Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #540308 > unrolled thread

Re: Future Advances in Physics...

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Future Advances in Physics... "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2015-12-19 12:17 -0800
    Re: Future Advances in Physics... Timo <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-12-19 13:22 -0800
      Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-21 03:27 -0500
        Re: Future Advances in Physics... Timo <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-12-21 00:57 -0800
          Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-21 14:00 -0500
            Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-21 14:21 -0600
              Re: Future Advances in Physics... Timo <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-12-21 17:12 -0800
                Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-21 21:44 -0500
                  Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 07:53 -0600
                    Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 13:12 -0500
                      Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 12:34 -0600
                        Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 18:13 -0500
                          Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 08:14 -0600
                            Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 14:03 -0500
                              Re: Future Advances in Physics... HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 16:16 -0800
                                Re: Future Advances in Physics... "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 22:24 -0800
                                  Re: Future Advances in Physics... Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-12-27 14:03 -0800
                                    Re: Future Advances in Physics... HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-27 16:48 -0800
                      Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 12:38 -0600
                        Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 18:20 -0500
                          Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 08:16 -0600
                            Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 14:09 -0500
              Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-21 21:20 -0500
                Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 07:38 -0600
                  Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 13:03 -0500
                    Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 12:23 -0600
                      Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 17:56 -0500
                        Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 17:46 -0600
                          Re: Future Advances in Physics... HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 20:11 -0800
                            Re: Future Advances in Physics... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 05:14 -0800
                              Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 08:21 -0600
                                Re: Future Advances in Physics... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 00:48 -0800
                                  Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 11:13 -0600
                Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 07:44 -0600
                  Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 13:05 -0500
                    Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 12:28 -0600
                      Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 18:03 -0500
                        Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 10:14 -0600
                          Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 10:32 -0600
                            Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 22:00 -0500
                          Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 21:57 -0500
                            Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 11:12 -0600
                              Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 21:19 -0500
                                Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 13:03 -0600
                                  Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 14:12 -0500
                                    Re: Future Advances in Physics... "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 22:22 -0800

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#540308 — Re: Future Advances in Physics...

On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 11:38:40 PM UTC-8, benj wrote:
(Top-posting, just this once)

  Benj, why did you crosspost to alt.sci.physics of you won't bother reading replies there?

  Anyway.

> Where does the future of physics lie?

  Same place it always has and always will, just beyond "Hmm, that's odd".

> So, you want to be the next "Einstein" developing the next big thing in
> physics. Where you do investigate?

  IIRC Einstein wasn't a professional physicist when he published his first "big thing".

> Spend a lot of tax money to smash
> things together and then name all the pieces? Pretty much like studying
> architecture by grinding up bricks and studying the dust under a
> microscope.

  Ya know, that looks like a false analogy, but it's not. Architecture is just castles in the sky without an understanding of materials and their properties.

> Well, if you look on the INTERNET, it's pretty clear that most current
> efforts are all along the lines of word games, proving Relativity
> "wrong" and obscure mathematical complexity.

  A very very few perform or even suggest experiments. Most as you say play word games by e. g. challenging the mainstream interpretation of MMX.

> In a way it's just an imitation of Einstein who everyone imagines just
> cranked out a complex mathematical theory that nobody understands off
> the top of his genius head.
>
> But discoveries really don't work that way, even with Einstein it
> started with a simple thing. In his case was the question if Galileo's
> theory of relativity held for electromagnetic phenomena. It did.
>
> The point here, gentle reader, is that while so many today in physics
> strain mightily with obscure mathematics and word games that literally
> make no logical sense in an attempt to "explain" how up is really down
> and black is really white and nothing at all can have "behavior", the
> place one needs to look for the "next big thing", is on the list of
> "forbidden" topics.
>
> As Professor Benade (who I used to work for once) told me: Don't be like
> the guy who lost a quarter over there but is looking over here because
> the light is better!

  I think I've told you that I like "hard" science fiction. That's the kind that allows one or two scientific impossibilities (or "new" science) like faster-than-light travel, time travel, gravity control, stuff like that.

  One of my favorite stories (Cities In Flight) has a Government effort to achieve FTL that begins with searching through what publishers call the slush pile- theories that are way outside the mainstream. They stumble across an obscure theory that not only ties together gravity, electromagnetism, spin, and momentum but also yields a technology to manipulate them (the spindizzy), and the story takes off.

  The fun part is that the obscure theory in the story was extrapolated by the author from a real theory which, sadly, was falsified by its originator after the story was published.

> Point is while strategic writers like HVAC and Odd try to ridicule any
> mention of a forbidden topic and discourage any actual investigation,
> this is exactly where the next advances will occur. They say, these
> things can't be real (never looking at the actual data, of course)
> because there is no theory to explain them! Ding! Ding! Ding!

  Some of that is about philosophical investment in resource allocation; "Why spend money on flashy space rockets when we have starving children living in the streets? Why spend money on remote viewing when spy cameras are proven tech?"

  Some of it is religious bias; "Such things are sorcery".

  Some of it is materialist reductionism; "If I can't see it, hold it in my hand, or build an instrument to detect it, it ain't real".

  In any case, yes, "there can't be a theory to explain it because we won't look for one" is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

> It is the very FACT that there is no theory that "explains" them that
> shows that they NEED to be studied! So today there is a HUGE list of
> "forbidden topics" that are off-limits to official support and
> publication and it is little wonder that official physics has lapsed
> into some monster word game of people trying to "explain" the universe
> using ever more and more illogical and meaningless "explanations".

  Meaning is the key here. For the materialist, meaning is utility (E=mc^2 -> nuclear bombs/reactors). For the mathematically inclined it is "elegance", and for experimentalists it's predictive power.

  What meaning do you have in mind?

  Also, why do you assume the Universe gives a crap about human logic?

> So if you think that "remote viewing" or ESP or PK are not "real" and
> are all hoaxes, it probably means you somehow are so lazy that you just
> accept some anonymous voice on the INTERNET who proclaims infallible
> omniscient truth because he says he does. And that means you are NEVER
> going to amount to diddly shit in science no matter how many people
> swoon over your complex mathematics and how many editors make sure your
> screed hits the "big" journals. Sic Transit Gloria Mundi.  Got it?

  Such fields are only taken seriously by those who have direct personal experience in them. There are exceptions like Rhine, who had no personal experiences of his own but looked relatively carefully for evidence that others had.

  I find it really hard to blame those who doubt the existence of a thing because they've had no experience of it.

  It's hard (for me, anyway) to give the same credence to someone who claims he has spoken with a deity as to someone who claims that the Earth moves through space, yet there seem to be a lot of people who would believe the first over the second.

  What can you do?


  Mark L. Fergerson

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#540324

On Sunday, December 20, 2015 at 6:17:11 AM UTC+10, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 11:38:40 PM UTC-8, benj wrote:
> 
> > So, you want to be the next "Einstein" developing the next big thing in
> > physics. Where you do investigate?
> 
>   IIRC Einstein wasn't a professional physicist when he published his first "big thing".

Between PhD and academic position. The job market back then wasn't walk-into-tenure.

His PhD work was mainstream statistical mechanics (thermodynamics). A relatively new and innovative field at the time. His "big things":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annus_Mirabilis_papers
included stuff straight from that work (Brownian motion, for long his most-cited paper, though iirc the approach of 2005 changed that), and (at least some of) the others were influenced by it.

The Einstein lesson is that if you want to overthrow orthodox physics in a revolution, do a PhD in orthodox physics. Revolution comes from the inside.

As for "forbidden", he published his revolutionary work in mainstream physics journals. Many of the older generation of German physicists immediately recognised the quality and value of his work. He got the tail end of the multiple Nobel Prizes for the thermodynamics of light (Wien and Planck got the others). To try to redo Einstein, train within the system, do a PhD within the system, and have a Good Idea. Publish. And don't be surprised if you end up working in patent law after your PhD (this part still happens today).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#540573

On 12/19/2015 04:22 PM, Timo wrote:
> On Sunday, December 20, 2015 at 6:17:11 AM UTC+10, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
>> On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 11:38:40 PM UTC-8, benj wrote:
>>
>>> So, you want to be the next "Einstein" developing the next big thing in
>>> physics. Where you do investigate?
>>
>>    IIRC Einstein wasn't a professional physicist when he published his first "big thing".
>
> Between PhD and academic position. The job market back then wasn't walk-into-tenure.
>
> His PhD work was mainstream statistical mechanics (thermodynamics). A relatively new and innovative field at the time. His "big things":
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annus_Mirabilis_papers
> included stuff straight from that work (Brownian motion, for long his most-cited paper, though iirc the approach of 2005 changed that), and (at least some of) the others were influenced by it.
>
> The Einstein lesson is that if you want to overthrow orthodox physics in a revolution, do a PhD in orthodox physics. Revolution comes from the inside.
>
> As for "forbidden", he published his revolutionary work in mainstream physics journals. Many of the older generation of German physicists immediately recognised the quality and value of his work. He got the tail end of the multiple Nobel Prizes for the thermodynamics of light (Wien and Planck got the others). To try to redo Einstein, train within the system, do a PhD within the system, and have a Good Idea. Publish. And don't be surprised if you end up working in patent law after your PhD (this part still happens today).
>
I will not review the history of this situation except to note that 
Einstein never got a Nobel prize for any "relativity" work even though 
the everyone in the world were falling all over themselves proclaiming 
he was science God of the Cosmos. Coincidence?

-- 
         ___           ___           ___            ___
        /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
       /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
      /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
     /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
    /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
    \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
     \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
      \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
       \_:/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
                      \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#540576

On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 6:27:33 PM UTC+10, benj wrote:
> On 12/19/2015 04:22 PM, Timo wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 20, 2015 at 6:17:11 AM UTC+10, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 11:38:40 PM UTC-8, benj wrote:
> >>
> >>> So, you want to be the next "Einstein" developing the next big thing in
> >>> physics. Where you do investigate?
> >>
> >>    IIRC Einstein wasn't a professional physicist when he published his first "big thing".
> >
> > Between PhD and academic position. The job market back then wasn't walk-into-tenure.
> >
> > His PhD work was mainstream statistical mechanics (thermodynamics). A relatively new and innovative field at the time. His "big things":
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annus_Mirabilis_papers
> > included stuff straight from that work (Brownian motion, for long his most-cited paper, though iirc the approach of 2005 changed that), and (at least some of) the others were influenced by it.
> >
> > The Einstein lesson is that if you want to overthrow orthodox physics in a revolution, do a PhD in orthodox physics. Revolution comes from the inside.
> >
> > As for "forbidden", he published his revolutionary work in mainstream physics journals. Many of the older generation of German physicists immediately recognised the quality and value of his work. He got the tail end of the multiple Nobel Prizes for the thermodynamics of light (Wien and Planck got the others). To try to redo Einstein, train within the system, do a PhD within the system, and have a Good Idea. Publish. And don't be surprised if you end up working in patent law after your PhD (this part still happens today).
> >
> I will not review the history of this situation except to note that 
> Einstein never got a Nobel prize for any "relativity" work even though 
> the everyone in the world were falling all over themselves proclaiming 
> he was science God of the Cosmos. Coincidence?

Might be partly due to the fact that a whole bunch of people came up with the maths of special relativity before Einstein. Einstein contributed a nice first-principles derivation of that maths, but the results were already there. For GR, he was more in the front. But Nobel Prize favours practical results, and thermodynamics is more practical than SR/GR, so that's the Nobel Prize.

Do you think that the Nobel committees should favour celebrity scientists? If not, nothing to worry about.

Plenty of good revolutionary science misses out on Nobel Prizes. So what?

The point remains: he was trained within the system, published within the system, and the system accepted the revolutionary results. No outsiders involved.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#540652

On 12/21/2015 03:57 AM, Timo wrote:
> On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 6:27:33 PM UTC+10, benj wrote:
>> On 12/19/2015 04:22 PM, Timo wrote:
>>> On Sunday, December 20, 2015 at 6:17:11 AM UTC+10, nu...@bid.nes
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 11:38:40 PM UTC-8, benj
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So, you want to be the next "Einstein" developing the next
>>>>> big thing in physics. Where you do investigate?
>>>>
>>>> IIRC Einstein wasn't a professional physicist when he published
>>>> his first "big thing".
>>>
>>> Between PhD and academic position. The job market back then
>>> wasn't walk-into-tenure.
>>>
>>> His PhD work was mainstream statistical mechanics
>>> (thermodynamics). A relatively new and innovative field at the
>>> time. His "big things":
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annus_Mirabilis_papers included
>>> stuff straight from that work (Brownian motion, for long his
>>> most-cited paper, though iirc the approach of 2005 changed that),
>>> and (at least some of) the others were influenced by it.
>>>
>>> The Einstein lesson is that if you want to overthrow orthodox
>>> physics in a revolution, do a PhD in orthodox physics. Revolution
>>> comes from the inside.
>>>
>>> As for "forbidden", he published his revolutionary work in
>>> mainstream physics journals. Many of the older generation of
>>> German physicists immediately recognised the quality and value of
>>> his work. He got the tail end of the multiple Nobel Prizes for
>>> the thermodynamics of light (Wien and Planck got the others). To
>>> try to redo Einstein, train within the system, do a PhD within
>>> the system, and have a Good Idea. Publish. And don't be surprised
>>> if you end up working in patent law after your PhD (this part
>>> still happens today).
>>>
>> I will not review the history of this situation except to note
>> that Einstein never got a Nobel prize for any "relativity" work
>> even though the everyone in the world were falling all over
>> themselves proclaiming he was science God of the Cosmos.
>> Coincidence?
>
> Might be partly due to the fact that a whole bunch of people came up
> with the maths of special relativity before Einstein. Einstein
> contributed a nice first-principles derivation of that maths, but the
> results were already there. For GR, he was more in the front. But
> Nobel Prize favours practical results, and thermodynamics is more
> practical than SR/GR, so that's the Nobel Prize.
>
> Do you think that the Nobel committees should favour celebrity
> scientists? If not, nothing to worry about.
>
> Plenty of good revolutionary science misses out on Nobel Prizes. So
> what?
>
> The point remains: he was trained within the system, published within
> the system, and the system accepted the revolutionary results. No
> outsiders involved.

So you subscribe to the idea that unless you are "one of us" you can not
be allowed to contribute anything and anything you try to contribute
should be censored, suppressed and tainted so that nobody will dare
discuss it?  And of curse implicit in this is the old argument that one 
may not criticize what we are doing unless you are one of us (and of 
course once you ARE one of us you've been indoctrinated with the "proper 
ideas" and we control your career to keep you in line should you choose 
to step out for some inexplicable reason!)



-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#540670

On 12/21/2015 1:00 PM, benj wrote:
> On 12/21/2015 03:57 AM, Timo wrote:
>> On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 6:27:33 PM UTC+10, benj wrote:
>>> On 12/19/2015 04:22 PM, Timo wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, December 20, 2015 at 6:17:11 AM UTC+10, nu...@bid.nes
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 11:38:40 PM UTC-8, benj
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> So, you want to be the next "Einstein" developing the next
>>>>>> big thing in physics. Where you do investigate?
>>>>>
>>>>> IIRC Einstein wasn't a professional physicist when he published
>>>>> his first "big thing".
>>>>
>>>> Between PhD and academic position. The job market back then
>>>> wasn't walk-into-tenure.
>>>>
>>>> His PhD work was mainstream statistical mechanics
>>>> (thermodynamics). A relatively new and innovative field at the
>>>> time. His "big things":
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annus_Mirabilis_papers included
>>>> stuff straight from that work (Brownian motion, for long his
>>>> most-cited paper, though iirc the approach of 2005 changed that),
>>>> and (at least some of) the others were influenced by it.
>>>>
>>>> The Einstein lesson is that if you want to overthrow orthodox
>>>> physics in a revolution, do a PhD in orthodox physics. Revolution
>>>> comes from the inside.
>>>>
>>>> As for "forbidden", he published his revolutionary work in
>>>> mainstream physics journals. Many of the older generation of
>>>> German physicists immediately recognised the quality and value of
>>>> his work. He got the tail end of the multiple Nobel Prizes for
>>>> the thermodynamics of light (Wien and Planck got the others). To
>>>> try to redo Einstein, train within the system, do a PhD within
>>>> the system, and have a Good Idea. Publish. And don't be surprised
>>>> if you end up working in patent law after your PhD (this part
>>>> still happens today).
>>>>
>>> I will not review the history of this situation except to note
>>> that Einstein never got a Nobel prize for any "relativity" work
>>> even though the everyone in the world were falling all over
>>> themselves proclaiming he was science God of the Cosmos.
>>> Coincidence?
>>
>> Might be partly due to the fact that a whole bunch of people came up
>> with the maths of special relativity before Einstein. Einstein
>> contributed a nice first-principles derivation of that maths, but the
>> results were already there. For GR, he was more in the front. But
>> Nobel Prize favours practical results, and thermodynamics is more
>> practical than SR/GR, so that's the Nobel Prize.
>>
>> Do you think that the Nobel committees should favour celebrity
>> scientists? If not, nothing to worry about.
>>
>> Plenty of good revolutionary science misses out on Nobel Prizes. So
>> what?
>>
>> The point remains: he was trained within the system, published within
>> the system, and the system accepted the revolutionary results. No
>> outsiders involved.
>
> So you subscribe to the idea that unless you are "one of us" you can not
> be allowed to contribute anything and anything you try to contribute
> should be censored, suppressed and tainted so that nobody will dare
> discuss it?  And of curse implicit in this is the old argument that one
> may not criticize what we are doing unless you are one of us (and of
> course once you ARE one of us you've been indoctrinated with the "proper
> ideas" and we control your career to keep you in line should you choose
> to step out for some inexplicable reason!)
>

I didn't read that into anything Timo said. He was explaining, and I 
agree, that lots of revolutionary physics is done all the time, and it 
is rewarded with attention and impact if it pans out. Nobel prizes are 
awarded for that kind of work. So the statement that revolutionary 
physics is unilaterally suppressed is just an obvious falsehood.

He went on to say, and I agree, that revolutionary physics seems to be 
almost always done by those are well trained by the physics 
establishment and who publish in physics establishment publication 
channels. It is almost always done by professional physicists, and you'd 
be hard pressed to find a Nobel prize winner that wasn't.

This doesn't say that everyone else is being "disallowed" from talking 
about "forbidden" subjects. What you will find is that lack of attention 
for amateur physicists working on forbidden subjects is almost always 
due to the crappy work done by them.


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#540721

On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 6:21:26 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> 
> I didn't read that into anything Timo said. He was explaining, and I 
> agree, that lots of revolutionary physics is done all the time, and it 
> is rewarded with attention and impact if it pans out. Nobel prizes are 
> awarded for that kind of work. So the statement that revolutionary 
> physics is unilaterally suppressed is just an obvious falsehood.
> 
> He went on to say, and I agree, that revolutionary physics seems to be 
> almost always done by those are well trained by the physics 
> establishment and who publish in physics establishment publication 
> channels. It is almost always done by professional physicists, and you'd 
> be hard pressed to find a Nobel prize winner that wasn't.

Marconi and Dalen come to mind; industrial scientists. Dalen was an engineer rather than a physicist. Marconi studied under Righi, and Dalen did a PhD. Not outsiders, even if not mainstream physicists.

> This doesn't say that everyone else is being "disallowed" from talking 
> about "forbidden" subjects. What you will find is that lack of attention 
> for amateur physicists working on forbidden subjects is almost always 
> due to the crappy work done by them.

The lack of attention for professional physicists working on "forbidden" subjects (they exist, and their papers are often published) is also almost always due to the crappy work done by them. It isn't an amateur/professional divide, or an insider/outsider divide. Just a question of quality.

Amateurs still do a lot of useful discovery in science (in astronomy and biology, usually). Amateurs tend to do useful routine work, rather than useful revolutionary work.

Before the professionalisation (proletarianisation?) of science, amateurs regular did lots of revolutionary stuff, but that's because most scientists were amateurs. Note well that "amateur" was not the same as "outsider" back then. Faraday would be closest to an "outsider", but he worked in the system.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#540736

On 12/21/2015 08:12 PM, Timo wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 6:21:26 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin
> wrote:
>>
>> I didn't read that into anything Timo said. He was explaining, and
>> I agree, that lots of revolutionary physics is done all the time,
>> and it is rewarded with attention and impact if it pans out. Nobel
>> prizes are awarded for that kind of work. So the statement that
>> revolutionary physics is unilaterally suppressed is just an obvious
>> falsehood.
>>
>> He went on to say, and I agree, that revolutionary physics seems to
>> be almost always done by those are well trained by the physics
>> establishment and who publish in physics establishment publication
>> channels. It is almost always done by professional physicists, and
>> you'd be hard pressed to find a Nobel prize winner that wasn't.
>
> Marconi and Dalen come to mind; industrial scientists. Dalen was an
> engineer rather than a physicist. Marconi studied under Righi, and
> Dalen did a PhD. Not outsiders, even if not mainstream physicists.
>
>> This doesn't say that everyone else is being "disallowed" from
>> talking about "forbidden" subjects. What you will find is that lack
>> of attention for amateur physicists working on forbidden subjects
>> is almost always due to the crappy work done by them.
>
> The lack of attention for professional physicists working on
> "forbidden" subjects (they exist, and their papers are often
> published) is also almost always due to the crappy work done by them.
> It isn't an amateur/professional divide, or an insider/outsider
> divide. Just a question of quality.

Nonsense. To use my example, Kervran was a professor and government 
science official The "plausible" rejection of "forbidden" topics is 
always that the work is crappy!  And who would bother to actually check. 
Works every time! The "spin" always implies that any data taken in one 
of these areas is all incompetent. It's so funny how "all-knowing" 
science is when talking about official topics but once the topic strays 
all doctors, chemists, physicists, etc. are somehow all totally 
incompetent and aren't capable of even the most basic measurements!  If 
you are going to make that charge you ought to have something to back it 
up. Nobody ever does. But it doesn't matter because nobody ever demands 
that you prove YOUR work.

> Amateurs still do a lot of useful discovery in science (in astronomy
> and biology, usually). Amateurs tend to do useful routine work,
> rather than useful revolutionary work.

Glib. Even to rate one's "science" as amateur vs professional is 
nonsense. Through history the contributions by "amateurs" ha been very 
revolutionary. However the usual scene is that the amateurs are 
ridiculed and "debunked" by the "professionals" who assure everyone the 
ideas are nonsense, and then they quietly and slow adopt the ideas 
ascribing them to people within the closed society so they are given 
"proper" credit where it "belongs".

> Before the professionalisation (proletarianisation?) of science,
> amateurs regular did lots of revolutionary stuff, but that's because
> most scientists were amateurs. Note well that "amateur" was not the
> same as "outsider" back then. Faraday would be closest to an
> "outsider", but he worked in the system.

So you you finally get to the point I was just making. Probably a more 
clear definition of "amateur" is needed for this discussion. I mean were 
Pons and Fleischman "amateurs"? Where they nutjobs? Were they 
incompetent? (we won't ask the question which is actually irrelevant of 
were they right?) They started INSIDE the system but ended up OUTSIDE 
the system by studying the "wrong" thing.

-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#540794

On 12/21/2015 8:44 PM, benj wrote:
> Nonsense. To use my example, Kervran was a professor and government
> science official The "plausible" rejection of "forbidden" topics is
> always that the work is crappy!  And who would bother to actually check.
> Works every time! The "spin" always implies that any data taken in one
> of these areas is all incompetent. It's so funny how "all-knowing"
> science is when talking about official topics but once the topic strays
> all doctors, chemists, physicists, etc. are somehow all totally
> incompetent and aren't capable of even the most basic measurements!  If
> you are going to make that charge you ought to have something to back it
> up. Nobody ever does. But it doesn't matter because nobody ever demands
> that you prove YOUR work.

I think it's worth noting that when Pons and Fleischman announced their 
results, the very next day there were at least twelve research teams 
that went about the business of trying to replicate their results. 
Notice that they did not fold their arms and denounce the results as 
crappy work -- they actually got down to doing the work. Unfortunately, 
each and every one of the research groups had difficulty replicating the 
claimed results. So then they went to the Pons and Fleischman team, 
asking for more details of their setup and their method, in case there 
was something that they weren't doing right. That's when they found out 
that the original team was being a little squishy about those details, 
and that they had omitted certain fundamental steps to rule out 
background. There is PLENTY of documentation about those lapses.

Note that Pons and Fleischman were well-trained and well-credentialed 
and had solid reputations prior to conducting this work. So it's not 
like they had a bad reputation that would prompt immediate dismissal.

The point is, here is a case where reputable people presented a result, 
which was treated seriously and pursued scientifically in the best 
manner possible. And yet it was still uncovered to be crappy work by 
otherwise capable people.

Now, in other cases, it's easier to spot when someone is doing crappy 
work, and the work gets dismissed a whole lot more quickly. Perhaps your 
work falls into this category.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#540832

On 12/22/2015 08:53 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 12/21/2015 8:44 PM, benj wrote:
>> Nonsense. To use my example, Kervran was a professor and government
>> science official The "plausible" rejection of "forbidden" topics is
>> always that the work is crappy!  And who would bother to actually check.
>> Works every time! The "spin" always implies that any data taken in one
>> of these areas is all incompetent. It's so funny how "all-knowing"
>> science is when talking about official topics but once the topic strays
>> all doctors, chemists, physicists, etc. are somehow all totally
>> incompetent and aren't capable of even the most basic measurements!  If
>> you are going to make that charge you ought to have something to back it
>> up. Nobody ever does. But it doesn't matter because nobody ever demands
>> that you prove YOUR work.
>
> I think it's worth noting that when Pons and Fleischman announced their
> results, the very next day there were at least twelve research teams
> that went about the business of trying to replicate their results.
> Notice that they did not fold their arms and denounce the results as
> crappy work -- they actually got down to doing the work. Unfortunately,
> each and every one of the research groups had difficulty replicating the
> claimed results. So then they went to the Pons and Fleischman team,
> asking for more details of their setup and their method, in case there
> was something that they weren't doing right. That's when they found out
> that the original team was being a little squishy about those details,
> and that they had omitted certain fundamental steps to rule out
> background. There is PLENTY of documentation about those lapses.
>
> Note that Pons and Fleischman were well-trained and well-credentialed
> and had solid reputations prior to conducting this work. So it's not
> like they had a bad reputation that would prompt immediate dismissal.
>
> The point is, here is a case where reputable people presented a result,
> which was treated seriously and pursued scientifically in the best
> manner possible. And yet it was still uncovered to be crappy work by
> otherwise capable people.
>
> Now, in other cases, it's easier to spot when someone is doing crappy
> work, and the work gets dismissed a whole lot more quickly. Perhaps your
> work falls into this category.

The easiest way to judge the quality of work is to look at publications. 
If there are many, it's average. If it's suppressed then it may be a 
very important new idea that is too powerful to be allowed out. If it 
not in that class then probably credit will be stolen or the suppressed 
work as it is reworded and published by those with "credentials" as 
media fawns over the "new" ideas. One can always tell what is going on 
just by watching what the Lib media (people like you) are told to say 
about it. Nonsense and incompetence is usually just ignored by everyone 
unless media is told to get breathless about it to throw it into the air 
as chaff to confuse everyone (especially the public) with regard to 
ideas that are to be ridiculed for suppression.
The hoax is you.



-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#540842

On 12/22/2015 12:12 PM, benj wrote:
> The easiest way to judge the quality of work is to look at publications.
> If there are many, it's average. If it's suppressed then it may be a
> very important new idea that is too powerful to be allowed out.

Ben, please. This is your paranoid delusion kicking in. There are TWO 
reasons why a subject might have a low number of publications. One is 
that it is terrible science that no one is able to replicate, like the 
result of Pons and Fleischman. The other possible reason is that it is 
novel but threatening somehow and it gets suppressed as being "too 
powerful to be allowed out". Now, which of these is MORE LIKELY to be 
the most common reason?

Keep in mind that there have been lots of very powerful and very 
important new ideas that have generated LOTS of publications. That's a 
historical fact. So given that, why would only the "forbidden" ideas be 
the ones that are suppressed?

Again, I believe what's going on with you is that you are frustrated 
that ideas YOU are interested in are not getting many publications, and 
you can't seem to swallow the likelihood that you've been pursuing crap 
science. Because you view yourself as a GOOD scientist, and so the stuff 
you're interested in couldn't possibly be crap science, right?

> If it
> not in that class then probably credit will be stolen or the suppressed
> work as it is reworded and published by those with "credentials" as
> media fawns over the "new" ideas. One can always tell what is going on
> just by watching what the Lib media (people like you) are told to say
> about it. Nonsense and incompetence is usually just ignored by everyone
> unless media is told to get breathless about it to throw it into the air
> as chaff to confuse everyone (especially the public) with regard to
> ideas that are to be ridiculed for suppression.
> The hoax is you.


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#540923

On 12/22/2015 01:34 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 12/22/2015 12:12 PM, benj wrote:
>> The easiest way to judge the quality of work is to look at publications.
>> If there are many, it's average. If it's suppressed then it may be a
>> very important new idea that is too powerful to be allowed out.
>
> Ben, please. This is your paranoid delusion kicking in. There are TWO
> reasons why a subject might have a low number of publications. One is
> that it is terrible science that no one is able to replicate, like the
> result of Pons and Fleischman. The other possible reason is that it is
> novel but threatening somehow and it gets suppressed as being "too
> powerful to be allowed out". Now, which of these is MORE LIKELY to be
> the most common reason?

Odd please. Don't tell us again now governments don't lie, how 
politicians all have the citizen's best interests at heart, how nothing 
is ever classified, how ufos have not been covered up for years. yada 
yada yada. Nobody buys that tripe anymore.

> Keep in mind that there have been lots of very powerful and very
> important new ideas that have generated LOTS of publications. That's a
> historical fact. So given that, why would only the "forbidden" ideas be
> the ones that are suppressed?

Not going to explain this to you. You are probably dishonest enough to 
already know the answer.

> Again, I believe what's going on with you is that you are frustrated
> that ideas YOU are interested in are not getting many publications, and
> you can't seem to swallow the likelihood that you've been pursuing crap
> science. Because you view yourself as a GOOD scientist, and so the stuff
> you're interested in couldn't possibly be crap science, right?

You are really the pop psychologist, aren't you? You know all about me! 
Sure. Why are you anonymous? Scared? Incompetent? Worried about your pop 
psychology patients looking you up? Yawn. Nobody gives a crap about your 
parrot lies (as someone here likes to say). There is more to life than 
publications. The people who paid me were happy enough with the quality 
of the work.  And I'm CERTAIN they'd never hire you even to sweep the 
floor (unless you are black).

Your idea of science is fantasy and dreamland. Turn off your TV, cancel 
all your subscriptions, stop seeing movies and get a REAL education. The 
best way to do that is to first, sign up to help with some candidate's 
campaign and then run for office yourself. You will end up REALLY educated!


-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#541035

On 12/22/2015 5:13 PM, benj wrote:
> On 12/22/2015 01:34 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 12/22/2015 12:12 PM, benj wrote:
>>> The easiest way to judge the quality of work is to look at publications.
>>> If there are many, it's average. If it's suppressed then it may be a
>>> very important new idea that is too powerful to be allowed out.
>>
>> Ben, please. This is your paranoid delusion kicking in. There are TWO
>> reasons why a subject might have a low number of publications. One is
>> that it is terrible science that no one is able to replicate, like the
>> result of Pons and Fleischman. The other possible reason is that it is
>> novel but threatening somehow and it gets suppressed as being "too
>> powerful to be allowed out". Now, which of these is MORE LIKELY to be
>> the most common reason?
>
> Odd please. Don't tell us again now governments don't lie, how
> politicians all have the citizen's best interests at heart, how nothing
> is ever classified, how ufos have not been covered up for years. yada
> yada yada. Nobody buys that tripe anymore.

Ben, you are all black and white. Yes, governments have lied. This does 
not mean that the government lies ALL THE TIME. Yes, some scientists 
have committed fraud. This does not mean that nothing that scientists do 
can be trusted.

>
>> Keep in mind that there have been lots of very powerful and very
>> important new ideas that have generated LOTS of publications. That's a
>> historical fact. So given that, why would only the "forbidden" ideas be
>> the ones that are suppressed?
>
> Not going to explain this to you. You are probably dishonest enough to
> already know the answer.

Really, if you don't have an explanation that makes sense, then I think 
that says a lot.

>
>> Again, I believe what's going on with you is that you are frustrated
>> that ideas YOU are interested in are not getting many publications, and
>> you can't seem to swallow the likelihood that you've been pursuing crap
>> science. Because you view yourself as a GOOD scientist, and so the stuff
>> you're interested in couldn't possibly be crap science, right?
>
> You are really the pop psychologist, aren't you? You know all about me!

No, I don't know all about you. But I know a bit about you, and so can 
anybody else who just listens to you rant for just a little while.

> Sure. Why are you anonymous? Scared? Incompetent? Worried about your pop
> psychology patients looking you up? Yawn. Nobody gives a crap about your
> parrot lies (as someone here likes to say). There is more to life than
> publications.

That's what you tell yourself. But it still stings doesn't it?

> The people who paid me were happy enough with the quality
> of the work.  And I'm CERTAIN they'd never hire you even to sweep the
> floor (unless you are black).
>
> Your idea of science is fantasy and dreamland. Turn off your TV, cancel
> all your subscriptions, stop seeing movies and get a REAL education. The
> best way to do that is to first, sign up to help with some candidate's
> campaign and then run for office yourself. You will end up REALLY educated!

I think you should consider the fact that there are lots of people with 
as much experience as you, as much insider contact, and they don't have 
the bitterness and cynicism that you carry around with you. Why do you 
suppose that is?


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#541107

On 12/23/2015 09:14 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 12/22/2015 5:13 PM, benj wrote:
>> On 12/22/2015 01:34 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> On 12/22/2015 12:12 PM, benj wrote:
>>>> The easiest way to judge the quality of work is to look at
>>>> publications.
>>>> If there are many, it's average. If it's suppressed then it may be a
>>>> very important new idea that is too powerful to be allowed out.
>>>
>>> Ben, please. This is your paranoid delusion kicking in. There are TWO
>>> reasons why a subject might have a low number of publications. One is
>>> that it is terrible science that no one is able to replicate, like the
>>> result of Pons and Fleischman. The other possible reason is that it is
>>> novel but threatening somehow and it gets suppressed as being "too
>>> powerful to be allowed out". Now, which of these is MORE LIKELY to be
>>> the most common reason?
>>
>> Odd please. Don't tell us again now governments don't lie, how
>> politicians all have the citizen's best interests at heart, how nothing
>> is ever classified, how ufos have not been covered up for years. yada
>> yada yada. Nobody buys that tripe anymore.
>
> Ben, you are all black and white. Yes, governments have lied. This does
> not mean that the government lies ALL THE TIME. Yes, some scientists
> have committed fraud. This does not mean that nothing that scientists do
> can be trusted.
>
>>
>>> Keep in mind that there have been lots of very powerful and very
>>> important new ideas that have generated LOTS of publications. That's a
>>> historical fact. So given that, why would only the "forbidden" ideas be
>>> the ones that are suppressed?
>>
>> Not going to explain this to you. You are probably dishonest enough to
>> already know the answer.
>
> Really, if you don't have an explanation that makes sense, then I think
> that says a lot.

Did I say I didn't have an explanation? I said I wasn't gong to take 
time to explain it to YOU.  Keep your fantasy going, Boinker. Reality is 
such a bore!

>>
>>> Again, I believe what's going on with you is that you are frustrated
>>> that ideas YOU are interested in are not getting many publications, and
>>> you can't seem to swallow the likelihood that you've been pursuing crap
>>> science. Because you view yourself as a GOOD scientist, and so the stuff
>>> you're interested in couldn't possibly be crap science, right?
>>
>> You are really the pop psychologist, aren't you? You know all about me!
>
> No, I don't know all about you. But I know a bit about you, and so can
> anybody else who just listens to you rant for just a little while.

You know nothing. Psychology is a science and you know nothing of 
science. How do you feel about that?

>> Sure. Why are you anonymous? Scared? Incompetent? Worried about your pop
>> psychology patients looking you up? Yawn. Nobody gives a crap about your
>> parrot lies (as someone here likes to say). There is more to life than
>> publications.
>
> That's what you tell yourself. But it still stings doesn't it?

No. Go to church Boinker and learn there is more to life than fame, 
money, adulation, etc. One small unknown person can change the world in 
ways that reverberate through the seep of history. Trust me on this.

>> The people who paid me were happy enough with the quality
>> of the work.  And I'm CERTAIN they'd never hire you even to sweep the
>> floor (unless you are black).
>>
>> Your idea of science is fantasy and dreamland. Turn off your TV, cancel
>> all your subscriptions, stop seeing movies and get a REAL education. The
>> best way to do that is to first, sign up to help with some candidate's
>> campaign and then run for office yourself. You will end up REALLY
>> educated!
>
> I think you should consider the fact that there are lots of people with
> as much experience as you, as much insider contact, and they don't have
> the bitterness and cynicism that you carry around with you. Why do you
> suppose that is?

You are a hoot, boinker. You think truth is bitterness and facts are 
cynicism. You are SO out of touch with reality. Go back to your wooden 
toys and fantasies.



-- 
         ___           ___           ___            ___
        /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
       /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
      /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
     /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
    /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
    \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
     \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
      \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
       \_:/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
                      \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#541176

No. Go to church Boinker and learn there is more to life than fame, 
money, adulation, etc. One small unknown person can change the world in 
ways that reverberate through the seep of history. Trust me on this.
----------

I almost shat myself laughing after reading that. You're seriously kooky BJ. Congratulations 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#541749

On Thursday, December 24, 2015 at 2:16:05 AM UTC+2, HVAC wrote:
> No. Go to church Boinker and learn there is more to life than fame, 
> money, adulation, etc. One small unknown person can change the world in 
> ways that reverberate through the seep of history. Trust me on this.
> ----------
> 
> I almost shat myself laughing after reading that. You're seriously kooky BJ. Congratulations

=======================
F EN PSYCHOPATH 
==============================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#541836

On Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 10:24:23 PM UTC-8, Y.Porat wrote:
> On Thursday, December 24, 2015 at 2:16:05 AM UTC+2, HVAC wrote:
> > No. Go to church Boinker and learn there is more to life than fame, 
> > money, adulation, etc. One small unknown person can change the world in 
> > ways that reverberate through the seep of history. Trust me on this.
> > ----------
> > 
> > I almost shat myself laughing after reading that. You're seriously kooky BJ. Congratulations
> 
> =======================
> F EN PSYCHOPATH 
> ==============================


Shat?  Did you pick up that past tense from Shakespeare?  

Double-A

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#541856

- show quoted text -
Shat?  Did you pick up that past tense from Shakespeare?   
----------

South Park

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#540844

On 12/22/2015 12:12 PM, benj wrote:
> If it not in that class then probably credit will be stolen or the
> suppressed work as it is reworded and published by those with
> "credentials" as media fawns over the "new" ideas.

So, Ben, you claim to be part of this closed society of scientists that 
have suppressed the work of outsiders. I take your comment above then to 
suggest that you have stolen the work of non-credentialed researchers, 
reworded it, and then published it under your own name?

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#540924

On 12/22/2015 01:38 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 12/22/2015 12:12 PM, benj wrote:
>> If it not in that class then probably credit will be stolen or the
>> suppressed work as it is reworded and published by those with
>> "credentials" as media fawns over the "new" ideas.
>
> So, Ben, you claim to be part of this closed society of scientists that
> have suppressed the work of outsiders. I take your comment above then to
> suggest that you have stolen the work of non-credentialed researchers,
> reworded it, and then published it under your own name?

I obviously am not responsible for ALL the acts of those in the closed 
society. I certainly have been on the receiving end of those acts, 
however. I also have seen a really skilled, knowledgeable, and competent 
person passed over for lab director in favor of me (tee hee) because he 
wasn't one of "us". You know, the way YOU would be passed over in favor 
of me, no matter how competent and skilled you are!

Not fair, but just how it is.
-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web