New theories are trash ?????

[cladking]

We are on the automatic pilot almost all the time.

 

 

Exactly! We mistake habit for genius and what we see as proof of what we know.

 

We expect no change until it hurts. So I expect that it is probably the same for scientists, and that it will not change, but for eternity, so I expect no harm from this idea. Is it a law of nature?

 

 

It's not as much a law of nature as it is a perspective thrust on us by modern language. Belief lies at the heart of action and vision/ observing/ observation are in very real ways an action just as ancient people believed. Language leads us to believe we know just about everything because of the perspective it provides. This all applies to scientists and everyone else. A good scientist certainly can usually separate scientific knowledge from speculation in his mind but it's much more difficult to do this in real life which includes his own laboratory. It certainly includes an interview for an article or the way he interprets experiment. It is, no doubt, possible to think in primarily scientific terms.

 

And if so, why all that change around us? Why so much resistance, and so much change? Is it also a law?

 

 

This is human nature. No matter what language people use they resist change but modern language simply makes change less visible. People are not prone to changing their beliefs but new ideas keep coming anyway and so long as these ideas can be incorporated to make money or progress a few will adopt them. Mosty people are either dragged along kicking and screaming or they refuse to change and their children adopt the new "belief".

 

Time and tide wait for no man but by the same token the tide can't be hurried either. It can never be dawn until the earth has turned another ~360 degrees from the previous dawn.

[swansont]

"We still will see what we expect until we learn ways not to and there's hardly a mad rush to study the issue."

 

Hi Cladking,

 

I agee with that. We are on the automatic pilot almost all the time. We expect no change until it hurts. So I expect that it is probably the same for scientists, and that it will not change, but for eternity, so I expect no harm from this idea. Is it a law of nature? And if so, why all that change around us? Why so much resistance, and so much change? Is it also a law?

 

 

Who is "we" in this? You certainly imply that you are not a scientist. How is it that you think you can speak for anyone but yourself?

[Le Repteux]

Hi Swansont,

 

I was wrong, that idea hurts a bit!

 

Isn't it what a new law should be: universal? What is the use of proposing a new law that won't apply to everybody? Scientists are normal human beings, no?

It's not as much a law of nature as it is a perspective thrust on us by modern language.

Yes, language has a lot to do with the structure of our ideas, but why a communication tool should produce an idea that forces our other ideas to go straight line until it hurts?

This is human nature.

Aren't animals resisting to change too, and in some way, more drastically than humans? What about plants, what about rocks?

Edited September 23, 2014 by Le Repteux

[Strange]

Ironically, it is those who have their own personal (and baseless) "theories" who are least likely to accept any new or alternative ideas. They are convinced that whatever they have thought of (whether a meaningless "theory of everything" or a fantasy of the origins of human language) must be True because they thought of it.

 

On the other hand, those who base their understanding of the world on a scientific approach are always open to new ideas by definition. Just provide the evidence to support it and it will be accepted.

[Bignose]

"We still will see what we expect until we learn ways not to and there's hardly a mad rush to study the issue."

 

Hi Cladking,

 

I agee with that. We are on the automatic pilot almost all the time. We expect no change until it hurts. So I expect that it is probably the same for scientists, and that it will not change, but for eternity, so I expect no harm from this idea. Is it a law of nature? And if so, why all that change around us? Why so much resistance, and so much change? Is it also a law?

It is really ironic to me that you two guys are huzzahing and congratulating each other in putting scientists in a box of "no change" when the thrill of discovering something new and known and major changing is exactly what most scientists got into the business for in the first place.

 

What do you guys think they are publishing in those journals each month? Copies of the same stuff?!? Well, here's a hint. Journal articles are new and original research. It's basically all new. It's basically the complete and total opposite of your opinions here. Furthermore, the way science operates these days, if you aren't publishing a steady stream of articles -- a steady stream of new and original work -- you don't get funding, ergo you don't get paid.

 

Do you guys really think people are paying these guys to sit around and not try to learn something new? Sheesh. Might want to double check that here...

[xyzt]

It is really ironic to me that you two guys are huzzahing and congratulating each other in putting scientists in a box of "no change" when the thrill of discovering something new and known and major changing is exactly what most scientists got into the business for in the first place.

 

In their minds it goes like this: they post some stuff that is contradicted by existent science and, in many cases, by experiment. The real scientists call them on it. This means that the real scientists "resist the change" and are "dogmatic". If we reject their BS, it means that we persecute them, the same way the Inquisition persecuted Galilei, Giordano Bruno, etc.

In the meanwhile, science stagnates, since we act like the gestapo (Le Repeux own words to me) and "suffocate" their "new ideas".

MY main BURNING question I would like to prove is that there was no Big Bang .

Everything was not blown apart but just by as yet some unknown catalyst ( perhaps gravity ) started joining together, quickly . Like blowing up a surgical glove with a gas. The expansion is quick but "controlled" and proceeds in a specific manner after a set pattern. This would be on a Universal scale .

Fibonacci numbers.

 

Right on cue, couldn't ask for better proof of my post above. Who needs education when we can post any BS we want on the internet?

Edited September 23, 2014 by xyzt

[cladking]

 

 

Who is "we" in this? You certainly imply that you are not a scientist. How is it that you think you can speak for anyone but yourself?

 

People are on auto-pilot. I've seen brilliant people degraded by alzheimers disease and they can still carry on a perfectly reasonable conversation even after they've lost most of their cognitive reasoning and most of their memory. Speech and most thought is merely habit.

Why, Black holes are not compressing matter into an infinitesimally small space , they are dis- integrating it back into the state where it is no longer "normal' Matter and Energy but Dark Matter and Energy and expelling it back into the Universe.

 

 

 

By what mechanism does this expulsion occur?

 

Yes, language has a lot to do with the structure of our ideas, but why a communication tool should produce an idea that forces our other ideas to go straight line until it hurts?

 

 

Language isn't merely a tool for communication and the mechanism which drives human progress. It is the means we use to think. As such the tool defines the job that can be done. Modern science derives from modern metaphysics and lack of substantive progress in philosophy is the result of the weaknesses of language as a means of communication.

Aren't animals resisting to change too, and in some way, more drastically than humans? What about plants, what about rocks?

Ironically, it is those who have their own personal (and baseless) "theories" who are least likely to accept any new or alternative ideas. They are convinced that whatever they have thought of (whether a meaningless "theory of everything" or a fantasy of the origins of human language) must be True because they thought of it.

 

On the other hand, those who base their understanding of the world on a scientific approach are always open to new ideas by definition. Just provide the evidence to support it and it will be accepted.

 

I rarely see any evidence that anyone is willing to change their beliefs. It's easy (and accurate) to say scientists are willing to adopt new ideas with evidence but this does not apply so much to paradigm changing ideas.

 

Perhaps your experience is different? Who was the last priest you convinced that no Gods existed or scientist who came to accept religion? What paradigm upsetting science has even arisen in the recent past?

 

Do you guys really think people are paying these guys to sit around and not try to learn something new? Sheesh. Might want to double check that here...

 

Getting funding for "crazy" new ideas is not so easy. Even if there are military implications it can be difficult to get funding for anything that lies outside common beliefs. Grants are awarded by panels and ideas that are outside the experience of these people have almost no chance.

In their minds it goes like this: they post some stuff that is contradicted by existent science and, in many cases, by experiment. The real scientists call them on it. This means that the real scientists "resist the change" and are "dogmatic". If we reject their BS, it means that we persecute them, the same way the Inquisition persecuted Galilei, Giordano Bruno, etc.

In the meanwhile, science stagnates, since we act like the gestapo (Le Repeux own words to me) and "suffocate" their "new ideas".

 

 

 

One thing about ideas; the right ones always win in the long run. It may require persistance and patience but if it's right it will prevail. Of course this will no longer be true when we dip back into another dark ages. Ideas can die if they get more than a generation in age.

 

Right on cue, couldn't ask for better proof of my post above. Who needs education when we can post any BS we want on the internet?

 

 

I'm sure I don't understand much of the post but I don't know much of anything. While it might have been better to start another thread I'll give it a hearing. How do you know it's BS other than that it doesn't fit many current hypotheses? If it contradicts facts or logic why not mention it ands give the aurthor a chance to defend his definitions?

 

I don't necessarily support the idea but I doubt if God posted the unified field theory here it would be accepted by anyone unless, of course, it was accompanied by math that was understandable by some. Very few ideas that involved a lot of change have ever been embraced from the beginning.

[xyzt]

 

If it contradicts facts or logic why not mention it ands give the aurthor a chance to defend his definitions?

 

This is precisely what I do, I have plenty of arguments.

 

 

 

How do you know it's BS other than that it doesn't fit many current hypotheses?

 

 

I know that it is BS when the proponent:

 

-has no experimental evidence

-has no mathematical formalism (has only a long winded, rambling prose, like the one just posted by mephestopheles)

-is deaf to any factual counter-arguments

-other fringers come to the defense of the fringer that proposed the theory

 

 

 

Very few ideas that involved a lot of change have ever been embraced from the beginning.

 

What gets posted in this forum doesn't fall in that category. The reason? See above.

Edited September 24, 2014 by xyzt

[Le Repteux]

Pot sees bull shit in the kettle, xyzt!

Edited September 24, 2014 by Le Repteux

[Strange]

My Theory : Maybe something unthought of , Maybe Not.

All things are made up of smaller constituent particles. This has been demonstrated in so many different ways it hardly needs proof I would like to think.

 

This is certainly not novel. It also appears to be wrong. There is NO evidence that "all things are made up of smaller constituent particles". There are various theories (hypotheses) that fundamental particles may not be fundamental but currently there is no evidence for any of them.

 

I rarely see any evidence that anyone is willing to change their beliefs. It's easy (and accurate) to say scientists are willing to adopt new ideas with evidence but this does not apply so much to paradigm changing ideas.

 

There have been several paradigm-shifting new theories since the beginning of the 20th century. Several of them in my own lifetime.

 

So, again, the evidence shows you are wrong.

 

 

Who was the last priest you convinced that no Gods existed

 

I thought we were talking about science.

 

or scientist who came to accept religion?

 

There are many religious scientists. But again, this is nothing to do with science.

 

What paradigm upsetting science has even arisen in the recent past?

 

Really? Are you really that ignorant? No wonder you post so much nonsense.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "recent" but how about quantum theory, relativity, plate tectonics for starters.

 

Getting funding for "crazy" new ideas is not so easy. Even if there are military implications it can be difficult to get funding for anything that lies outside common beliefs. Grants are awarded by panels and ideas that are outside the experience of these people have almost no chance.

 

Obviously it is harder, but not impossible, to get funding for more extraordinary ideas. But to suggest that funding is only available to repeat the same work over again is not just wrong, it is ludicrously wrong.

 

One thing about ideas; the right ones always win in the long run.

 

Quite. Because, contrary to your idiotic statements, science works.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Note that the actual details of mephestopheles' conjecture has been split into a new thread for discussion
http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/85696-conjecture-by-mephestopheles-split-from-new-theories-are-trash/

 

Isn't it what a new law should be: universal? What is the use of proposing a new law that won't apply to everybody? Scientists are normal human beings, no?

 

 

Generally speaking, laws have limits on their applicability.

 

As to the "normal human beings" comment, I refer you to Bignose's response above. A common mistake in all this is to assume that your motivations and attitudes are shared by all others, or that just because there is a typical or average behavior, that all people engage in it, in all aspects of their life.

 

People are on auto-pilot. I've seen brilliant people degraded by alzheimers disease and they can still carry on a perfectly reasonable conversation even after they've lost most of their cognitive reasoning and most of their memory. Speech and most thought is merely habit.

 

 

As above, average or typical behavior is not the same as saying that all people engage in this, all the time, regarding everything. And to be honest, I'm not sure where this is meant to go. Are you equating scientists with Alzhheimers patients? But mainly I see this as "I'm guessing this is how science works by projecting this behavior onto science and scientists" without actually having a clue about how scientists go about doing their work.

Ironically, it is those who have their own personal (and baseless) "theories" who are least likely to accept any new or alternative ideas. They are convinced that whatever they have thought of (whether a meaningless "theory of everything" or a fantasy of the origins of human language) must be True because they thought of it.

 

On the other hand, those who base their understanding of the world on a scientific approach are always open to new ideas by definition. Just provide the evidence to support it and it will be accepted.

 

 

Very much the case — I have no personal, emotional interest in some idea someone else came up with being correct.

 

On the other hand, I have gotten very used to floating an idea and having it shot down by my colleagues, because it's what we do. All the frikkin' time. The first thing we do is try and tear it down — look for reasons why it won't work. Most are able to leave ego out of it, because most ideas are flawed and you have to let go of wrong ideas.

[cladking]

But to suggest that funding is only available to repeat the same work over again is not just wrong, it is ludicrously wrong.

 

 

 

This isn't what I said. I said that most research and experimentation is (quite naturally) going for to those building on existing theory. Those trying to work on projects and experiments that would overturn the existing paradigm find it (unnaturally) difficult to get funding.

 

 

 

Quite. Because, contrary to your idiotic statements, science works.

 

Who in the world said science doesn't work! I'm talking about the fundamental reasons it does work and how to make it work even better but this is paradigm changing so it's difficult for you to even see this.

[Le Repteux]

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

Edited September 24, 2014 by Le Repteux

[cladking]

 

 

As above, average or typical behavior is not the same as saying that all people engage in this, all the time, regarding everything. And to be honest, I'm not sure where this is meant to go. Are you equating scientists with Alzhheimers patients? But mainly I see this as "I'm guessing this is how science works by projecting this behavior onto science and scientists" without actually having a clue about how scientists go about doing their work.

 

 

We're talking about two distinct subjects. You're talking about scientists and I'm talking about human beings. Humans are infinitely flexible and all modern (human) scientists speak modern language. Despite this I'm trying to make a distinction between scientists who speak modern language and those who don't largely because humans are infinitely flexible and I don't know all modern scientists.

 

Even though people are infinitely flexible and can operate in more than a single mode there are some characteristics that apply to all humans and these include characteristics that can apply to all animals. Humans by definition have a characteristic that makes them distinct from other animals and this is complex language. It makes them distinct not because it allowed them to think themselves into existence as the modern convoluted thinking says but rather it makes us distinct because it allows human progress through IDEAS and the ability TO PASS KNOWLEDGE ACROSS GENERATIONS. It does not provide intelligence as we mistakingly believe. Scientists are not more intelligent than other people. There is no such thing as intelligence at all. There are only IDEAS which are a manifestation of clecerness but bot cleverness and ideas are both events rather than states.

 

This is all proved in myriad ways but people can't see it because of modern language which we use to think. How can you possibly see thatit's language that created humanity when your definition of humanity is lacking and you've already thought yourself into existence with no help from others or your parents? "I think therefore I am" virtually excludes all other precepts and connotes great intelligence especially among those of us who have great ideas like "I think therefore I am".

 

One of the characteristics of almost all animals is that a lot of behavior is habit. Animals will define a territory and exclude others. A man will likely keep his wallet in the same pocket day in and day out. Choosing words for a post to counter or respond to another will result from well worn paths in the brain. There's no intelligence in this post and no real cleverness but rather it is the result of two languages and years of habit. I've simply set by thinking to words directed at your statement. I can defend these words in more detail without breaking a sweat or having to come up with a new IDEA because this is all ground I've gone over endlessly. It's been necessary to go over it again and again because it isn't believed and it's not believed because language gives people a perspective that says it isn't true. Perspective is all important to communication and to understanding but it is irrelevant to reality. I believe what I'm saying is the reality and people don't see it because of perspective.

 

 

On the other hand, those who base their understanding of the world on a scientific approach are always open to new ideas by definition. Just provide the evidence to support it and it will be accepted.

 

Absolutely not.

 

Scientists are people. People can't see what they don't expect. Scientists don't see what they don't expect.

 

Scientists are trained to see what's there and sometimes we do. This doesn't mean that anyone can see the phenomena that would lead to the unified field theory. If anyone could see it then we'd know. Apparently there has to be more progress and new ideas before someone can see it serendipitously or correctly hypothesize where to look.

 

You along with a large percentage of the population and many many scientists have an incorrect view of how science and scientists work. This confusion is caused by language and can't be seen because it is the same language in which "all" scientists and "all" people think. It's not necessarily thought that is ever confused because we all know what we're thinking; it's perspective that is forced on us by language and existing paradigm.

[Le Repteux]

Generally speaking, laws have limits on their applicability.

Of course, I meant "universal" to human universe.

 

As to the "normal human beings" comment, I refer you to Bignose's response above. A common mistake in all this is to assume that your motivations and attitudes are shared by all others, or that just because there is a typical or average behavior, that all people engage in it, in all aspects of their life.

What if that mistake was a property of the mind? Don't we have to assume that a new idea will work before trying it? If you are convince that your idea is flawed, will you talk about it?

[swansont]

We're talking about two distinct subjects. You're talking about scientists and I'm talking about human beings.

But why? That's not the subject of the discussion. We're talking about scientists doing science or wannabe scientists proposing wannabe science.

 

 

Humans are infinitely flexible and all modern (human) scientists speak modern language. Despite this I'm trying to make a distinction between scientists who speak modern language and those who don't largely because humans are infinitely flexible and I don't know all modern scientists.

 

Even though people are infinitely flexible and can operate in more than a single mode there are some characteristics that apply to all humans and these include characteristics that can apply to all animals. Humans by definition have a characteristic that makes them distinct from other animals and this is complex language. It makes them distinct not because it allowed them to think themselves into existence as the modern convoluted thinking says but rather it makes us distinct because it allows human progress through IDEAS and the ability TO PASS KNOWLEDGE ACROSS GENERATIONS. It does not provide intelligence as we mistakingly believe. Scientists are not more intelligent than other people. There is no such thing as intelligence at all. There are only IDEAS which are a manifestation of clecerness but bot cleverness and ideas are both events rather than states.

You'e right that this isn't about scientists being more intelligent. t's about a way of thinking, which includes certain rigor that is lacking in many other endeavors humans undertake, and pretty much the opposite of some of them.

 

One of the characteristics of almost all animals is that a lot of behavior is habit. Animals will define a territory and exclude others. A man will likely keep his wallet in the same pocket day in and day out. Choosing words for a post to counter or respond to another will result from well worn paths in the brain. There's no intelligence in this post and no real cleverness but rather it is the result of two languages and years of habit. I've simply set by thinking to words directed at your statement. I can defend these words in more detail without breaking a sweat or having to come up with a new IDEA because this is all ground I've gone over endlessly. It's been necessary to go over it again and again because it isn't believed and it's not believed because language gives people a perspective that says it isn't true. Perspective is all important to communication and to understanding but it is irrelevant to reality. I believe what I'm saying is the reality and people don't see it because of perspective.

And yet it's fallacious to extrapolate such thinking beyond what you observe. So this is moot unless you show it happening in science.

 

 

Absolutely not.

 

Scientists are people. People can't see what they don't expect. Scientists don't see what they don't expect.

Bull. Science is rife with discoveries of things that were not expected. Radioactivity was not expected. Alpha particles rebounding from a gold foil was not expected. The peculiar deflection of silver atoms in an inhomogeneous magnetic field was not expected. The muon was unexpected (prompting I. I. Rabi to ask, "Who ordered that?"). The expanding universe was not expected.

 

Those are just the famous ones. Dealing with unexpected results happens regularly in the lab.

 

 

Scientists are trained to see what's there and sometimes we do. This doesn't mean that anyone can see the phenomena that would lead to the unified field theory. If anyone could see it then we'd know. Apparently there has to be more progress and new ideas before someone can see it serendipitously or correctly hypothesize where to look.

 

You along with a large percentage of the population and many many scientists have an incorrect view of how science and scientists work. This confusion is caused by language and can't be seen because it is the same language in which "all" scientists and "all" people think. It's not necessarily thought that is ever confused because we all know what we're thinking; it's perspective that is forced on us by language and existing paradigm.

 

It's pretty clear you have no real idea of what scientists are trained to do. You have your straw-man version of science and scientists, but like most (all) straw-men, it's crap.

[Le Repteux]

Cladking,

 

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

[Strange]

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

 

As I have lived through several paradigm shifts in different areas of science I assume you are not referring to me.

[swansont]

 

What if that mistake was a property of the mind? Don't we have to assume that a new idea will work before trying it? If you are convince that your idea is flawed, will you talk about it?

 

What convinces someone their idea is flawed? In science we prefer this to be empirical. And if that's the case, then I'll talk about it in terms of a failed idea (which can have merit, because someone may know how to fix the flaw) but not in the context of asserting I'm right like crackpots do.

[Strange]

 

Scientists are people. People can't see what they don't expect. Scientists don't see what they don't expect.

 

Right. That is why we have never had any scientific progress.

 

Scientists are creative and inquisitive by nature, and are trained to look at things in new ways to find unexpected results.

[Le Repteux]

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

Edited September 24, 2014 by Le Repteux

[Strange]

What if that mistake was a property of the mind? Don't we have to assume that a new idea will work before trying it? If you are convince that your idea is flawed, will you talk about it?

 

If you assume your idea will work then you will not be as critical of it as you need to be in order to test it to destruction.

 

That is the problem with most people who post their "personal theories" on forums like this; they don't just assume their idea is correct, they are absolutely convinced they cannot possibly be wrong and will reject all evidence to the contrary.

 

As a scientist (or engineer) you learn to start by saying, "what could be wrong? how can I test it? how can I eliminate other possibilities?"

 

Most new ideas probably get rejected within minutes, after a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation shows it to be wrong.

[Le Repteux]

What convinces someone their idea is flawed? In science we prefer this to be empirical. And if that's the case, then I'll talk about it in terms of a failed idea (which can have merit, because someone may know how to fix the flaw) but not in the context of asserting I'm right like crackpots do.

I don't consider that my ideas are right, and I am nevertheless considered as crackpot without my ideas being properly studied. How do you explain that?

If you assume your idea will work then you will not be as critical of it as you need to be in order to test it to destruction.

How can an engineer start to build a new structure while assuming that his idea might be wrong?

 

That is the problem with most people who post their "personal theories" on forums like this; they don't just assume their idea is correct, they are absolutely convinced they cannot possibly be wrong and will reject all evidence to the contrary.

As I said, I am not assuming that, and I am still considered as a crackpot. How do you explain that.

 

As a scientist (or engineer) you learn to start by saying, "what could be wrong? how can I test it? how can I eliminate other possibilities?"

Yes you do, but if it is a whole new structure, there still will be a doubt, no?

 

Most new ideas probably get rejected within minutes, after a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation shows it to be wrong.

 

Scientists are not the only ones to detect the problems with new theories, I do too quite often, but I respect people, and I will never say to them that their idea is idiot like you do. How is it so? Are some scientists less intelligent than me, a crackpot?

Edited September 24, 2014 by Le Repteux

[cladking]

 

Right. That is why we have never had any scientific progress.

 

Scientists are creative and inquisitive by nature, and are trained to look at things in new ways to find unexpected results.

 

 

I had said;

 

"Scientists are people. People can't see what they don't expect. Scientists don't see what they don't expect."

 

This is a virtual tautology and supported by a lot of research in the soft sciences. It is factual. I did not say scientists are less creative or inquisitive than other people. They are obviously not less creative or inquisitive than most people no matter how these terms are defined. The fact you could make a good case that artiusts turn out more painting on average than scientists do notwithstanding.

 

Of course they are trained to look for anomalous results. It's pretty much what scientists do. Of course scientists are better at seeing such things than most other people.

 

But scientists are still people and all people have a hard time seeing what they don't expect even when they are trained in proper scientific observation.

 

If you stick to the point and what I actually say then I will respond further.

[xyzt]

I don't consider that my ideas are right,

 

1. Yet , you keep pushing them. Why?

 

 

and I am nevertheless considered as crackpot

 

2. Why do you think that is the case? Must have something to do with point 1.

 

 

 

without my ideas being properly studied. How do you explain that?

 

3. Your "ideas" have been shot full of holes multiple times.

 

 

How can an engineer start to build a new structure while assuming that his idea might be wrong?

 

4. In mainstream science we don't. If, on the other hand, you keep pushing your fringe ideas, the only solution is to start building the prototypes, running the experiments, yourself. No scientist would waste his time trying to build prototypes from flawed theories, like yours.