swansont Posted October 16, 2012 Posted October 16, 2012 LOL Of course not. But when you have an opportunity to see the evidence and you still ignore it, that's a resistance! So what are your examples of this happening?
illuusio Posted October 16, 2012 Author Posted October 16, 2012 So what are your examples of this happening? You can start with the experiments of Bruce DePalma (rotating objects flew higher and felt faster than non-rotating objects with same force).
swansont Posted October 16, 2012 Posted October 16, 2012 Science should be about skepticism but it's also something else, in some cases, reluctance. What else could it be, for example case Bruce DePalma What about Bruce DePalma? You want to use an overunity machine as an example? When every perpetual motion machine fails under scrutiny, not being bothered with the next one is not reluctance to accept a new paradigm. There's no new paradigm to accept. It's about not being fooled again by the same song and dance, which is an apropos sentiment with which you should be familiar. You can start with the experiments of Bruce DePalma (rotating objects flew higher and felt faster than non-rotating objects with same force). In a reproducible fashion? Anyone other than Bruce DePalma ever get this to work?
illuusio Posted October 16, 2012 Author Posted October 16, 2012 (edited) What about Bruce DePalma? You want to use an overunity machine as an example? When every perpetual motion machine fails under scrutiny, not being bothered with the next one is not reluctance to accept a new paradigm. There's no new paradigm to accept. It's about not being fooled again by the same song and dance, which is an apropos sentiment with which you should be familiar. I see... ignorance is bliss I refer experiments related to rotating objects and their behaviour while airborne versus non-rotating objects. And yes they did reproduce it but still... nothing happened! Edited October 16, 2012 by illuusio
swansont Posted October 16, 2012 Posted October 16, 2012 The real test is quite simple for overunity machines. If the inventor is still connected to the grid, using electricity, you know he's a fraud. I see... ignorance is bliss Insults are not a substitute for a substantive argument. I refer experiments related to rotating objects and their behaviour while airborne versus non-rotating objects. No, you mentioned that they existed, but referred nothing. I saw no links to experiments or papers describing them. It's your claim, so it's your job to provide them.
mississippichem Posted October 16, 2012 Posted October 16, 2012 I rest my case I open new topic in Speculations on this one. The only case you can rest is whether or not I attempt to follow the forum rules. What's funny about this thread is the fact that it is you who is resisting a paradigm change, not the scientific community at large. I want you to have a look at the banned/suspended users list in the forum announcements sub-forum. Many, if not most, of those members had a "theory" of everything. Were they all correct? I want you to answer this question and not dodge it. You have been shown many times by people who actively work in the fields of theoretical and applied physics that your ideas are lacking in some way or another, actually multiple ways. You've also presented no mathematical justification for your ideas. The grilling you and many other speculators on this forum have received has paled in comparison to the one you would receive from submitting to a journal or giving a university talk. I once saw a discussion in a university talk carry on for about twenty minutes concerning just one signal in a spectrum presented for a novel molecule. The presenter was eventually able to justify the anomaly in his spectrum after an intense discussion of instrumental methods and theory. This guy was already a reputable chemist with a history of good work and about an hours worth of slides full of hard numerical data to present. In contrast, many of the people that come here present no experimental data, no mathematical justification, and display no knowledge of the current state of affairs in the relevant discipline. How can they expect professionals to take them seriously? Please answer this question as well. Crying censorship or scientific dogma is not a valid way to argue in this arena. It really shows that when some people have their egos checked they simply refuse to accept the bashing they've been given and would rather lie to themselves than display some humility or learn something. I challenge you to provide one example of a current scientist being denied the due process of rigorous scientific examination in the 20th or 21st century. remember that from 1900-to present day the current paradigm in physics shifted from a classical (Newtonian, Lagrangian) view of the universe to a relativistic quantum mechanical view (think QED, QCD, QFT). I'm a chemist, and as far as chemistry is concerned we have come from valence bond theory viewing electrons as semi-classical particles orbiting collections of nuclei to, at the highest levels of theory, a relativistic quantum mechanical view where molecules can be built up in terms of second quantization of fields of electrons dynamically interacting with other fields of fermions representing nuclei (a notion we borrowed from modern QFT). Ophiolite showed you that the major paradigm concerning the geological history of the Earth has radically changed within his lifetime. We've presented evidence, it's your turn. 2
Arete Posted October 16, 2012 Posted October 16, 2012 Well, sorry all geologist out there! Just making a point here. Except your point is wrong - plate tectonics was a multidisciplinary, fundamental game changer. I work in biology. Before plate tectonics we had the mystery of how organisms in South America could more closely resemble those in Australia/Africa than those in North America. How there could be fossilized forests on Antarctica. Wallace's line, etc. The movement of continents eloquently and definitively solved many long standing biological mysteries. It also has significant impacts on vulcanology, oceanography, atmospheric science, etc etc. Even over the short duration of my career I've seem paradigm shifts. The movement from inference based to Bayesian biogeographic methods. The shift from concatenation to distinct gene tree - species tree estimation. The GIS revolution. The acceptance of sympatric speciation models. The current birth of systematics as a computational rather than bench based science... at least in my experience to characterize the field as "resistant" to paradigm shifts is contrary to every experience I've had. What is strange is that almost every time I see someone here characterize scientists as stuck in the mud ivory towered elitists here, they've done it based on an experience with an internet forum and absolutely no interaction with the actual scientific community.... 1
ajb Posted October 16, 2012 Posted October 16, 2012 And ignoring the evidence is stupidity. If there is reasonable evidence then people are likely to follow it up. Of course, this does not always mean it is correct. I'm a chemist, and as far as chemistry is concerned we have come from valence bond theory viewing electrons as semi-classical particles orbiting collections of nuclei to, at the highest levels of theory, a relativistic quantum mechanical view where molecules can be built up in terms of second quantization of fields of electrons dynamically interacting with other fields of fermions representing nuclei (a notion we borrowed from modern QFT). Yes physics has revolutionised chemistry 2
mississippichem Posted October 16, 2012 Posted October 16, 2012 (edited) Yes physics has revolutionised chemistry Ah, low blow. But I have to (painfully) agree. Though I have yet to meet a physicist who can work a multi-body potential bound fermion problem like a quantum chemist. Unless you count all that solid state band structure Green's function stuff...but that's just voodo . I like you ajb. You're so cool I almost forgot you worked in the wrong field . Edited October 16, 2012 by mississippichem 1
Phi for All Posted October 16, 2012 Posted October 16, 2012 What is strange is that almost every time I see someone here characterize scientists as stuck in the mud ivory towered elitists here, they've done it based on an experience with an internet forum and absolutely no interaction with the actual scientific community.... It IS strange how someone a) fails to understand a scientific concept, b) then gets a partially formed, non-supported but seemingly intuitive idea in their head, c) then becomes ABSOLUTELY CONVINCED, beyond a shadow of a doubt, they've discovered a flaw that no one else even considered (because those people DIDN'T FAIL to understand the concept in the first place), and d) ignores all the contrary evidence, e) then they go on to claim that they have undeniable proof that promptly gets torn to shreds due to a disagreement with reality, and f) THEN they claim that mainstream scientists are the hidebound ones unwilling to change a flawed paradigm. I've seen this happen a hundred times here in the last eight years, and none of them is ever able to do anything with these fantastic, unprecedented, outside-the-box ideas of theirs.
illuusio Posted October 16, 2012 Author Posted October 16, 2012 (edited) It IS strange how someone a) fails to understand a scientific concept, b) then gets a partially formed, non-supported but seemingly intuitive idea in their head, c) then becomes ABSOLUTELY CONVINCED, beyond a shadow of a doubt, they've discovered a flaw that no one else even considered (because those people DIDN'T FAIL to understand the concept in the first place), and d) ignores all the contrary evidence, e) then they go on to claim that they have undeniable proof that promptly gets torn to shreds due to a disagreement with reality, and f) THEN they claim that mainstream scientists are the hidebound ones unwilling to change a flawed paradigm. I've seen this happen a hundred times here in the last eight years, and none of them is ever able to do anything with these fantastic, unprecedented, outside-the-box ideas of theirs. Funny little story Well my current theory works just fine, equations and calculations prove it. Regarding Bruce DePalma this is his experiment with dropping gyroscope -> http://depalma.pair.com/gyrodrop.html and here some dude refering Japanise have done it too (in smaller scale but still). Well, what happened after those? Nothing? Silence. Reasonable evidence didn't make it. But, paradigms change at last and new ones are accepted as being self-evident (Arthur Schopenhauer) I challenge you to provide one example of a current scientist being denied the due process of rigorous scientific examination in the 20th or 21st century. We've presented evidence, it's your turn. Lame, in that fortunate situation that your theory is got into process, you made it already! All ignoring and other tricks are done before that. You can't find publishers, funding etc.. Many has been labeled as crackpot for no reason. Luckily I'm not a part of science community. I don't have to care of my scientific career and positions. I make at least three times more money than average physicist in University. As I said, I'm the fortuned one I have been denied from the peer review process I bet there is many many wonderful dead end stories out there. Edited October 16, 2012 by illuusio
granpa Posted October 16, 2012 Posted October 16, 2012 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_science Cargo cult science refers to practices that have the semblance of being scientific, but do not in fact follow the scientific method[1] The term was first used by the physicist Richard Feynman during his commencement address at the California Institute of Technology, United States, in 1974. Cargo cults—the religious practice that has appeared in many traditional tribal societies in the wake of interaction with technologically advanced cultures—focus on obtaining the material wealth (the "cargo") of the advanced culture by building mock aircraft, landing strips, and the like Feynman cautioned that to avoid becoming cargo cult scientists, researchers must first of all avoid fooling themselves, be willing to question and doubt their own theories and their own results, and investigate possible flaws in a theory or an experiment Examples in specific experiments and results Oil drop experiment: The history of published results for this famous experiment is an example given in "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!" - in which each new publication slowly and quietly drifted more and more away from the initial (erroneous) values given by Robert Millikan, rather than all having a random distribution from the start around what we now believe the correct result is. This slow and linear drift in the chronological history of results is unnatural and suggests that nobody wanted to contradict the previous one, instead only submitting for publication "agreeable" results. Physician Raymond Tallis[2] describes the psychoanalytic school established by Jacques Lacan as an example of cargo cult science. Tallis argues that Lacan, who was poorly trained in both traditional medicine and psychoanalysis, superficially mimicked medicine and science, and that Lacan's later devotees similarly mimic their guru's confused concepts. The Cranfield University report “Aircraft Cabin Air Sampling Study”[3] provides a recent example of cargo cult science. The government-sponsored study purported to measure the concentrations of toxic substances in aircraft cabin air but used such inappropriate[vague] methodology the results were of little value.[4][5][6] Nevertheless, they were used to make comparisons with domestic environments of dubious relevance in order to assert that “...there was no evidence for target pollutants occurring in the cabin air at levels exceeding available health and safety standards and guidelines.”[3] http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm
mississippichem Posted October 16, 2012 Posted October 16, 2012 Funny little story Well my current theory works just fine, equations and calculations prove it. Funny how these calculations never get posted, or can't be because of "patent issues" (note that physics can't be patented but inventions can). Regarding Bruce DePalma this is his experiment with dropping gyroscope -> http://depalma.pair.com/gyrodrop.html and here some dude refering Japanise have done it too (in smaller scale but still). Well, what happened after those? Nothing? Silence. Note this page from the same author, found on the link to his homepage Nature of the Primordial Field Clearly metaphysical word salad nonsense Also note the lack of inline citations, also the citation: (2) "Is God Supernatural," Robert L. Dione, Bantam Books, NY, 1976 553-02723-150 Which has what relevance to physics? Also you'll notice how the page you linked has no inline citations, a rather laughable statistical analysis section, uses non SI units, has no introduction, no abstract, no hypothesis, and no proposal of theory to explain the observed phenomena. Also note that the experiment was not even performed by DePalma according to the credits given in the title. Reasonable evidence didn't make it. Probably because no resonable evidence was given. But, paradigms change at last and new ones are accepted as being self-evident (Arthur Schopenhauer) Quotes are nice for literature but they really carry very little weight when it comes to hypothesis testing or the verification of scientific work. Lame, in that fortunate situation that your theory is got into process, you made it already! All ignoring and other tricks are done before that. You can't find publishers, funding etc.. Many has been labeled as crackpot for no reason. False. Retractions happen all the time. Rebuttal articles are published with the sole intent of discrediting recently published work. Luckily I'm not a part of science community. That much is apparent. I make at least three times more money than average physicist in University. As I said, I'm the fortuned one Good for you. Please show how this is relevant to anything previously brought up in the thread. I've never seen any scientist use their income as a credential in a proposal, a CV, or anything for that matter. I have been denied from the peer review process I bet there is many many wonderful dead end stories out there. Please give us the details of your submission process. What journals denied you, and what the reviewers comments were in the denial letter. Legitimate scientists are denied publication regularly. Often times it has to do with the manner in which the submission was written or some specific technical detail that the reviewers found unappealing. Other times the reviewers request more experimental verification. Getting published is often a long and difficult process involving lots of correspondence between reviewers, authors, collaborators and the journal editorial staff.
swansont Posted October 16, 2012 Posted October 16, 2012 Funny little story Well my current theory works just fine, equations and calculations prove it. The only calculation I saw predicted that a spinning bicycle tire would exert (IIRC) a force of 15N, which trivially falsifies the claim. Regarding Bruce DePalma this is his experiment with dropping gyroscope -> http://depalma.pair.com/gyrodrop.html and here some dude refering Japanise have done it too (in smaller scale but still). Well, what happened after those? Nothing? Silence. Sorry to burst your bubble, but 0.66203±0.000996 and 0.66097±0.000824 do not show a statistically significant difference. They are barely one standard deviation apart.
illuusio Posted October 17, 2012 Author Posted October 17, 2012 (edited) Funny how these calculations never get posted, or can't be because of "patent issues" (note that physics can't be patented but inventions can). Calculations can be posted for sure. Inventions are not. There is three laws in my paper and these laws can be used to calculate freely. Well, Swanson is a good example of resistance. He's sticking with the bike wheel's 15 N, even though, I have told him that that calculation was false. It needs third law also to get it right. He has not read the latest version of my theory and he still thinks that he's qualified to give critics You can find the latest version from my signature or I can attach it into this thread if that helps mr. Swanson. Sorry to burst your bubble, but 0.66203±0.000996 and 0.66097±0.000824 do not show a statistically significant difference. They are barely one standard deviation apart. Yes, but you can say that the phenomenon might be there. Only bigger experiment is needed to make it into 6 sigma. Edit: What really seldom occurs here is verbal positive feedback. I want to pick one name, ajb, you are excellent person in many levels. You understand current physics very well, it's possibilities and limitations. You can also explain phenomena and theories very robustly. On top of that, your manners and style in here are flawless! Even in cases when somebody is ignorant and/or provocative. This forum and the whole world need human beings like you. Edited October 17, 2012 by illuusio
Ringer Posted October 17, 2012 Posted October 17, 2012 Yes, but you can say that the phenomenon might be there. Only bigger experiment is needed to make it into 6 sigma. It barely makes it to 1, what makes you think it could make it to 6 if it were bigger?
illuusio Posted October 17, 2012 Author Posted October 17, 2012 It barely makes it to 1, what makes you think it could make it to 6 if it were bigger? There would be much greater differences with free fall times when the setup is bigger (longer drop -> bigger time difference).
swansont Posted October 17, 2012 Posted October 17, 2012 Well, Swanson is a good example of resistance. He's sticking with the bike wheel's 15 N, even though, I have told him that that calculation was false. I don't recall seeing that it was wrong; it was your calculation, after all, and taking you at your word is resistance? It needs third law also to get it right. He has not read the latest version of my theory and he still thinks that he's qualified to give critics You can find the latest version from my signature or I can attach it into this thread if that helps mr. Swanson. No, thank you. I've wasted enough time reading your earlier versions, and I do not owe you any more (not that I owed you any to begin with). I am not criticizing the theory at this point, just pointing out that you misled the staff previously, and that's why we don't trust you and aren't willing to let you be a drain on our time and attention. You might become familiar with the fable of the boy who cried wolf and contemplate the application to this situation. And BTW, if you are going to bother to use a title (something on which I do not insist), it's Dr. Swanson Edit: What really seldom occurs here is verbal positive feedback. I want to pick one name, ajb, you are excellent person in many levels. You understand current physics very well, it's possibilities and limitations. You can also explain phenomena and theories very robustly. On top of that, your manners and style in here are flawless! Even in cases when somebody is ignorant and/or provocative. This forum and the whole world need human beings like you. Yes, ajb is excellent, but its unreasonable to expect only positive feedback when you have proposed a flawed idea. Shooting the messenger doesn't improve the idea. What does this have to do with whether science resists paradigm changes?
illuusio Posted October 17, 2012 Author Posted October 17, 2012 I don't recall seeing that it was wrong; it was your calculation, after all, and taking you at your word is resistance? No, thank you. I've wasted enough time reading your earlier versions, and I do not owe you any more (not that I owed you any to begin with). I am not criticizing the theory at this point, just pointing out that you misled the staff previously, and that's why we don't trust you and aren't willing to let you be a drain on our time and attention. You might become familiar with the fable of the boy who cried wolf and contemplate the application to this situation. And BTW, if you are going to bother to use a title (something on which I do not insist), it's Dr. Swanson Yes, ajb is excellent, but its unreasonable to expect only positive feedback when you have proposed a flawed idea. Shooting the messenger doesn't improve the idea. What does this have to do with whether science resists paradigm changes? To be exact, my previous calculation was wrong due to lack of third law. You know exactly what I mean. I haven't misled nobody, specially the staff What do you mean? So, Dr. Swanson... If I were you I would read the paper of mine. I mean, at least to have updated information as a raw material to discussions. My notes on Dr? ajb are relevant in this topic because he has treated me, my writings, my ideas (and maybe my theory) with respect. No bashing at all. And flawed idea? If you would read the latest version you would realize it's not flawed at all.
hypervalent_iodine Posted October 17, 2012 Posted October 17, 2012 ! Moderator Note For the last time, illuusio, NO. This is not an opportunity for you to once again drag your pet hypothesis into yet another thread it doesn't belong. You had your chances, you blew them. End of story. Staff would also appreciate if other members could observe this and avoid asking leading questions that would require illuusio to go against the countless mod notes he's been issued to answer.
Ophiolite Posted October 17, 2012 Posted October 17, 2012 (edited) Does this mean he has hijacked his own thread? Is that a first? I suspect not. I'm still reeling from the fact that after several comments relating to the switch to the plate tectonic paradigm he stated that he didn't know enough about the topic to comment on it. It didn't do a lot for his credibility in my mind, but I enjoyed it. Edited October 17, 2012 by Ophiolite 1
swansont Posted October 17, 2012 Posted October 17, 2012 I fail to see how not accepting proposals for which there is insufficient empirical confirmation counts as resistance. This came up in another thread. If you have a new hypothesis people will listen if it's proposed appropriately (i.e. there is a properly formulated mathematical model involved, stemming from a viable position) but until you also have experimental confirmation, it is not going to be accepted as legitimate, mainstream science. If your hypothesis contradicts something that already has a model and data (i.e. a mainstream theory), you have an additional burden of showing where the accepted version fails ("unpalatable to me" doesn't count) along with even more data being required — extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and all that. Any example that's going to be presented has to be science that eventually was accepted, but was resisted despite a reasonable model and experimental data supporting it. Anything still out there on the fringe doesn't qualify. If the premise is true it shouldn't be that hard to find many examples. If it's hard to find examples then the premise is false.
illuusio Posted October 17, 2012 Author Posted October 17, 2012 You guys are so much fun So we should drop THE THING from this thread and keep the focus at the topic.
Phi for All Posted October 17, 2012 Posted October 17, 2012 I can understand why people can get an idea that seems plausible to them and then claim persecution when the idea isn't readily accepted, even harshly criticized. They often bring up the persecution of Galileo and speak of a kindred bond. But Galileo was back in the day before modern communication. Even 75 years ago, scientists didn't have the kind of instantaneous access to each other's work the way they do now. This kind of fast-track collaboration has exponentially increased the ability to assess hypotheses on a global basis. There has never been a time when so many scientists have been capable of so much combined effort. And yet there remain those few who think they can do better from isolation, and refuse to join the mainstream to at least learn where others have been before deciding to take the raft over the falls....
illuusio Posted October 17, 2012 Author Posted October 17, 2012 Any example that's going to be presented has to be science that eventually was accepted, but was resisted despite a reasonable model and experimental data supporting it. Anything still out there on the fringe doesn't qualify. If the premise is true it shouldn't be that hard to find many examples. If it's hard to find examples then the premise is false. No no! eventually was accepted? That's your opinion of "rules" in this topic. I say that any reasonable scientific case with resistance qualifies, accepted or not. I can understand why people can get an idea that seems plausible to them and then claim persecution when the idea isn't readily accepted, even harshly criticized. They often bring up the persecution of Galileo and speak of a kindred bond. But Galileo was back in the day before modern communication. Even 75 years ago, scientists didn't have the kind of instantaneous access to each other's work the way they do now. This kind of fast-track collaboration has exponentially increased the ability to assess hypotheses on a global basis. There has never been a time when so many scientists have been capable of so much combined effort. And yet there remain those few who think they can do better from isolation, and refuse to join the mainstream to at least learn where others have been before deciding to take the raft over the falls.... Mm... I can only answer from my perspective. I do know where others are and to me it says "dead end".
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now