Ophiolite

You seem to be proposing that all of these unaccounted for effects would all generate an error/omission in the same direction. That seems unlikely.

I wish zerotwoone could do mathematics.

Even in this one sentence there is so much that seems just plain wrong: Scientists do not assume conclusions. Arguably science never reaches a conclusion, since every hypothesis can potentially be overturned by a new, contrary finding. However, lets imagine an implicit provisional in front of conclusion. No conclusions are assumed. Conclusions are derived by gathering data, analysing them, proposing a hypothesis, testing the hypothesis, modifying it as appropriate, seeking further testing and validation, then arriving at a (provisional) conclusion. Where is the assumption in that? Are you seriously contending that scientists are so intellectually stunted, regimented and dogmatic that they are unable to identify gaps in our knowledge base? Do you claim that earlier results are accepted at face value indefinitely, perhaps for ever? Do you actually have any idea about how science is conducted? It seems not. Since there is no universal reference frame (and you have done nothing to demonstrate that such a possibilty should be seriously considered) the only correct reference frame to use is the one you happen to be in. Your statements here confuse me. You are suggesting that physicists do not use time in their models? Please define 'electrical dimension' in this context. Quantum theory is hardly crippled by the correspondence limit. Why don't you say that relativity is crippled by the correspondence limit? Ah yes, it would all depend on your frame of reference. This is completely off-topic, but I can't resist it: how do you bring infra-red to light? By approaching it rapidly? Why? Why should that be a preferred reference? Your arguments lack logical content.

Your intial posts appeared to state the opposite of this. It is incidental whether or not this was your thinking, that was the appearance of your thinking. Now you have either changed your thoughts on this point, or have been able to clarify your thoughts on this point. The discussion has moved forward; all participants are better informed. How was this progress achieved? Through the process of argument. You offer an alternative approach that has multiple deficiencies. It is indirect. It is slow. It tends to confuse as it offers no mechanism for rapid clarification. It depends on the speaker guessing what the listener would be interested in, rather than exploring it directly. You will need to present a better argument if you wish to convince me there is a benefit in not arguing.

To answer the question asked in the thread title I give a resounding YES: it is ethical to judge someone's lack of education if they refuse to remedy that lack and act as if it were not there. An example would be appropriate to illustrate this. You made this statement: This is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. He was an honoured and respected individual. You are confusing matters of class distinction, which were deeply rooted and iron cladat that time, with 'true' peer review. In pursuit of your agenda that would have us disregard solid evidence in favour of self indulgent whimsey, you wish to demonstrate that great thinkers were ignored by their conservative contemporaries. To ignore and distort facts in order to support that agenda is evidence of a lack of education, for which you should be judged. Indeed it would be unethical not to judge you for such a corrupt action. This is an excellent idea.

I believe I implicitly stated this in post #7. Of course, you could argue with that.

Quite the reverse. Now that you are choosing to engage in the debate and have demonstrated a willingness to acknowledge errors in your thesis we have the potential to get on famously. Of course if your last post was intended as sarcasm then we are left with tension between us, but remeber that that tension will have stemmed direcctly from your implmentation of your 'no response' concept.

Harsh? I think not. Objective, yes. I am happy to discuss with you why it is a valid criticism. But you believe the matter is best served by not engaging in further discussion. That will improve the relationship between us will it? Really? If you truly believe that then you have demonstrated that my option of limited intellectual rigour on your part is proven. If you do not believe it then your argument (yes it is an argument) is completely demolished.

Humbug. Your deliberate refusal to respond to my post has not led to a better relationship with me. It has led to me thinking of you as rude, though that is of little consequence. More to the point, you have utterly failed to acknowledge that you were making arguable statements, something you declared one should avoid. To disregard something that essentially destroys your argument (on a discussion forum) is either intellectually dishonest, or intellectually limited.

Only if they are of the correct frequency.

Then why did you not do so here?

Of course the number changes? As Bignose has stated either you can't do simple arithmetic operations, or you are being deliberatly obtuse. You claim it is the latter. Please stop it and state clearly in what way you think the units are improperly defined. You are the one making the challenge to established science. It is up to you to make the case, not up to us to teach you basics. (See, if you had come onto the forum and said "I'm not quite sure how this constant business works," then many members would have been happy to explain it, or direct you to good online sources. But you have appeared here with some arm waving and a tired claim that you have made some remarkable discovery. That won't work.

This isn't an opinion. Newton empirically determined that the attractive forces between two masses was proportional to the product of those masses and the inverse of the square of the distance between them. The value of G varies depending upon what units your masses and distance are in. What are challenging in this?

Would you spend a lot of time asking your florist about treatment of your bowel cancer?

This seems to counter your speculation: in a gas the molecules, because of their random motion, 'push against' each other. But this does not lead to the collapse of a gas into a dense object, but rather to the expansion of the gas. Why would 'pushing against' create expansion in one instance and compression in another?

That is an interesting possibility that merits further study. I would approach the idea cautiously: the success of the bolide impact in explaining the KT boundary extinction has made impactors a fashionable and sexy concept - an explanation in search of problems.

There does not appear to anything of substance in your proposal, rather a lot of arm waving an word salad. For example, what does it mean to involute space? You do not define this; you do not detail its results; you provide no mathematical description of the involution process. The latter point, the absence of mathematics, permeates your whole proposal. On the plus side your exposition is mercifully short. I suggest, if you wish your proposal to gain traction, that you need to build the argument more carefully. At each step you must a) Define your terms b) Be specific in your claims c) Explain how your proposal provides a better explanation of observations d) Provide a means of falsifying your hypothesis Good luck.

1. He isn't especially unpublicised. For example, he has a subset of algebra named after him; his contributions to quantum mechanics are widely recognised. 2. Some of his ideas didn't pan out. We tend not to remember people who apparently got things right. Do you wish to discuss Jordan's possible exclusion from the physics hall of fame for political reasons, or those aspects of his thinking that are outmoded?

There are apocryphal tales that speak of the productive debates of how many angels can fit on the head of a needle. Some readers of this thread will see the connection.

In view of the failure of the OP to support his unconventional proposal with evidence, or to acknowledge that it is seemingly falsified by observation, could a moderator please move the post to pseudoscience.

A key point of the documentary was that if those neutrinos are travelling faster than light then there will be a galaxy load of unanswered questions. Which specific ones did you have in mind?

If you are in the UK may I recommend the BBC documentary aired two days ago and available, I would think, on iplayer "Faster Than the Speed of Light". It is one of the best science documentaries I have seen for a long time, providing a balanced view of the neutrino issue. It also contained this causality joke: The bartender said "We don't serve neutrinos in here." A neutrino walks into a bar.

Relative to what?

Aristarchus, do you wish to discuss how hard done by you and other great minds in history have been, or do you wish to discuss your hypothesis? If it is the former I have no interest in indulging someone's paranoia. If it is the latter then I would ask you to restate your hypothesis in the light of what you have learned in this thread. We can then move the discussion forward.

You must be using a very special definition of religion in order to make that statement. Would you give us your definition of religion and explain in what sense, based on that definition, science is a religion. This is not just badly phrased, or slightly incorrect. This is fundamentally, completely, irrevocably, absolutely wrong. The whole point about science is that all the results, all the equations can be subject to verification by others. Not only can they be, but they must be. The scientific process requires that. There is not a single scientific finding that I must accept on faith. I can investigate everyone of them if I choose to. Faith, in the sense you use it, is not a part of science. So, according to you science changes because we must place faith in scientists, when in fact it changes because we do not place faith in scientists. You have it bass ackwards.