstream theory, and eventually be injustice meted out to the inquirer? How I love your honesty, Swansont. You are a sweetest guy I have met in my life. But, Won't the world come to know a Truth, when someone braves to say it? Is scientific consensus a better evidence for the Truth than the Logical, Falsifiable, Experimental evidence made available by an offbeat idea? Historically, have we not come through instances where we witnessed that the consensus theory was wrong and the offbeat theory Right, and the intellectual brave started speaking for it and eventually a new consensus is reached? It is by the brave that the world comes to know about the Truth. When we say Consensus should be preferred in place of Truth, isn't it dogmatic and so Unscientific? Are we propagating Scientific Truth or Unscientific dogma? Moreover my demand is not for making the determination that a mainstream theory is wrong, but instead the demand is for a mention of the 'genuine criticism of the theory that has made the inconsistencies obvious & given Logical, Falsifiable, Experimental evidence' along, while mentioning the mainstream theory. While mentioning the mainstream theory, if we do not mention the 'genuine criticism which made the inconsistencies obvious along & gave Logical, Falsifiable, Experimental evidence', are we not doing injustice to the inquirer, to science and to humanity as a whole? ------------------------------------------------------------------- I would like to propose the introduction of another sub forum for the Critical learners who make inquiries to learn critically and Explore Truth, and where both the mainstream & offbeat thoughts are critically discussed and they try each other out, sweat it out and if the Mainstream theory convinces everyone it shines with brilliance. If there is place for correction, it could happen. IMHO The current Rules are not efficient because when a critical learner posts inquiries in the main forum, she would never come in touch with the offbeat thoughts that has addressed genuinely the inconsistencies in the mainstream theory by giving Logical, Falsifiable, Experimental evidence, due to prohibition of offbeat thoughts there. Firstly, let there be the Mainstream forum where the inviolability of the mainstream theories is maintained [i don't know for what! God help this world. While Science questions the 'holiness' of God, WE want to make scientific theories Holy]. Secondly, let there be the place for scrutinizing the offbeat ideas. And thirdly, let there also be a Hybrid of these two, where a critical learner poses a question with the intention of Exploring/Re-exploring Truth and both mainstream & Offbeat views sweat it out & try each other out, and in the process, the intricacies of a theory/phenomenon are dissected and examined intently and ultimately when the Truth triumphs [Even if it is mostly the Mainstream view], the learner has a great experience along with everybody else. And here, in the third Hybrid forum; let the Truth triumph on its own strength and the world will see Truth. Otherwise, when the inconsistencies in a mainstream theory are genuinely brought out & given solutions by someone's offbeat ideas, but are prohibited from keeping them before the critical learner it will eventually culminate; Mainstream forum into a place where you are not allowed to speak the Truth. Mainstream forum into a place where Speaking Truth amounts to Breaking rules. Mainstream forum into a place where you are forced to amuse yourself with Falsehood. Mainstream forum into a place where, the Unscientific practice of upholding Consensus is practiced. Therefore, let there be a forum where the consensus view is orated. Let there be a forum where the Truth is Explored. And let there be a forum where the offbeat ideas are scrutinized. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Swansont, I don't understand why there is readiness to stand for something that is widely accepted. I don't understand why there is no readiness to stand for something that is True. If everyone says 'I am not doing it', then should Truth be left unauthenticated by the world, until the Brave & Wise arrive and dare to authenticate it? It is a mystery that there is such apathy towards Truth while the world sustains on Truth. Why do the Brave & Wise become famous? Because, the cowards & unwise make them famous by looking at them with their jaws wide open, wondering & asking themselves, 'how could they do, that we couldn't do? and bring us Truth.'

If the search were for the theory that which is Likable to you Personally, it would be typical to your Liking. If the search were limited to acquainting yourself with the Mainstream theory, it is another thing. It would end up like you replied to strungJunky's post, that; Mission accomplished! But then you said; These posts show that you are trying to critically learn. And; Critical learning is the best method when you are on the path to seek knowledge, and so; If the search were for seeking knowledge, it is yet another thing, wherein; You are entitled to know all that is happening in the field, and; You will have to inform yourself of the inconsistencies in a theory being discussed too, then; It is your Justified Right and our Righteous Duty to apprise you of those inconsistencies, from the point of view of doing justice to the seeker. However, once I give you offbeat opinions I would evoke the wrath of the Moderator because; there is a Forum for Mainstream where the mainstream views are orated, there is a Forum for the Offbeat where the Offbeat views are scrutinized, but there is no forum for the Critical Learner to Explore Truth, where both Mainstream & Offbeat views are critically discussed and try each other out and the process becomes a great experience for both parties trying to convince each other and Truth triumphs. Find your way. Good luck. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ What is the proof that the Corpus underlying the Curvature indicated by the Riemannian Geometry is the space-time? This is a big misconception; about the space-time curvature hypothesis, that it is a tested hypothesis. The Mathematics of GR/Riemann geometry estimates the Curvature. It has stood the tests. However, the very mysterious thing and the delusive part are; the space-time curvature hypothesis is riding piggyback on the Mathematics by sneaking in. There is absolutely no proof at all, that the Corpus underlying the Curvature indicated by the Riemannian Geometry is the space-time. Whereas, there is stringent Logical, Falsifiable, Experimental proof to show that the Space & Time cannot be curved. Evidence is being discarded to put in its place an Assumption. [i hope I am not violating rules again.] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rwjefferson, I suppose, too-open-minded is a student who just wants to critically understand what the prevailing comprehension of Gravity is. So this thread of his, IMHO, is not the place to do Brainstorming and find a solution to 'What Gravity really is?'. Moreover, if one has a new idea, one has to first put it for scrutiny in the Speculations forum and then if the idea stands up firm against the scrutiny and promises to answer the inconsistencies in the prevailing theory satisfactorily, then the new idea attains the status of getting mentioned as an alternative thought. I entered this discussion because, the current mainstream space-time curvature theory was being put as though it is the Ultimate correct answer all the while when the inconsistencies that I have shown in it have not been answered but eluded and I have also given Logical, Falsifiable and Experimental solutions that pinpoint the inconsistencies. Therefore, it is absolutely established that there are inconsistencies in the space-time curvature theory. Therefore, think over if Pantheory's answer is the best answer to this thread. It is appropriate; only when a new idea put up by us in speculations forum, stands against the scrutiny there, that it can be mentioned as an alternative thought in the main forum. You & I have to keep our offbeat ideas to the offbeat forum. I was forced to add a few words about my offbeat views, to show why it is necessary for the OP to look at the scrutinized alternative idea and that the Mainstream idea is not the correct answer. However, that evoked the wrath of the Moderator, because there is a lack of a separate section in the Forum, for the Critical inquirer/learner who wants to Explore Truth, where both Mainstream & Offbeat views can be presented, critically discussed and sweat & try each other out. The Question poster who posts in the main forum to critically learn & seek knowledge is barred from coming into contact with an offbeat thought that has corrected the inconsistencies of the Mainstream theory and stood the scrutiny in the offbeat forum. This is injustice to the inquirer. Nevertheless, nothing can be done about it, now. I will debate it in another thread. [if you have anything to say, let us discuss it there.] Knowledge without justice ought to be called cunning rather than wisdom. – Plato I have already evoked the wrath of the Moderator once. I don't want to do it again. Sorry, Swansont. Good luck, question posters. Let us see what can be done about it to better the current rules of the forum, in future. After all this is Our, Lovely forum. We shall strive to make it Lovelier. Anyways, The world comes to know the Truth, when someone braves to authenticate it. Keep at it Pantheory, Keep at it Imaatfal. The world needs personality like yours. Good job. The road to attain greatness is difficult for any person or entity. It is no different for a forum. When there is uncertainty over the next step, Righteousness is the leading light. The path of Righteousness is the only path that leads to greatness because it is Right; and being Right is Greatness. And discussion is the only process to find the Right, because a Discussion, conducted with Righteousness as the leading light by its discussing members, segregates Right from Wrong. Let's discuss this in another thread. Thank you, everybody. I am saying good bye to this thread. It is not good to stay in a place where you are not allowed to speak the Truth. It is not good to stay in a place where Speaking Truth amounts to Breaking rules. It is not good to stay in a place where you are forced to amuse yourself with Falsehood. If Rules stop Truth from being said, they need to change.

That was a brave, wise, honest and absolutely correct stand. Hats off. I agree. And Imaatfal, it was really cool on your part; considering Pantheory's answer among the list of cool answers. Great. Indeed IMHO it is the coolest and Truly righteous & courageous answer. Yes, it is only a mainstream answer. Not the correct answer, because; I have raised certain objections regarding the theory and they have not been answered but eluded. Moreover, I have given stringent Logical, Falsifiable and Experimental evidence that show that Space & Time cannot be warped and Relativity is an Illusionary effect. Even if they are wrong? I think this canon needs to be debated. It has to be decided whether this forum is meant for propagation of scientific knowledge and upholding scientific values OR for the propaganda of a wrong mainstream idea such as this. If one goes on presenting & cultivating this wrong theory in the mainstream forum, all the while eluding the objections raised and not giving solutions to them and but instead, any Logical, Falsifiable and Experimental new/offbeat solutions provided are kept in the confines of the speculation forum and are not at least indicated as considerable alternative thoughts here – Then this amounts to nothing but utter propaganda of a wrong idea by taking of the unfair advantage of the rules of a forum and breeding a self-preferred theory and doing injustice, to the question poster, to Science and to Humanity. Any theory should sustain itself from the strength of the Truth contained in it. It should not sustain itself on the strength of taking the unfair advantage of the rules of a forum. This is a flaw. That which sustains/protects itself on/behind the rules of a forum is no Science. Pantheory, the approach of your post is a sound step towards correcting this flaw. In addition, it is great & heartening that Imaatfal considers it among the cool opinions.

Sorry fellows, I saw this thread lately due to my infrequent visits to the forum. A decade of worth. Fantastic job. Keep it up. For almost two years, SFN is one of the good things that have profoundly affected my demeanor, positively and continues to do so and also imparted knowledge. I thank all responsible. Love you all. Let's celebrate again with sweets from the following greats. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives. - James Madison A good decision is based on knowledge and not on numbers. – Plato Knowledge without justice ought to be called cunning rather than wisdom. – Plato It is an infantile superstition of the human spirit that virginity would be thought a virtue and not the barrier that separates ignorance from knowledge. – Voltaire The person who can make hard things easy is the educator. - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Thank you for corroborating, studiot.

I didn't say they are diverging. I said they are on different paths. To conclude whether they CONVERGE ultimately, is subject to the definitions of the Noumena & the Nature of Reality existing independent of the human mind, [which I will not be discussing in any detail here] and subject to the Methodology used to attain the Goals set, which I would like to discuss. Define Truth from the Religious point of view. [if you would like to know the Definition of Truth from the point of view of Science, I could oblige.] By your stipulation, the Goals of the Religious Traditions are; Pursuit of Truth To become the masters of nature rather than its mere slaves subject to its forces To understand the way the cosmos works But then, that leads eventually to the questions; How do the Religious Traditions hope to attain these Goals? OR in other words, Show; How the Religious Traditions are Efficient to attain these Goals? Please give the List of Religious traditions that can help us attain those goals; separately for each category as follows, To attain Truth [After defining it] To attain mastery over nature To attain the understanding of the working of the cosmos And show that they can take us to the stipulated goals.

I was addressing the Logical extension of what you had previously said and also declared that you did not say it but instead I had added it. Does that take me into the area of wrong? Isn't that rational? I went for the Logical extension/Alteration/Correction i.e. from; Reluctance to ACCEPTANCE as most ideas are wrong --> Reluctance to PERUSAL as most ideas are wrong; because, when wrong ideas too are taken into the fold, the question of ACCEPTANCE doesn't arise, so then we need to shift to PERUSAL. When all Wrong+Right ideas are taken into the fold, by saying there is Reluctance to ACCEPTANCE as most ideas are wrong [you did not say there is Reluctance to ACCEPTANCE as most ideas are Untested. Then the issue would have been different and there would be no dispute. You said there is Reluctance to ACCEPTANCE as most ideas are wrong. Therefore, since the wrong ideas too were taken into the fold, I had to extend/alter/correct ACCEPTANCE to PERUSAL]; How can one ask for the ACCEPTANCE of all new [Wrong+Right] ideas? One can then only ask for the PERUSAL of new ideas. In whole, what I was saying is; If there is Reluctance to new ideas because most of them are Untested, it is Right. They should be tested before they are accepted. However if there is, Reluctance to _ _ _ ? _ _ _ New ideas because most of them are Wrong; it is wrong. They must be intently Perused and the Right segregated from the Wrong and the Right ones should be pushed further and the Wrong ones must be corrected to educate. [i am keeping a blank & a question mark because; if I fill the word ACCEPTANCE there, it would be logically wrong. Moreover, if I fill the word PERUSAL, you would say, [i]"I didn't say it"[/i] and allege that I am making a straw man argument.] In addition, if we don't use the word PERUSAL but use the word ACCEPTANCE and say; "There is reluctance to ACCEPT new ideas because most of them are wrong." [Not because they are Untested, but because most of them are wrong]. This would be a straw-man argument; because nobody is asking for the ACCEPTANCE of ALL ideas [Wrong+Right]. [You brought the WRONG IDEAS into the fold by saying "most of the ideas are wrong" and so I altered ACCEPTANCE to PERUSAL]. __________________------------ 0000000 ------------ . . . [and who] diligently scrutinize the new idea sensing inconsistencies if any and discuss patiently to arrive at the Truth. The qualities of the Scientist are: Curiosity, Inquisitiveness, Diligence, On the lookout & Eager to Acquire New Knowledge with the wakefulness that there is a dearth of Truth about the world around us. I don't understand where RELUCTANCE fits into this. And we often find Derisive-ness too along with it.

That doesn't pretty much clarify or specify the goals of the Religious-traditions, Immortal. Could you clarify/specify? Since Science studies phenomena, the observable & Religion addresses Noumena, the un-observable [not yet defined]; thus the two are on different paths. Then they could not conciliate.

Hello Immortal, What do the Religious-traditions endeavor to achieve/attain? [The goal/s] Like for example if you ask me; What does Science endeavor to achieve/attain? I would say, ‘Science endeavors to Know the world around’ [do you agree?].

I don't see which part of Post#32 implies that, I asked for 'acceptance of new, untested and half-formed ideas'. I don't see how anybody would be interested to know 'Why UNTESTED ideas are not accepted?' Because then the question itself gives the answer. The answer would have been simple. 'Untested ideas are not accepted because they are not tested'. I don't see how far it is exact, to apply this on me. Because I have clarified in my earlier posts that, I added that part because, it is a logical extension [you too agree on that]. I added that part because that it is not wrong to discussing on a logical extension of the original question. There is no data collected in support to say either it is or it isn't. The OP has sought the opinion of the members. Here are the opinions of some more experienced persons; "In the temple of science are many mansions, and various indeed are they that dwell therein and the motives that have led them thither. Many take to science out of a joyful sense of superior intellectual power; science is their own special sport to which they look for vivid experience and the satisfaction of ambition; many others are to be found in the temple who have offered the products of their brains on this altar for purely utilitarian purposes. Were an angel of the Lord to come and drive all the people belonging to these two categories out of the temple, the assemblage would be seriously depleted, but there would still be some men, of both present and past times, left inside. Our Planck is one of them, and that is why we love him." — Albert Einstein [Address (1918) for Max Planck's 60th birthday, at Physical Society, Berlin, 'Principles of Research' in Essays in Science] All communities [business, Religious, Political etc] have different sections, and the scientific community is not an exception, because it is also made up of Human beings. And among Human beings, there are the Dedicated, Sober, Noble, Democratic, Despotic, Compassionate, True Truth searchers, Truth users, Exploitative, Manipulative, Sycophants, Thieves of someone else's ideas, Sadist bullies, Believers, Indolent, Those who live for it, Those who live on it, Clever, Cunning etc. In every community, Business, Religious, Political, or Scientific, there are people who work for the development of the goals of the community, there are people who exploit the community for satiating their goals, there are people who work to gain a position/status in the community and so oppose any view that is detrimental to their status irrespective of whether the opposing view is helpful to the goals of the community or not, there are people who sacrifice their lives for the community and there are those who sacrifice the community for their living. There are Scientists who have sacrificed their lives for scientific research. Scientists like any other human beings also, Steal, associate with Terrorists, and have worked for dictators. Just Google it and you will have examples. Here are WSJ & NYT clips for example - Here & Here & Here Human strengths and weaknesses are in every part of society and they do their bit in every field. So Ringer, this is why morality is necessary everywhere for building a better society. Let us examine the life cycle of a theory [Just a rough estimate]; When some person conceives a new idea, the Truth seekers Scrutinize it, the sycophantic cult followers & Sadistic bullies deride it, those who have stakes in the prevailing idea and Indolent Resist or deny the scrutiny itself so are Reluctant. . . Here is Max Plank's experience while introducing a new idea; he said "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it"- Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers, trans. F. Gaynor (1950), 97. Quoted in David L. Hull, Science as a Process (1990). __________________------------ 0000000 ------------ A person is not a Scientist by the strength of the accumulated information or the credentials etc. That person is a Scientist who has made dedicatedly the goal of his life to seek Truth and respect it. The expert who helps that seeking is also a Scientist since she helps the development of Science. The rest in the field who exist to make a living by the strength of their Tools, the accumulated information and skills, are no different from a person in any section of the society who live by staging or selling their skills like the Sportsman, Singer, Builder, Carpenter, Barber etc. Moreover, the Barber who becomes concerned about the health issues of the scalp and endeavors to invent a remedy that ameliorates a diseased condition gives us better life [Like good healthy scalp etc] from his experience & search, is also a Scientist. __________________------------ 0000000 ------------ Swansont, You are a Maestro in the art of discussion. The Honesty & Technique is mesmerizing. It is just lovely. I admire you for that. How do you do that? Presumably, it is the persona behind. How I miss you when I encounter a bad argument? There ARE others like that, on this forum. We get to learn from all you wonderful people. This Forum helps us to certainly evolve into better persons. __________________------------ 0000000 ------------ Old theories are Rejected & new ones are Accepted due to the inconsistencies in the older ones and the remedies to those inconsistencies in the new ones. That is not a dogma. However, when a theory becomes widely accepted, people tend to believe it as Absolute and dependencies comes into play. It is there, where it turns into a Dogma. Then, when a new theory emerges that answers the inconsistencies in the prevailing one, the strong belief that the prevalent theory is absolute and other factors like the human weaknesses of the believers, which are nothing but Dogmas start opposing fervently the new theory. This is worse than flipping coins because it is very wrong, whereas flipping coins has almost a fifty-fifty percent chance of being Right. I have given adequate Logical, Falsifiable, Predictive methods. In addition, it also eliminates the wrong hypothesis that Space & Time get curved and also proves that all observations are not Relative and also keeps the better working part of GR unharmed. Disingenuous false claim. Tell what you think the prevailing thought is; and show it is correct. Tell what you think that I think the prevailing thought is; and show it is comparatively different and so incorrect. People make Disingenuous false claims to win arguments even if it amounts to suppressing Evidence & Truth. I have given such stringent Logical, Falsifiable and Evidential facts that it is now beyond the capacity of such Disingenuous false claims & crap, tricky arguments, to suppress the Truth in them. Don't play games with Science, you won't succeed. Place any of your further opinions on the relevant thread and discuss. You are falsely labeling it as a loaded question. It is a simplest question. How can Space & Time get curved while there is stringent evidence that they cannot curve? Place any of your further opinions on the relevant thread and discuss. Sure, knowledge of the fact that most ideas are wrong is not prejudice; but to be Reluctant to all new ideas on the basis of that knowledge that most ideas are wrong is Prejudice. It is you, who said that there is Reluctance because most ideas are wrong. And you want ME to give examples? Scrutiny causes one to constantly refine an idea. Reluctance neglects Scrutiny. Any discussion that does not contain/consider/bear in it, morality and well-being of society as its ingredients; is useless and at times harmful. No, you can't. No amount of twisting & turning has the ability to holdback Truth. Truth is self-evident. Like; When one twists & turns to win an argument, The onlooker recognizes that the argument was won because of the twisting & turning and not because that it is the Truth. When an argument is won by twisting & turning, only the cult followers become jubilant that they won the game by hook or crook. However, the Prudent recognize that Truth was not Respected. Moreover, a very big harm is done to the credibility of the winner & jubilant. They are rendered into, Twisters & Turners, and into ones who don't Respect Truth but Respect their self egoistic Winning. I never try to win an argument. I just make my point. And try to recognize my wrongs reflected in the opposing views. I leave the Judgments to society. Who am I to judge for society? The society is to judge what is good for it; whether it should take the sides of the jubilant winners OR the Truth. Therefore, I don't have Twistings & Turnings in my arsenal. The only weapon I have in my arsenal to fight Untruth is Logic. I love it. Because it handles itself. It doesn't require any effort from my side. Truth does neither need the help of slight Mortals. Because nor the slight mortals have the capacity to harm it. For me Life is not a winning game. It is seeking Truth. That is the real win. Winning by suppressing Truth is not Winning, it is in fact Loosing, because the suppressers are misguided. They chose Ego in place of Truth. So you twist arguments to make them mean whatever you want to. A Trickster. You think you can make Science into whatever you want to? No, you can't. One can sell dogmas by that, not Science. The old priests used to do that. They used to Twist & Turn arguments to establish whatever dogmas they wanted. Nevertheless, like Einstein said, "an angel of the Lord to come and drive all the people belonging to these two categories out of the temple of Science";The God rules this world. His angel doesn't let tricksters to make this world into whatever they want to. And the angel's name is Logic. I have not said anything about Accepting. I have always talked about Perusal. And I have given reasons for doing that. Making False claims & Twisting sentences & suppressing Truth to win is the answer of Egotist. My thread that proves that space-time curvature is wrong. The attachment, on Post#158, which is a very important part of the thoughts I am expressing, has not been scrutinized. You gave the Shakespearean anecdote. I gave the living example, the evidence. You are using the same methods of some speculators that you are so intensely criticizing, to denounce any idea; Using the invalid argument. Show that my thread is similar to your model, in the relevant thread, by comparatively identifying the similarities and prove that your intentions in denouncing my idea with invalid argument are not Disingenuous. They can at least be perused intently on a Forum like this. [The pseudo-scientist: What the Crap? You crap speculators telling me to scrutinize something that opposes the very theory I think is Right and want me to agree that YOU are RIGHT & I am WRONG. Never!!! The offbeat thinker: Sorry I didn't tell you. I asked the SCIENTIST (the true knowledge/truth seeker) who respects Truth above his/her personal preference. I know that those who live ON Science won't help it Change, lest it (the help which brought the change) jeopardize what they lived for or what they made their living on.] The persons using their skills to establish whatever they want to, with the slightest Regards & Respects for Science/Truth, are more Detrimental & Disgusting to Science & Society than the Unknowing & Adamant persons who come up with new ideas without logical reasons to support and send unsolicited emails. __________________------------ 0000000 ------------ I think we are churning the same thing again & again. The argument is becoming stale. I suppose, we should stop here & let it be perused by interested readers, and let them take their own judgment.

Hello everybody, Sorry for the delay of reply. Here is a confession of sorts. When I was ready with the reply to Swansont's post, [it was ready within two days] I saw Ringer's post. I felt I should post both replies simultaneously, because Ringer's post is linked with Swansont's. It is easy to deal with technical posts which are devoid of emotions [which is the mark of the Proficient.], because [once the technicalities of the post are understood], it is easy to answer it since it is either Right or Wrong. If it is Right it is accepted and if one finds it wrong, the thing to be done is to give the technicalities/logic, supporting why it is wrong. That is a beautiful sweet discussion. However, it becomes tough to manage posts with emotional ingredients. One will have to prove why the Emotional Premise is wrong. Moreover, Emotion is personal. While one is dealing with the Emotion, one is dealing with the Person and that leads to spurt of more Emotions, in addition, to a bitter discussion and a long drawn one. Not all Emotions are Right/Wrong. Like; When it is said ". . . It is none of our jobs to help them . . .", then questions get raised; What is the soldier at war doing? What is the Truthful Politician [Martin Luther King, Gandhi] doing? What was Mother Theresa doing? What was Louis Pasteur doing? What was William Harvey doing? Have they not helped us? What is scientific development/knowledge, for, apart from making us knowledgeable? I wrote and rewrote the reply to Ringers post, but was not satisfied. Because initially I wrote answers to deal with the premises from which I found Ringer had based his thoughts so that it could avoid a long drawn discussion. However, the post itself would be too long and again lead to a longer discussion because the premises have not yet materialized completely. Then I omitted, thinking that it would be appropriate to say those things as and when the premises present themselves entirely. Again, I felt; what has to be said should be said; in a discussion. Then I shortened it by dealing with only with those premises that had materialized and here it is. Thank you. Have a nice day. __________________------------ 0000000 ------------ Certainly, books are the Architects that build us. It would not be possible for me to single out one book that has influenced me the most. However, I had not come across the book until you mentioned it. I will make it a point to read it. I felt I should endorse it since you had rightly pointed out. Thanks Studiot. It builds the spirit to manage the ugly tirades. __________________------------ 0000000 ------------ I did not ask for the acceptance of new, untested and half-formed ideas; I asked for their Perusal. New ideas are proposed and considered all the time? Aren't we discussing about the Reluctance in considering them? No, the Accord/Discord of the empirical data is a Reason for the Acceptance/Rejection of a theory. Sometimes it takes a little more time & words than assumed, to make a point. Please read below. Absolutely not. You began it. An extension of the boundary is not a Straw-man, especially when the other party itself brings it. You added the 'Wrong ideas' part. Therefore, I had to add the 'Reading' part. Otherwise, the discussion would have been unfair. When the OP questioned, "Why are scientists seemingly reluctant to accept new ideas?"; certainly the OP was not asking for the WRONG ideas to be accepted. Nobody would do that. Therefore, the question really was "Why are scientists seemingly reluctant to accept RIGHT new ideas?" However, you replied to it by saying, 'The Reluctance is because most of them are wrong'. The OP never asked about the Acceptance of WRONG ideas. This in reality was a straw-man argument, because the question was not & cannot be about wrong ideas. Nevertheless, many members endorsed it. You took the 'wrong ideas' too into the fold. Then, people could have brushed it aside by saying it was a straw-man argument. Nobody did it. Even I too gave you that, because I do not expect a Straw-man argument from you. Therefore, I took it as an extension to wrong ideas as well i.e. ALL NEW IDEAS, the Wrong + Right. I also felt this discussion would be incomplete if it addresses only the Reluctance towards Acceptance of RIGHT ideas; the Reluctance is not simply confined to mere acceptance of RIGHT ideas but as you said, it may be so, it is actually also towards even looking at new ideas. Now when the view that, Reluctance is due to most of them being wrong, is established & endorsed by all; then the focus shifts from ACCEPTANCE to PERUSAL, because; When wrong ideas too are taken into the fold, the question of ACCEPTANCE does not arise there. We are ACTUALLY discussing then about their PERUSAL. Therefore, I added the words about 'READING THE NEW IDEAS' i.e. the PERUSAL part. You induced it. There is Reluctance to the Perusal of all new ideas, and it is wrong. And after all this discussion; the original questions of the OP remain unanswered. I.E. Why, Science in many ways is like a Religion? Why, when a scientific theory becomes widely accepted among the scientific community, it almost becomes scientific dogma, and anyone who proposes a radical new idea is rarely taken seriously because so many scientists will have staked their entire careers on the existing theory? This is quite disturbing, because it goes completely counter to everything one believes in about what scientists should do. When there is Reluctance to perusal of my demonstration, how can I prove that it is an example? Isn't this Reluctance an attempt to convert a Theory into a Cult? The actual bottom line is that the model works, and quite well but what makes it work is not as proposed; the Space & Time cannot work at all. Yes, that's for the other thread on the topic. I have answered questions raised regarding a new thought I have proposed. On the contrary, I have not got answers to the questions I have raised regarding the prevailing thought. __________________------------ 0000000 ------------ I was referring to the opinions on your side. In a debate between two views, it should be regularly known that one's opinions are heading for the views on the other side. Reluctance to look at, ALL new ideas, on the Preconception that, MOST of them are wrong, is a Prejudice. If we look from the other angle, it is also not the way to deal with them. In its place, one should be Enthusiastic to peruse new ideas & pick out the good ideas to give them scope and to CORRECT the wrong ideas to EDUCATE. That would help spread the scientific spirit. Reluctance is a negative feeling originated due to apathy generated because of getting to face a large number of wrong ideas. The OP did not ask anything about accepting ideas without evidence. Moreover, I have discussed about looking into new ideas [Wrong, which were introduced later + Right], and not acceptance of ideas without evidence. I have placed the required argument. I can elaborate more if need be. I added the word 'Non', because Reluctance is just a knee jerk human Emotion/Reaction towards a new model. Like 'Fire! don't go near it'. Otherwise the Controlled, Methodical, Positive, Constructive & Deliberated response should be to harvest its benefits by devising ways to handle it. We should be working towards spreading the scientific spirit of Critical Thinking, Innovativeness. However, Reluctance opposes it. That which discourages the spread of scientific spirit does not belong to the world of Science. That is why it is Non-Scientific. Let me give an example of constructive channeling & utilizing of Talent; One can make an estimate of the people who should have been Reluctant and raised eyebrows when FBI decided to take Frank's Help. POSITIVE SCOPE is necessary for development, RELUCTANCE that curtails development, is the answer of the Imprudent. You need to define 'some'. Moreover, the point to be noted here is, one needs to look into the idea expressed, thoroughly, without being Reluctant, to check whether it fits that definition or not and then only can, one decide whether it can be considered or not. Without looking inside, one cannot decide about consideration. It is very simple to understand. If we respect Science, it becomes our responsibility to promote Logical & Innovative thinking, since Science is also about Logical Thinking & Innovation. The Logical & Innovative thinking helps tackle social menaces like Dictatorship, by enlightening people about what is wrong & Right. It is because of absence of Logical & Innovative thinking, innocent people become victims in the hands of Dictators. Promoting Logical & Innovative thinking is necessary for overall development of human society. There is no slippery slope here. Skipping things that we don't see, doesn't take us any further. The better way is to ask for a sufficient explanation if one doesn't get a clear picture from the existing one. There will be a flood of responses defending an existing Theory, when it is criticized. However, when a new way of seeing things is stated; the Reluctance comes into play. The Wrongs/Rights of a new thought are not at all discussed/looked into. So a person while studying something, should not raise questions like, Why can't it be the other way? What if I make it this way? Moreover, it is easy to convince one who is trying to raise & answer questions on a subject one hasn't studied or doesn't understand. You gave the Shakespearean example. I will give a living example which concerns Science and in which I am struggling to introduce a new idea. I said Space & Time do not get curved. While telling me that I haven't studied GR properly, and that I do not understand it properly people forget on the other hand that they have neglected utterly the available information about Space & Time just to accommodate the illicit [Which is worse than half baked ideas] assumption which they are so proud of having studied & understood. Moreover, they too refuse all criticism with resentment. It is a great mystery existing in Science world that an illicit assumption is preferred to available experimental evidence just to maintain that someone/something can't be wrong. In addition, it is contended that the assumption is scientific. Isn't it a shame? Whose turn is it to become a laughing stock? I will not discuss any further than this, since it is not the subject of this thread. I would be thankful if the Forum peruses my new idea. In addition, when I am incapable of answering the questions raised, I would consider my idea inadequate. On the contrary, what I have encountered is the exact opposite of that. __________________------------ 0000000 ------------ Why one will view as Wrong, what other says as Right? Like, Why some people think it is none of our jobs to help? & Others feel it is good to help. Let us discuss through an example; A part of human race has suffered from a bent of mind; and has not been able to triumph over it totally since long, despite all this scientific & social development. That is the desire to be Dominant over others. Such man has made the purpose of his life to convert himself into a dominant supercilious force so that, it facilitates him to satiate the desire for appeasing his Ego, or to please himself according to his whims & fancies, or to attain the dogmatic goals of life, or just to make a better living than the others. Let me tell a story; a Love triangle of sorts. But before that, let us see How Dominating Superiority is achieved? Or What is Dominant Superiority? It is achieved by maintaining a difference in Abilities between the self-styled Superior & the so-called Inferior. Dominating Superiority is acquiring more Abilities than others do to derive personal pleasure. [see this in contrast to; Use of One's Abilities to help others.] What are these Abilities? Abilities are nothing but Possessions. They can be anything between Wealth, Physical Strength, Information, Beauty, Knowledge etc. These can be summed up as Commodities. So it can be said; Abilities are nothing but possession of Commodities. Now let us come to the Love triangle story. On one vertex of the Triangle are the Commodities. On another vertex is the self-styled Superior. On the other vertex is the bent of mind that considers that all of us are one kind i.e. Human Beings and all of us are equal nobody is Superior or Inferior. We should live by sharing & cooperating. -The Egalitarians. The Egalitarians also try to become a dominant force; but to help the needy and bring a overall development of the society. The self-styled Superiors, want to accumulate the Commodities and maintain a difference between themselves & others in possessions or abilities, so they can satiate their hunger to accomplish their whims & fancies or attain the dogmatic goals of life by exploiting that disparity or appease themselves by exploiting others. Like; a Trader profits by exploiting the disparity in accumulations of stock. The Egalitarians due to their bent of mind i.e. they derive contentment in helping others, sharing & being cooperative, want to share and Live & let live others. Their different desires stem from different premises i.e. one to help others the other to appease themselves. They are two divergent views that cannot have a common ground. They cannot reach a consensus. The other will view what one says as wrong, because the premises of their desires are different. The dominance lovers would say 'It is not our job to help others'. And when someone says "The person with this attitude [not promoting Logical & Innovative thinking by being Reluctant to New Innovators/Innovations] creates soldiers under a dictator [who is in need of Unknowing people who outsource their Logical thinking to someone else and keep the holy duty of following faithfully to themselves]." it seems to them a slippery-slope fallacy. In addition, they say I don't see what, saying "Science is also about building better thinking abilities, to create a better society" has to do with the discussion on Reluctance to Perusal of new ideas. Simply put, One doesn't understand the Other, because the premises of their thoughts are different. Then let us see, How a Commodity like Knowledge & Information Originated? People like William Harvey, Louis Pasteur, Isaac Newton, Galileo etc spent their lives to Know, to Understand, Life, so that they and others could be Enlightened about life and make everyone's life easy by that Knowledge. However, not to use that gathered Knowledge to dominate over others. However, we need to bring to mind that the Founders of that Knowledge did it to Help others. Not to accumulate it and Live on it or Dominate over others. Nevertheless, it is part of life that there are people who use that same Knowledge attained by someone for the betterment of others and there are the others who accumulate it & use it to Dominate over their fellow beings by Exploiting the disparity. The Exploiters are Reluctant to other's ideas. They do not want others' ideas to come to fore. They build Cults of their ideas, so that they can dominate, as the Experts/Preachers/Founders of that Cult. Therefore, they go on Preaching their wrong hypotheses single-mindedly without the slightest consideration for other's ideas. The other is eager to spread Knowledge, so is open to new ideas, picking the good ones and giving scope or correcting the wrong ones. There are people who want to generate & spread Knowledge compassionately. But, there are people who want to use it for their pleasure. They preach their cult & resist any new idea that proposes to contradict. What is scientific development/knowledge for, apart from making us knowledgeable? Is it for acquiring that knowledge and using it to help others or to rule over others? If Ringer says "It is none of our jobs to help the innovators" then; what is he doing on a Forum like this? Is he here to Preach what He Thinks is Right? Is he here to Preach & Build his Cult? One will view as Wrong, what other says as Right. One final word or question to the ones who think "It is not their jobs to help others"; Do/Did you not take the help of others, at any step of your life? If your answer is YES i.e. you take or have taken help, then do you mean to say that you only take help but don't give any in return? If your answer is NO i.e. you have not taken help or will not take any help, then I will guarantee you; You don't exist OR you will cease to exist. __________________------------ 0000000 ------------ Most new ideas are labeled as wrong by those who are incapable of scrutinizing them. When I proposed a new thought regarding space-time curvature/Gravity, the first person who called me a Crack-pot and a Dead Horse, did not himself have a proper understanding of the space-time curvature hypothesis. The zealous Cult followers are the first to React. __________________------------ 0000000 ------------ My answer to questions of OP is; Yes it is Disturbing. However, there are things to rejoice too. Not all Scientists do that. There are Scientists who live FOR Science, though numbered very few. It is because of them that Science exists & develops. There are the others who live ON it. They convert theories into a Cult/Religion and they its Priests. In addition, they would go to any length to decline the Right New Ideas. They would be Intolerant, Reluctant, Derisive, Sadistic etc. However, we need to Rejoice in the fact that, despite such Ugly acts, we have seen in the past, established theories being toppled. Despite the tactics of the people who have staked their careers and are Reluctant to new ideas, there will be others who recognize the prudence in accepting a better theory and then the coming new generations would continue to accept the better Idea in place of the wrong old idea and thus, the old wrong Idea is toppled. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly are everywhere. It is for us to choose the Right from the Wrong. And Logic is the thing that holds our hands and helps us do it. To assume that Good is everywhere would be unwise. After all, we are human beings. The human weaknesses are everywhere. They are more prone to flock in a field, which is highly respected.

You fail to recognize that in the whole of this thread, this post; was, one truthful confession on behalf of the Reluctant. The post truthfully tells that the human nature is the cause of Reluctance. And human nature like Prejudice, cannot be scientific. It can lead to losses. How? I shall discuss below. I didn't say anything that negates this. You will see why such assumption can go wrong, below. There is no straw-man here. How would I know that you are saying "pink elephants are running through your room", if by applying your [Non]scientific formula that 'Most new theories are wrong so one shouldn't read them' and so I don't even read your theory? I would not; because, one who understands Logic, should know that; Logic cannot deal with Belief and Belief cannot deal with Logic. Their languages are alien to each other. Moreover, if in a logical debate, I were unable to convince, then I would consider my reasoning, inadequate. The person with this attitude creates soldiers under a dictator who is in need of people who outsource their Logical thinking to someone else and keep the holy duty of following faithfully to themselves. Science is also about building better thinking abilities, to create a better society. If Logical thinking is not encouraged even God cannot evolve us. This is the precise reason why dictators have molested humanity time and again; because of attitudes like this. No person or thing in this Universe, can subjugate me, even with a gun pointed at my temple, leave aside the wide acceptance of a theory or the awesome credentials of an expert, or the crap dogmas created by a society swept away by glitterati or the high podium from which something is proclaimed. My logical thinking does not permit me to be subjugated. Therefore it is necessary to encourage Logical thinking by attending it. It increases awareness. It can build better societies. Why were Autocracies replaced by Democracies? Was it not because of increased awareness due to logical thinking? It must be encouraged. It is our job. And this Forum is a great step towards that. I would do it to help myself first. Every person who thinks logically is helping herself & everyone else. I go to an expert with my logically derived conclusion, to find out if she can be of help to decide whether I am right or wrong. Every new idea, be it the reinventing of the wheel by a child or a wrong idea of the Unknowing or exploring alternatives, judging that a crisis exists, to long-held obvious-seeming assumptions; is right in this context. They need to be respected. Why can we not just deal with them properly, civilly, and caringly as we deal with any issue to resolve it, which would ultimately lead us to spreading education or keeping the doors open to invite new ideas or encourage innovativeness. It is the holy duty of every knowledgeable person to segregate the wrong from the right, even if it comes from the most impertinent person so that society can know what to choose and what not to. I have been appreciative of their generosity. Read Post#90 on this thread. We are discussing on the Reluctance towards new ideas. Even on this forum, which is compassionately doing discussions on scientific matters, [This is the only forum I know in whole of this world which has an exclusive section to discuss new ideas. I haven't bothered to check for others, because this suffices my needs] And the knowledgeable people on this forum are sparing their time to benevolently address the issues here. Why then, even here, there is reluctance in taking a look at new ideas? It becomes a problem depending upon how you see it. I see it as "A person's choosing the Innovative & Critical path to Learn" in contrast to "Faithful acceptance". And the former is the best, why? I will reason later. Among the Learners, there are three main types [There could be others.]; and they are: Those who; Choose the Innovative & Critical path [Asking, why can't it be the other way? Saying, what if I make it this way?]. Accept, because they see it is amply obvious. Accept, even though they can't see it is obvious because they do not want to question a widely accepted theory. Thomas Kuhn thought, [the gist below]; The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Considers Thomas Kuhn as the most influential philosophers of science of the twentieth century. His 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is one of the most cited academic books of all time. I consider the first method the best, because being Innovative & Critical, helps widen Thinking, which itself leads to development of Science. This is one solid and amply sufficient reason for us to be not Reluctant to new ideas. And also that we should encourage Innovativeness by dealing with it un-Reluctantly. __________________------------ 0000000 ------------ Can you not use words like Unknowing etc in place of Cranks etc? Or do you derive sadistic pleasure by being pejorative. Does Science mean looking at only one thing? This really is a thought of the Cra… [err. . . No, I don't want to be sadistic. Is Sadism contagious?!] unknowing. Authoritarians want us to look at what they decide we should look at, without asking any questions. __________________------------ 0000000 ------------ Thanks Studiot. It is long partly because I replied multiple posts at a time. And partly because sometimes it takes me more words to say what I really want to say correctly. I am sorry for that. Looking back, historically, the Sadists, Cult followers with their Authoritarian tricks have never been successful, because Humanity is an evolving kind. __________________------------ 0000000 ------------ Hello Swansont; Your gracious & truthful way of placing arguments, addressing only the subject and not the person, which everyone should imbibe, fills my heart with respect and love. It feels like an Oasis in a Desert full of attacks on the person not the subject, cult following and tricking. I am sure Studiot was pointing towards this factor when he posted this; __________________------------ 0000000 ------------ Let me clarify why it is not wrong. Though you did not say that there is reluctance even to look at new ideas nor it is mentioned in OP. However, I think this discussion would be incomplete if it addresses only the Reluctance towards acceptance, because the Reluctance is not simply confined to mere acceptance but as you said, it may be so, it is actually towards even looking at new ideas. Therefore, I added that part. Yes, it is a good scientific model. Nobody has objected to it until now. But; The conclusion derived/interpretation by this model that one should be Reluctant, to even look at all new ideas, is unscientific & absolutely wrong. Reluctance is a human reaction generated due to apathy, which in turn is generated due to an immature response of how that model affects one's life. Like for Fire; by empirical observation, we have a model: All Fire burns. Then we have a human reaction to it; Be Reluctant to go near it. That is fear; like Reluctance, a human nature. However, it leads to losses. If we were Reluctant to go near fire, we would lose the benefit it gives us. We got to harvest its uses by getting the knowledge of how to handle it. Now similarly, if for example the wrong ideas constitute 99% of all new ideas, then 1% of them are genuine. Now if we do not look into new ideas due to Reluctance, are we not loosing those 1% genuine ideas? Are we not disregarding Innovativeness? Are we not discouraging the Innovative? This is a big blow to spreading of the scientific spirit. We have to get the knowledge of how to handle Raw Innovativeness and benefit from it. Reluctance is not a good appropriate response. Nobody is advocating for immediate adoption of a new idea. The demand is for a caring look into it. [That is why I added that Reluctance is not simply confined to mere acceptance, it is actually towards even simply looking at new ideas.] Nobody is advocating here; Approaching scientists about some new idea who have limited time to do their work. Sending unsolicited e-mails. There is good as well as bad in every field. The question we are discussing here is, if there is more number of wrong doers, is it justified to punish everybody. If people are disturbing Scientists/Experts by Approaching them about some new idea who have limited time to do their work and by sending unsolicited e-mails, they are making a mistake. But on that pretext if Scientists/Experts/Knowledgeable are Reluctant to verify all new ideas then they are doing a bigger mistake. This is not a Tit for tat game. Isn't there a difference between the unknowing who commit those mistakes and the Knowledgeable? Should we not educate the unknowing, find ways to handle them, instead of reacting in a wrong way? One mistake is not an answer to another mistake. No. Empirical evidence is also a Reason/one among the reasons/a part of the reasoning process. Such as, that 'Gravity is a consequence of the space-time curvature'. __________________------------ 0000000 ------------ This delusive-ly misleads the discussion. How & when did we change from, Reluctant to new ideas, to very open to new ideas. Are the positive marks given to this post for making this slick change? Is this Reasoning? Or tricking? Nobody is asking here anybody to be open to bad ideas. We got into this debate because it was staunchly stated through several posts by several members that; There is Reluctance to new ideas on the basis that lots of new ideas are wrong ideas, which is the Truth. And so I replied; It is wrong to be Reluctant to new ideas on the basis that lots of new ideas are wrong ideas. If debates are conducted to arrive at solutions to issues, one needs to place arguments truthfully. I added that the Reluctance is not limited to Acceptance alone; it is there even to take a look at new ideas. And it was truthfully agreed on that part also by both parties. Now the question is; Whether it is justified in being Reluctant to new ideas on the basis that lots of new ideas are wrong ideas? The debate is now on whether one should be Reluctant to new ideas or not. But all of a sudden you say scientists are very open to new ideas. So we all should go home? No dispute! Or debate on that Lie? I don't do futile discussions. There are people, though numbered few, who are not individually reluctant to new ideas. They are ready to deal with them sympathetically. We are not discussing that here. However, there is a big Reluctance towards new ideas because lots of them are wrong ideas. We are discussing on that. We are further discussing whether that Reluctance is justified or not. When you said that there is Reluctance, I felt there is a ray of hope and this forum has provided an opportunity, we could do something about that and change it. Now you are changing track to conceal it. What is the purpose of participating in this discussion? Anyhow, we are living with that Reluctance. Even great Scientists, thinkers and inventors have endured it while trying to introduce their new ideas. All of the current Science that has come into being, was not paid for. It came due to the innovativeness of human beings. And that innovativeness itself is now being disregarded because one is not paid for to scrutinize it or because most of it is wrong? New ideas are the heart of Science. It is where Science comes from. Perusal of new ideas is equally important as a Research is for Science. Reluctance should not be there to examine any new idea, whether it is wrong or genuine, because if Science becomes Reluctant to look at new ideas on the pretext that most of them are wrong it is the end of quest for Truth. Scrutinizing new ideas and giving reasons for their acceptance or rejection is part of Science/scientific activity/scientific progress. It should not be neglected on the pretext that most of the new ideas are wrong. It is equally wrong as the unsolicited emails. One wrong does not correct another wrong. I have not sent one single unsolicited email in my life regarding any new idea or anything else. I have not disturbed one single Scientist for one second by approaching her about some new idea. For me this forum is heaven on earth. Because there are heavenly people here. It satiates my intellectual needs. I post all my new ideas here. I don't need anything else. I see such discussion forums as the new age hubs of Scientific Innovation and look forward to when a new theory will be found on such forums, if I am not exaggerating. Truth does not arrive after choosing its venues. It comes when it finds the right atmosphere anywhere. I request all people with new ideas to come here and request the compassionate Experts to take a look, and not to disturb anybody for that sake. Moreover, simultaneously I beg all the people on this forum to take a benevolent look into new ideas. And I take this opportunity to say that it is wrong to send unsolicited e-mails, to approach busy scientists, it is not humane, it is criminal injustice & a hindrance to scientific progress. I sympathize with those Experts/Scientists who face this unruly trouble. The best thing to do with a new idea is to discuss with knowledgeable people on an appointed time or on a forum like this. But the purpose of this forum gets defeated too; when Reluctance to new ideas plays its role here too. New ideas must be given a look and reasoned. This forum should not become a Preaching place. It should encourage innovativeness, by giving a Non-Reluctant platform to scrutinize new ideas. This would also help stop the above discussed menaces. I do it when I want a word to standout and become visually distinct in a sentence, something like focusing light on a single person or part on a stage. Like: This is Arete. Arete is an Expert on Biology. Is it irksome? I could stop, if it is. __________________------------ 0000000 ------------ There is a subtle matter here, which if not taken care of, will go out of the hands of this honest discussion. When you said "That's exactly how it should be" you are pointing out that, one should be 'Critically Investigative' about new ideas. Yes, it is absolutely true. But there is a very big & vital difference here. When we say we must be investigative; what we are actually doing/saying is; we are actually picking the new idea into our hands [not literally] and then investigating it. But here, what we are discussing is; The Reluctance to picking itself, that new idea. I.E. the Lack of the Enthusiasm itself, to investigate new ideas. This Lack of Enthusiasm to investigate new ideas is nothing but the Lack of Enthusiasm to do Science itself. Because, Science is nothing but the Enthusiasm to Investigate new ideas. So Science must encourage innovativeness by being Enthusiastic about new ideas, i.e. not being Reluctant to new ideas. That would lead to the development of Science. Yes, educating the innovative to construct good theories is absolutely correct. But this is totally different from being Reluctant to new theories. If Innovation is disregarded with Reluctance, the very motive force behind scientific thought is being disregarded. __________________------------ 0000000 ------------ This is not the subject of the OP.

The question is; Why are scientists seemingly reluctant to accept new ideas? Your answer is; My response was; 'To become reluctant, on the basis that the vast majority of ideas are wrong' is not a scientific method. I am saying here; there is reluctance to even open & read new ideas, leave aside scrutinizing them and later accepting them. However, the reason given for this that "because most of them are wrong" is not scientific. How far is it scientifically justifiable, to approach all new ideas with this prejudice? Is it scientific? Is it prudent? It also shows the weakness of the persuasion about the flaws. Focusing on the ire of the proponent is not scientific, instead focusing on the inadequacy of the reasoning is truthful Science. Lamenting on the ire of the proponent is to conceal the weaknesses of one's own reasoning. And really Arete, Hypercube, Studiot, Jimmydasaint and others; It is a waste of time to discuss this issue, because; Science did not come into existence due to those who are Reluctant; instead, it came into existence due to those who are not Reluctant. Science did not develop due to those who are unenthusiastic to new ideas. Instead, it developed due to those who are enthusiastic to new ideas. Science did not develop due to those who didn't have time for Science. It developed due to those who dedicated their lives for it, and picked a genuine new idea at first sight and encouraged it. Science came into being by those who are out there to get at the Truth at any cost. And not due to those who are more concerned about their time, money, job and living. Science did not develop due to those who asses a new idea with dogmas as the yardstick, it developed due to assessing and pushing the core essence of the idea. The world is out there to get at the Truth [that is why we have so much of Science here]. So don't be concerned about them who have all kinds of pretexts to prefer everything else other than Truth. Reluctance does not decide anything. It stems out of incapability & apathy. There are people who love Science. There are people who love new ideas. If you have a new idea, you will meet your benefactor one day. Every Development comes from Benefactors, not from those who are Reluctant. Human behavior does not possess the ability to shroud Truth. Truth is highly alluring, more than the charms of the most beautiful woman in the Universe. Because it answers questions. Because it is useful. There is no use in asking why they are reluctant. That Reluctance is not scientific. It is human weakness. It is prejudice. Science did not develop due to prejudicial human weaknesses. And, not all are weak. The very truths, which Science has developed until now, are a proof that, there are strong constructive minds here. So do not be concerned. Science is not doing what one is paid to do. Doing what one is paid to do, is Living. Science is quest for Truth. There is only one proper channel of Science. And that is; Reasoning. The rest everything is dogma. One who understands Logic; is a logician. Possessing the credentials/designation to be called a Logician is dogma. And a non-Logician with credentials is powerless and ineffective before a Logician without credentials, because it is the Logic that is in play there, not the credentials. Credentials are useless [for Science], dogma. They can only be used to appease [those who cannot assess capability otherwise, like it is marked on a Can of cold drink, 'Coke'.] to sell oneself, to make a living. __________________------------ 0000000 ------------ Science is the world of collecting facts & figures for the quest of Truth. As the facts are accumulated, the Truth becomes clearer. But it is human nature of some to defend assiduously the status quo, because their thinking, their living and what they stood for until then depends on it, even if their act amounts to pushing aside Truth. Nevertheless, the basic verity remains that, if we don't change with changing facts we will be branded incapable and left behind. __________________------------ 0000000 ------------ How does one know it is a crank idea without reading it? There is another current working here. Those who equip themselves with expertise, to get an honorable place in society, and whose only concern is to secure that place, will thwart all contradictory views which may bare their error and shall construct, that secure system which, will help them keep at bay such contradictory views that hurt, in order to continue to be safe in that honorable state, even if it amounts to discarding of Truth. Reluctance and Ridicule is part of that system. And this is the modern face of the past authoritarian priesthood. Why sometimes, wrong theories hold ground for centuries? It is due to this self-sustaining cult system. They go on preaching what they believe in. They go on encouraging those, who hold on to what they believe in. Thus a cult is built. Any contradicting view is crushed with the help of their secure system. As a result the cult builds up so much that, one can afford to live by following it. So everybody who wants to make a living starts following it. The trend catches on. A self-sustaining cult is born. But Science is not about building cults. It is searching for Truth. And when Truth arrives the cults are demolished. An anecdote comes to my mind; Lord Rama was building a bridge across the Indian Ocean to cross over to Lanka. All of his army was engaged in transporting huge rocks to the Ocean. A Squirrel, seeing this Herculean task, felt it should do its bit to help Rama. It started bringing small pebbles in its little hands, not knowing it's deed is inept. Lord Rama saw it. He didn't condemn the squirrel saying 'how silly'. Instead, his heart was filled with appreciation for the squirrel's intention to help, to do good. He said to his men, one should possess such demeanor. Those who label a person's quest for Truth as rubbish should not forget that, it is important that a person has set herself on the course of quest for Truth. That is commendable & respectable. Whether that person does not get the Truth is not important. Quest for Truth must be encouraged with appreciation. Condemning it with the tag Garbage, Wall of text, Word salad etc is not an appreciable act of a highly placed Expert. Innovation is exploring into unknown areas. It demands risk appetite. But the innovative don't complain, they don't blink. After creating the vaccination for Rabies, Louis Pasteur, after testing it on animals affected with rabies was successful, he was reluctant to test on humans for fear that it might not work. Then he considered testing on himself by subjecting himself to rabies and then trying his cure. However, before he could implement his scheme a young boy was brought to him who had been bitten by a rabid dog. However, Louis Pasteur was not a licensed physician so, could have faced prosecution for treating the boy. Nevertheless, Pasteur decided to go ahead with the treatment. While the Expert prefers the safe expertise. Expertise is attaining precision. It demands toil. One shouldn't complain. Scientific research is the search for Truth. Like the investigation of crime is to get at the Truth. No clue must be discarded as garbage. Every clue must be studied & reasoned with utmost care. Similarly all new ideas of Science should be studied & reasoned with utmost care. Reluctance is detrimental to any kind of quest. __________________------------ 0000000 ------------ Arete, Don't be concerned about doing justice to the money paid to you. Be concerned about doing justice to your profession & Science. If you are more concerned about your time, saving your job and/or money paid to you; you are not doing Science. And that's not, any better, than the wall of text and non-expert like.

Hi everybody, When did Reluctance become the scientific method of approaching the new hypotheses? Which scientific technique takes us from ". . . because the vast majority of ideas are wrong" to "So one must be reluctant even to read new ideas"? And when did the Knowledgeable adopt the ways of the unknowing to be Reluctant & Ridiculing? __________________------------ 0000000 ------------ In the interest of Science & Mankind; Which of the following is the right scientific method to approach a new hypothesis, when someone comes to an Expert, with one? To go through it intently and discuss giving reasons, the consistencies/inconsistencies. Be reluctant to see it for the reason that most of them are rubbish. Ignore it totally. Ridicule it by saying something like, "Oh, why do you think you found something that all the Scientists of the world didn't? In addition, you want me to look into it. You think I have nothing else to do?" I think in the interest of Science & Mankind, the first one is the right thing to do. If the theory is consistent, Science will be enriched, otherwise the person who brought it will be educated and the strength of Science is emphasized. And as far as, whether the expert has anything else to do is concerned, yes Truthfully, IMHO she has nothing else to do other than the following, in the sense that they are the main duties that have to be done. Giving expert guidance/service. Educate. Scrutinize new ideas. If an Expert is reluctant, even to read, leave aside accepting new ideas, then God help Science and Mankind. Who else can do? Human nature [as Swansont pointed out] should not be part of the yardstick that gauge scientific concepts. __________________------------ 0000000 ------------ The knowledgeable person knows that a person claiming to have a new theory either has right reasons to support it or has reasons that she does not know are wrong. Then what is the point of Reluctance & Ridicule? Just check the reasons or give the right reasons. That is the way of doing Science. Reluctance or Ridicule isn't. Reluctance or Ridicule is human behaviors, not the ways of the knowledgeable to scrutinize scientific theories, not scientific methods. It is a shame that Reluctance or Ridicule, the ways of the Non-Scientist, is being projected as the means to scrutinize new theories. __________________------------ 0000000 ------------ Why can't the bar for scrutinizing a new idea be high, too? Are Reluctance & Ridicule high bars? Isn't Reasoning a high bar? __________________------------ 0000000 ------------ If the Club, Sword, Axe etc represent the Reasoning, Logic, Mathematics, Microscope, Telescope, Thermometer, Voltmeter etc, then it is certainly appreciable. However, if they represent Intolerance, Reluctance, Ridicule, Contempt, Disregard, Sycophancy etc then God help Science & us.

Intolerance, Contempt, Derision, and also the Biased & Un-scientific attitude of Disregarding opinions that bring up genuine inconsistencies in established theories is some of them.

No, no need for twisting the facts; by doing that we will not arrive at the Truth. I am no mathematician. But let me give you my humble opinion. See if it convinces you. When you say; The Axiom: f(x) = x/x is a constant function giving the value 1. And then reach the conclusion; Therefore, 0/0 is also 1 . . . There is a logical fallacy in this theory [OK, if you are happy to call it a theory, let us call it a theory, till the time we both are convinced it is otherwise]. Explanation: In, f(x) = x/x The operation involved is the 'Arithmetic Division'. What is Arithmetic division? 'Arithmetic Division' is partitioning of a Quantity into stipulated/required number of parts of equal Quantity/size. I.E, If 'A' is a quantity, and you require it to be divided into 'B' number of parts of equal quantity, then one has to carry out the 'Arithmetic operation of Division' and divide 'A' by 'B' which will give us 'B' number of parts of 'A' all of equal quantity/size 'C'. Mathematically it can be written as, A/B = C. So, all through our exercise, we see that the 'Arithmetic Division' is a mathematical operation carried out to divide a Quantity into a required number of equal Quantities. [That required number also ultimately becomes a Quantity]. So here your theory needs to consider the following:- '0' is a number that does not represent a quantity. Instead, it represents the 'Lack of a quantity' i.e. '0' is not a Quantity. When you say you want to divide some quantity by '0', you are saying you don't want to divide at all. I.E. When you are dividing some quantity, you are dividing it into a 'CERTAIN' number of equal parts. But if you say you want to divide that quantity by/into '0' number of equal parts, you are in fact saying, you don't want to divide it at all. You cannot divide something into nil number of equal parts. When you are dividing '0' into a 'CERTAIN' number of equal parts, you are in fact not dividing anything at all. So no question of getting any number of equal parts. The result is '0'. When you say 0/0, you are saying; you are dividing Nothing into Nil number of parts. In fact you are not doing anything at all, leave aside Division. How can the results of not doing anything, be equal to 1 or any quantitative number? So 0/0 is not a valid Arithmetic Division. But then, for your theory to hold well and to become complete in itself, you have to make a small correction. You have to say it thus; f(x) = x/x is a constant function giving the value 1, for all quantitative numbers/values of x. Then the question of saying, 0/0 does not arise at all. Zero is not a quantity in the sense that it represents a lack of quantity. I respect your freedom to find new theories and welcome your endeavor to bring us new knowledge. I suggest you equip yourself further, to bring us best theories; my good wishes are with you. No it's not a sacrilege. All is fair while seeking knowledge. [Like we say 'All is fair in love and war'. Not war, because war itself is not fair.]. The more you meddle with knowledge, as long as you are willing to discuss before deciding, the more it becomes sacred, because in the end, it convinces us what is right and what is not. Nothing is more sacred than the quest of knowledge. Thank you