kristalris

If it is in a vacuum then there is no surrounding gas. Giving it some thought I guess that it then is radiation. On the black sided it radiates on both sides equally or nearly so, yet on the mirror side it radiates only to one side hence it turns the other way round.

I just found out that the English version of the Crooks radiometer is far superior to the Dutch one I actually did only read a wile ago. So heat it is. I only can find counter rotation when cooling a radiometer due to again heat differences (on the Wikipedia link I gave) and no reference of turning in opposite direction when in a complete vacuum. Pressure exerted by momentum would be difficult when the light source hits both vanes in equal measure. The "telekinetic" trick shown by Przemyslaw the direction of turning must be due to differences in the form of the mill and / or side of most radiation of heat.

Why we have hope? I guess that we have our hopes vested in science and technological progress seeing the greatest problem that faces us that is without a doubt our own doing: the overpopulation of the planet as with other problems such as climate change etc. The only practical feasible option to remain in having a reasonable hope is if we can organize especially our western societies in a way that we act wisely. Wisdom being the ability of acting creatively intelligent on basis of relevant knowledge (i.e. science) and experience. Our behavioral sciences / psychology have a high commiunis opinio concerning the personality traits of the so called Big Five. As a rule of thumb especially two of these are relevant in this respect: conscientiousness and openness. Someone who scores high on the former is good at planning and getting things organized as opposed to a low scorer who lets everything to his own accord. The former being moreover the winners in our western society if they work hard the latter the losers. People who score high on openness are inquisitive, creative and deemed strange as opposed to those who score low who act as the are supposed to. (They are even deemed certifiably mad by DSM IV & V such as Einstein, Newton etc. Showing BTW the danger of rigid systems such as DSM that should be opposed.) The legal winners in the western society are people who score high on conscientiousness and low on openness. They go by the book (of science as well BTW). This leads to book-wisdom and a bureaucratic following of systems together with exaggerated hopes and expectations concerning issues that are unfathomly complex dynamic processes in society. Processes that are dealt with more and more by rigid systems (like DSM). Systems in which banks for instance can get away with conning clients as long as they do it via the correct formalism. Throwing our western societies in a financial crises of which all the repercussions are yet to be felt. Systems that we can only fathom by at best rules of thumb. Issues however that need quick decisive actions based on educated guesswork. My philosophy would be to copy what long standing successful businesses have done in quick changing environments: have good research & development departments; good production departments and good sales departments. All these are critical. The open minded creative personalities should have the lead in R&D with the conscientious in support. In production it is the other way around. In the legal system conscientiousness sells. Our western society has more and more even in science and also in the legal systems been taken over by the conscientious personalities. This needs to be counterbalanced IMO. The problem is they on average can't guess as well as the creative open-minded personalities. They aren't wise. So organize research departments in all critical issues of society: the legal system, the schooling system and even in science and explicitly choose the open-minded persons to lead that. It's good educated guesswork that is needed via wisdom and not (only) book wisdom for instance to decide what should be funded and what not. If you don't see that science only provides probabilities on several critical issues and believe that it always provides the answers then you believe to that extent in pseudo science. I.e place your hope in wisdom and get that organized. We don't need to leave the planet to have a hope. (There is a chance that our species will go extinct so it invariably will given enough time.) So try and live as good as possible trying to be as less a bother to others including future generations and enjoy the ride: i.e. have hope and act accordingly.

A radiometer is a nice gadget to have. I indeed have one. If a photon has mass and hits both sides to the same extent you've got a problem in explaining the spinning in the way you do. I guess someone has made thermo-graphic images to see if that is a correct explanation by now. And if the trick also works in a cube like instead of a sphere like partly vacuum environment. But I don't expect it to be it very decisive on the issue at hand whatever the outcome. Youngs double slit experiment being solved in the way you state I don't see either. Point is it is not only having one or two slits but also having or not having a detection device in front of the slits. My explanation is that the energy packet of the photon with a wave following it in the dynamic crystal, ( being sometimes a meter long and thus providing BTW a measure at which the crystal must restore itself for this speculation to work) the packet is slowed down in the glass of one of the slits (keeping c yet being sidetracked) this causes the wave front to catch up via the other slit. That causes interference akin a ship in water would encounter. The side tracking is caused by the waving of the photon energy packet being two counter rotating super symmetric strings (spirals) hitting the sides of the glass and the crystal trying to keep the photon intact. Turning on a detection device must be in sync in order to observe anything and will cause an electromagnetic field (of the same particles of which the strings are built) causing an end to the amount of side tracking of the energy-packet end thus ending the interference. The interference pattern is a game of statistics. Even when shooting one photon at a time. The reason photons seem not to interfere with each other is that they are IMO built up of extremely small spinning particles. The chance of them hitting each other is extremely small with two photons in order. See it like two rowing boats eights that row a the same speed and tempo yet having there oars interlocked one just ahead of the other. If both teams row exactly the same way no interference will occur. If one or both teams try to avoid each other the enhanced chaos will provide a larger footprint of the blades in "space time" and thus cause a greater chance of hitting each other. I.e interfere. The same goes for the waves of the blades in the water. So the slit causes a greater chaotic movement of the photon energy packet. The chance of interference is enhanced and it is slowed down so the wave can catch up.

Interesting. I'll think on it, yet I still don't get them not exerting gravity towards each other without attracting each other. To elaborate on the reason I thought the radiometer proves photons as being particles having mass is that the dark side of the Mica disk is in sync and lets the photon in joining in the atoms of the Mica acting as little balck holes and thus exerting a force on that side. On the mirror side the photon is not in sync and the crystal of the Higgs field prevents the photon to join. Akin a surface tension of water repels the more than super conductive photon, seemingly instantaneous in the opposite direction, without exerting a force on the mill. Like I said I'm not convinced either way at the moment because it might indeed be heat exchange because it doesn't work in a to great a vacuum. That would have to be tested if this can be contributed to the resistance then changing. (That wouldn't bust my idea in general only the explanation of the working of a radiometer BTW.)

You mean a Crookes radiometer? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crookes_radiometer Well I thought so too yet there is an other possible explanation because the thing doesn't work in a complete vacuum. Although that might be contributed to the resistance then changing due to differences in expanding and contraction coefficients. I.e it could indeed be heat exchange that accounts for the extreme rpm that can be reached. Albeit that I'm not completely convinced that it doesn't in fact prove photons being particles containing mass. Your problem that photons are observed not to attract each other however does bust your idea that the exert gravity. Because then they would have to attract each other. I like an idea were we only have two particles that fly absolutely straight and only push. So does Newton BTW and I like Newton. Especially when I can on a concept level marry it with GR and QM etc.. Physics assumes as do you, that mass implies exerts gravity. Well that assumption might not only be wrong it's probably wrong to boot. It is much more probable that we are looking at a measurement problem.

Well Przemyslaw (sorry for getting your first name wrong BTW) Giving photons mass and stating - if I understand you correctly - that they also thus exert gravity can't be right. We observe (if I'm correct) that so called "mass less" particles don't attract each other, yet are attracted by a gravitational force exerted by particles containing mass. Apart from that they would be distributed strangely i.e. suns exert then more gravity? What would solve this problem on a concept level would be if the Higgs field indeed exists and contains the mass as well. I.e. not mass causes gravity directly but indirectly. Mass indeed like in your idea being stuff i.e. un- split-table mass in two different particles. Then your two particles would have to be two strings built up of just one of these particles in another field containing the other. Only then can you solve that problem IMO. (And solving a lot of other problems in the same go in a testable way BTW. I.e. your idea then remains completely intact. I just add to it. I agree with you BTW that photons have very little mass.

Agree Michel and Gruchala (I guess that's your first name?), I don't quite agree with either of you. You should ask those questions and see whether or not they are testable. And if they are then test them. I.e. in science such problems should be worked at from both ends so to speak as matter of course. I.e. small steps from what we think we know, but also attempt large jumps by trying to address the total question. I.e speculate, as long as you make it testable and test it. It can ultimately have an end in so far that it provides an answer that everybody / most can agree on that doesn't conflict with anything we observe because it explains it all. That we will ultimately end up in Plato's cave left with an insurmountable measurement problem, i.e with assumptions is IMO a prior that we've known about since Plato. So that will ultimately leave us with a more or less communis opinio on evidence and Occam's razor because of the un-attainability of absolute truth.

Well Mike, A. PM B. He's rules are indeed good yet, as is your remark if it is allowable. Yet those aren't all the rules. Gruchalla is forgetting Occam's Razor. Having two particles is fine, the problem is he doesn't account for the fact what magic makes them attract each other? And, he doesn't fundamentally answer all the fundamental questions as Occam's Razor dictates: i.e. where do the waves at that level come from? Further more he doesn't address the problem in a testable / falsifiable way. C. Seeing B he's Eureka moment / thought will be pre muture if he's even had that. And Mike, To further add to this on the other end Gruchalla doesn't address how he sees dark energy and dark matter. IMO you can already spot a problem in science / physics by the fact that these fundamental problems have been defined wrong: it should of been defined as dark attraction and dark repulsion problems. IMO dark matter causes dark energy which is harder to spot if you already go wrong in the definition of the problem.

Well, I think we can see eye to eye on this for a great extent. I've been at a two particle model in a double dynamic crystal for some time now. And like I stated in my newly started thread on this site a computer simulation is just what I'm looking for. So I hope I can interest you with the following short summery of my speculation: The simulation for a proof of concept would entail starting off with only one type of sphere in a highly conductive cube and seeing if it goes to the order of a dynamic crystal. I.e. each ball in it's own virtual box in the center away from the walls. Contrary to your - BTW very interesting - idea my idea has a relatively very large and one very small particle as spheres. If proof of concept via the simulation can be had, then the speculative idea goes that given these spheres have mass and travel in a straight line whereby the smaller one is faster than the large one and both are above c. There is no scenario possible in which either one can be split. So we already then have permanent motion. The large one can be dented however and thus can act like a toothed wheel. Hence also the need to assume different sizes. It quickly restores into a sphere. This in order to get in and out of spin quickly without causing to much chaos. Spin BTW like a toy gyro and rotation when the center of spin gets outside the center of the gyro. Only then 3D. The energy in both crystals resonates and is equal in a short time-frame. The reason I assume different speeds is that the larger one will loose the movement game. Having one large particle in the other crystal will make it go into a standard deviation both in the vertical as in the horizontal for every bit of forward motion. I guess that this mathematically then will end up spiraling into the skin of a huge sphere (light years across). Having an infinite number will end up in an infinite number of spheres interlocked like a 3D medieval chain-mail. Introducing even more large particles will cause chaos in the small particle crystal that will push the surplus large particles away forming a beginning of a double crystal. The crystal will grow introducing more and more large particles into a large sphere. Ultimately the governing force in the cosmos: the small particle crystal will force the large particle crystal to collapse because further growth causes to much disorder. So we end up with a large particle crystal formed like the crust of earth forming our universe. Within that crystal like a waterfall the crystal will collapse getting crushed in the center. Here ultimately something will have to give. The large particles are brought into spin keeping their energy. Ultimately they are shot out to form a galaxy up the waterfall like a CME of the sun. This above c nearly coming to a stop in the large particle crystal. Then Mother Natures string factory starts to build a limited amount of strings dependent upon the amount of spin rotation to form the SM. The strings are formed via a surface tension scenario whereby the double crystal keeps the order of the strings. (There is more to be said about this) I.e. pressure. All larger particles act like little black holes getting mass by the Higgs field of which the crystal also makes them wave. Spiraling out through the crystal by speeding up. Thus creating the illusion of an expanding universe. Like five trains accelerating one after the other out of the station. Sitting in the center one the illusion will be that the furthest trains are speeding away most in alternate directions. At the sides the curved sphere of the crystal creates the same illusion towards the sides. Like a volcano the center keeps on spitting out galaxies that thus create a string of galaxies in a pillar of debris through the crystal glacier slowly moving inward. Galaxies form like hurricanes around a large black hole in their center. Held together by the pressure of the Higgs crystal akin air pressure does. What we perceive as gravity is thus built up of two components of gravity. The strong gravity caused by the absorption as a little black hole of every larger particle such as an atom. Which will ware off towards the outside of the spinning galaxy. Then taken over by the extra weak gravity caused by the Higgs field bringing further particles into spin due to acceleration. Hence the Law of Hubble the added mass causes extra momentum. This weak gravity is testable as a show in my thread. Slowly we will thus disintegrate and fall into the black hole in the center of our universe to end up popping out of the crystal disintegrating and arcing back. Restarting the cycle. What we perceive as mounting chaos is thus quite the opposite seen from the small particle crystal. We are the chaos. All possible scenarios are being played out in the multiverse all the time for ever. Thus also elegantly solving Schrodinger cat. However we are in an absolutely unique scenario because otherwise there would be the chance that it would of all come to an absolute order. It hasn't as we can observe. Hope your interested enough in helping to build the simulation. Gruchala Studying your theory I've spotted how our idea's can be married: The smallest possible rotating strings repel and counter-rotating attract (pushed together => less chaos in the crystals). Kristalris

Sorry and thanks, I already tried to concede that I misunderstood what SR (and you have) stated. Thanks for informing me that GR and SR aren't in conflict, I missed that point.

I've been rereading Wikipedia on SR and LC and I think I'm getting there. My perception of what current science means with LC is incorrect, though correct with what it should mean. Anyway: Although science talks about Doppler effect in the context of GR I think that is actually what we are talking about concerning SR seen from the viewpoint of my idea. If you pass a waving photon in a certain frequency at a certain speed the frequency will go up. Because a photon has a certain length you will thus perceive it as length contracted. Now the great point of difference is that there thus then is no actual length contraction in reality needed in any frame. Anyway my idea will yield exactly the same results as SR. Its interchangeable. The differences being however my idea has the potential to be integrated with GR & QM etc.. In my idea a photon has very little mass, and is so small that it has seemingly instantaneously accelerated to c through the crystal of the Higgs field being so fast that the Higgs field can't add more mass. So two photons don't have a gravitational pull towards each other, yet are effected by a gravitational field. In which the crystal of the Higgs field is stretched losing grip on the energies stored in the spinning photon. I guess a photon being two interlocked counter rotating super symmetric strings spiraling through the crystal. The strings containing a lot of spinning identical particles of which the Higgs crystal is built up. (How this can work and why they are in spin can be elegantly explained, granted speculation, but still.) These being however not in spin. The particles in the Higgs field are more conductive than the photon which is more than super conductive. I.e. a photon can travel billions of years through the crystal. Yet there is an end to it. Ergo then we only can look so far into our universe. I learnt that there are scientists who think that photons when not in a gravitational field don't wave. I don't agree with that because there is no reason to assume a photon does that and it is inherently un-observable either way, because all observable instruments have mass exerting gravity. Now I'm still a bit puzzled at the use of SR. According to Wikipedia SR is only applicable outside gravitational fields (wherever that me be? Is it that SR takes care of an inherent non-Euclidean space where the gravitational pull isn't strong enough? ). Yet it is used in GPS in order to keep the clocks in sync. What can SR do in that respect that GR can't in a gravitational field? Or does SR take care of the short period of weightlessness because GPS is geostationary?

Impossible. If you don't LC the whole route the particle is > c. And sorry I missed the second part in your other reaction. Yes, there is an enormous amount of evidence for GR, SR, QM and FT working perfectly in there respective fields. Yet they can't be integrated. And LC is one of the IMO obvious problems. Having smaller (speculative) particles > c readily can elegantly explain electrodynamics & magnetism as well. Take the symmetry problem. Producing two particles at c going in opposite directions then doing a toss that at both sides gives he same result. Producing the two particles breaks the string in which these small particles > c are contained by the crystal. (How is another story). The broken string in part forms smaller strings to form the two particles that seemingly instantaneous accelerate to c in the crystal, being then short tracked (like speed-skaters) and held at c. Other small particles don't form strings but fly of through the much and much more void of the dynamic crystal reaching and influencing the outcome before the two larger subatomic particles at c reach that point. Ergo not only no problem with the electrodynamics and magnetism. It solves it. It also explained why we can float a non magnetic living frog in a very string magnetic field. In this speculation the reason why we perceive a magnetic field to form at c is like pushing against a large boat when standing on a jetty. At first nothing seems to happen and then when the movement becomes measurable we think it happened at a speed conforming to the constant ©. It is a measurement problem. In the symmetry experiment this becomes apparent because it is like pushing a small dingy. It moves instantly. If the particle that left the string is not in sync then it misses the extreme void of the crystal. Like pushing beside the dingy. But now I've gone into the rest of my idea, to which there is much more. Most central to the idea is however seeing if it is possible to simulate a dynamic crystal. If not, this idea is fundamentally busted. Sorry I said the whole route, I of course meant the whole route through the curved gravitational fields.

Well in order to have LC work, as I understand it, not only the say photon must length contract but also the route it took must do so. Because otherwise the photon when holding c by curving in a gravitational field will have exceeded c. I.e. if the route through space were lined with posts and ultimately your stationary eye lens everything along the route must contract. All posts and you eye lens need to get closer to each other, yet the photon that also LC's does move to the eye lens. If only the photon length contracts it would have exceeded c if it keeps (as we observe) c all along the route, whilst taking a curve. In so doing solving the problem that in effect the photon otherwise would of accelerated just like a car does in a curve holding the same speed in a curve yet curbing in at twice the Newtonian value. It will solve it as long as you only do the trick along one (length) of route. That's why LC indeed works, as long as you keep to the exact relative distances. There is no way to logically frame it that you tackle this otherwise. The longer a photon has been in a gravitational field the more LC problem that can't be fixed by the small LC of a photon could maximized have, being only a small particle.

Thank you Swansont, This is a very useful reaction. What you say makes much more sense to me. For on an other science forum I got the reaction from "scientists" that GPS proves LC. This they did to counter an earlier point I made to them that LC should be deemed falsified by your eye lens not popping out your head in order to length contact towards the light coming to your eye from - the far side - of two galaxies. For then the light must have gone through a lot of gravitational fields and thus got more and more length contracted. They didn't react to that point other then saying that GPS proved LC. I was surprised that they stated GPS worked on LC to which I also found some backing on the internet. So I countered that point in the way I stated in this thread. But indeed it's a very short distance then for a very great effect. So I take your position to be correct. But then still why doesn't your eye lens LC in two (actually much more) different directions when looking at the stars? Then the decay of cesium: well on that point your post also makes much more sense. I took the fact that if time slows down that so the decay would slow down instead of time. Yet this is not central to my idea. Central to my idea is that by adding mass when speeding up the atom clock the time reading accurately slows down (for what ever exact further reason isn't directly important). Science concludes thus relative time. I say no: time is absolute, which is consistent with the fact that the decay of cesium would remain the same irrespective of speeding up of the clock or not or the time the clock portrays.

A few testable questions based on a scientific procedural must, given an alternative scientifically viable speculation : Simulation for a dynamic crystal:If we take a very strong computer and simulate as many and as highly conductive and identical as possible perfect spheres each traveling at identical speeds in random directions in a large as possible cube with as high as possible conductive walls, will these balls then go to order in the centre forming a dynamic crystal? Accuracy being more critical than speed. A dynamic crystal being that each ball will remain in its virtual cube by hitting its neighbor exactly on the virtual wall of the cube. If so would it then be possible to infer a formula for forming such a dynamic crystal out of the simulation? This is not an extremely costly experiment with potentially great gain. The speculation isn't that far-fetched as you might expect. We observe waves without knowing what they exactly are. And we know the relation between normal crystals and waves by observation. Furthermore we observe a Yin and Yang of extremely high order and also disorder in Nature. With observing extremely large energies in atom’s it is strange why we don’t see atom’s or even galaxies not disintegrate much faster than they seem to be doing. There are dark forces (matter and energy) at work. That we observe. Reason for the question: a dynamic crystal might be at the heart of the Higgs field and the deepest reason for having waves . Why that might be the Higgs field? Lifting a tip of the veil in question 2. Would a large massive spinning sphere cause a rise in gravity?If we were to spin a large as possible massive sphere (say a large steal sphere with compartments filled with water (because it's un-compressible in order to negate deforming as much as possible) as fast as possible would that lead to a very small yet measurable rise in its gravity? Reason for the question: if the Higgs field ads mass when an object is accelerated then the decay of say Caesium could slow down when speeded up through the Higgs field. That speculation would imply that decay and not time slows down when speeding up an atom clock. It also would mean speeds > c possible (and for sub atomic particles to hold c in a curved space, yet slowed down in the Higgs field at c, assuming we observe acceleration instead of length contraction). If the Higgs field is a dynamic crystal it will then cause an under pressure that is perceived as gravity when mass is taken from it. I.e. it goes to order see question 1. Also causing the object to accelerate further akin the law of Hubble by adding momentum. In so doing solving the dark energy and dark matter enigma. No conflict with GR, SR FT or QM then because the same observations and predictions will follow. So assuming smaller yet unobserved particles instead of assuming something from nothing, and marrying all observations. Looking at the whole picture this is much more probable and should thus be tested especially if the tests are relatively easy. Yet assuming acceleration of own accord by “massless” particles possible, why? See question 3. One test both proving and disproving length contraction.If you substitute all length contraction parts out of the algorithms of a Tom Tom navigation device and change it into a formula whereby the pulse is accelerated keeping c in curved space, will the Tom Tom then work just as well as with LC? I assume that it is exactly known what formula's need LC of the GPS system in order to work. So as such it shouldn't be that difficult to change the algorithms. Seeing the amount of different I guess the algorithms are no great secret. And I guess that when you have changed those getting the encrypted codes of the satellites won't be a great problem in order to do the test. Reason for the question: Length contraction only works for each separate Tom Tom, and cannot be integrated in one model without going > c if more than one Tom Tom shares the same say three satellites. Otherwise the satellites will have to length contract in different directions at the same time, or both Tom Toms will have to be seen doing this. Disproving or proving length contraction as being anything but an as yet usable mathematical trick to describe a limited part of reality. Which physics should be trying to falsify as long as we don’t have a TOE including law of Hubble in one elegant non contradictory way. So: If all these tests show what I expect it by - granted more speculation - gives rise to the following explanation: Furthermore: first the observations and all the assumptions addressing all the problems and then the mathematics. Otherwise its garbage in garbage out. There is by the way no other way to start of any alternative without speculation at this point in time. And yes we are in a hurry. And yes it will require teamwork, of which providing good speculation is the start. And yes it still requires mathematics to do the tests. That can’t be the issue for answering the question whether or not the tests should be done, for that would be circular reasoning. So assuming positive test results: Acceleration of say a photon whereby it becomes unspun i.e. more red shifted in a gravitational field in order to accelerate in the curve holding c, curbing in at twice the Newtonian value, like a car accelerating in a curve to hold its speed alleviates the need for length contraction. A photon curves in the Higgs field. Photons of all wavelengths hold c but expend energy in order to do that. All particles except “mass less particles” act like little black holes: hence gravity. I.e. the mathematics of current physics that are involved can be used by simply assuming acceleration before any predicted test. So do the mathematics of current science with say length contraction and give a prediction. Then do the test. I predict the same result with this idea as is done with current science. Only the end result can just as well be acclaimed for acceleration instead of length contraction. No conflict with current science. Proof to be found in the Tom Tom test. How can a photon get the energy? That is a question to which there is an elegant answer albeit that we then have to address problems that are inherently un-testable such as the question whether or not the cosmos is infinite and like most scientists agree to find most probable is a multiverse. And whether or not we have a one off of something coming from nothing and ending in nothing or that it what I find most probable we are talking a cyclic event. If so it will always remain speculation to derive a logically consistent explanation that is also consistent with all observations. I have that in the form of two different sorts of as yet unobserved particles but can leave that out for the moment. First the tests then the rest of the story that being just a speculative sketch undoubtedly will inherently remain a lot of extremely difficult work in progress to work out. Although it provides on a concept level an elegant explanation for the Double slit experiment, the floating of a living frog in a magnetic field and the symmetry problem etc.. Let’s leave that discussion of that because it will cloud the issue. So: Observations + Dark problems => (Scientific / pseudo-scientific speculation & feasible tests) + (Risk = chance x effect) => doing tests = science & not doing tests = pseudo-science. So unless the answer to the questions can be scientifically given not doing the tests is pseudo-scientific. If this falls outside current scientific method then the current scientific method is pseudo-scientific. The actual reason being that you are then working a production department method towards a research department question. In production it is wisdom to be conscientious and go by the book in order to keep the status quo don’t take risks (or very little) and do as your told. In research it should be open-minded bold risk taking, don’t care what the book says because the book says it, because you are trying to rewrite the book. History shows that the production method always becomes more and more the norm in so doing slowing progress to an extremely costly and time-consuming irrational bureaucratic affair. (Flat earth) The communis opinio of the science of psychology (Big Five personality traits) states the same. So don’t study all there is to study in being afraid to make silly mistakes, go on a openly stated hunch or speculation (= thus not pseudo-scientific) but do it in a falsifiable practical way (= per definition scientific) and keep at it, until all dark problems are solved via a rigorous scientific scrutiny including the mathematics. That is the only correct way in research, albeit that you should always also address the same problems via slow doggedly persistent boring production methods. In short proper scientific method dictates facilitating both. Stating a best practice is anything different, is pseudo-scientific, for it takes too long and is thus not best practice. Do the tests or prove them irrelevant or already falsified by explaining that.