From Classical Music to Dualing Banjos

[dennislmay]

Physicists who developed legacy physics liked this:

The present generation - inbred - timely publication?

- insiders only need apply.

[dennislmay]

Physicists who developed legacy physics liked this:

The present generation - inbred - timely publication?

- insiders only need apply.

I have been discussing my physics work by e-mail with one of my uncles by marriage - he is a retired engineering professor with an interest in physics - his neice works in General Relativity modeling of black holes.

I'm sure one of his next questions is why I haven't published my work - this summarizes my views nicely.

Dennis

[BaalChatzaf]

Physicists who developed legacy physics liked this:

The present generation - inbred - timely publication?

- insiders only need apply.

I have been discussing my physics work by e-mail with one of my uncles by marriage - he is a retired engineering professor with an interest in physics - his neice works in General Relativity modeling of black holes.

I'm sure one of his next questions is why I haven't published my work - this summarizes my views nicely.

Dennis

Have your theories been corroborated by replicated experiments. A simple yes or no will suffice.

If yes, point to published reliable professional articles are the experiments and replications.

If no, you have exhaled hot air. You have even less to show then those dandies who publish very esoteric papers on branes.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Steve Gagne]

deleted

[BaalChatzaf]

Physicists who developed legacy physics liked this:

The present generation - inbred - timely publication?

- insiders only need apply.

I have been discussing my physics work by e-mail with one of my uncles by marriage - he is a retired engineering professor with an interest in physics - his neice works in General Relativity modeling of black holes.

I'm sure one of his next questions is why I haven't published my work - this summarizes my views nicely.

Dennis

Until you get experimental verification and that reproduced and corroborated by independent parties, you have very little but a fond wish.

Real physics has to be backed up ( or falsified) by real experiment.

Drawing moustaches on physicists is not sufficient.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[dennislmay]

Real physics has to be backed up ( or falsified) by real experiment.

I agree which is why the current tenured generation of theoretical physicists are - with only a few exceptions - unqualified to evaluate new physics - they have spent entire careers on string theory and related work supported by no experimental evidence whatsoever. Experiment is required but who is qualified to corroborate the work is an interesting question.

Dennis

[syrakusos]

It's pretty easy in this day and age. We even have online journals. You show your apparatus and describe your experiments and state your conclusions. It is "the proof of the pudding" and all that, you know. Cold fusion met a quick death when the results could not be duplicated. If you look at the first dry process ("xerox") copier that Chester Carlson hauled around looking for a company to make it, you have to admit that no one is expecting polished chrome, just something that works as predicted.

[dennislmay]

It's pretty easy in this day and age. We even have online journals. You show your apparatus and describe your experiments and state your conclusions. It is "the proof of the pudding" and all that, you know. Cold fusion met a quick death when the results could not be duplicated. If you look at the first dry process ("xerox") copier that Chester Carlson hauled around looking for a company to make it, you have to admit that no one is expecting polished chrome, just something that works as predicted.

Since the APS doesn't understand the basic requirements of science and modeling when it comes to global warming, the foremost research institutes of theoretical physics are all involved in non-science, and all of the major journals are insiders only unless you want to wait years for every editorial change order - I am not hopeful that any new science can get a fair hearing. Yes anyone can publish in some online journals just like anyone can self-publish, put out advertisements, or create a dedicated website. That does not imply a fair hearing.

It seems that bypassing the gatekeepers and taking the work directly to the market seems the only way to go. That means fighting the charge of pseudoscience leveled by the well funded and connected gatekeepers from the start.

Dennis

[dennislmay]

It's pretty easy in this day and age. We even have online journals. You show your apparatus and describe your experiments and state your conclusions. It is "the proof of the pudding" and all that, you know. Cold fusion met a quick death when the results could not be duplicated. If you look at the first dry process ("xerox") copier that Chester Carlson hauled around looking for a company to make it, you have to admit that no one is expecting polished chrome, just something that works as predicted.

Since the APS doesn't understand the basic requirements of science and modeling when it comes to global warming, the foremost research institutes of theoretical physics are all involved in non-science, and all of the major journals are insiders only unless you want to wait years for every editorial change order - I am not hopeful that any new science can get a fair hearing. Yes anyone can publish in some online journals just like anyone can self-publish, put out advertisements, or create a dedicated website. That does not imply a fair hearing.

It seems that bypassing the gatekeepers and taking the work directly to the market seems the only way to go. That means fighting the charge of pseudoscience leveled by the well funded and connected gatekeepers from the start.

Dennis

The whole problem boils down to gatekeepers and the bureaucracies that create and sustain them. If you have a good functional culture with minimal corruption gatekeepers serve to protect. If you have a disfunctional culture full of corruption gatekeepers serve the continuation of the corrupt culture.

Mainstream science has incorporated mystical elements and models upon models upon models detached from reality. The primary problems seem to exist in theoretical physics & astronomy [philosophical] and climate sciences [political]. Big science projects [colliders and fusion] cross into the economic and political.

How to deal with incompetent bureaucrats and various gatekeepers is an endless subject in the sciences and engineering. It is often a daily subject stretching on for years and years in engineering.

I don't believe there is a one size fits all solution in dealing with incompetence, corruption, and a bad culture in portions of the sciences. Bypassing the gatekeepers in one form or another seems the only solution but it involves risks because gatekeepers in a corrupt culture often seek to destroy [personally and financially] those who bypass them and will engage their media connections to help in that effort.

Dennis

[BaalChatzaf]

Classical (Newtonian) gravitation has been empirically falsified.

Classical Electrodynamics (a la Maxwell) does not cope with the photo electric effect.

Quantum Field Theory and Quantum Electrodynamics kicks ass and is good to 12 significant digits.

However wrong General Theory of Relativity is, it does account for the gravitational red shift (which Newtonian physics does not) and is the basis for the GPS. It also account for gravitational lensing of light.

What works works and what does not work, does not work.

Science has two levels of value: The epistemological level -- empirical correctness and empirical completeness. All theories fail to some extent here.

second level --- cash value. What technologies does the science lead to and guide?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[dennislmay]

Quantum Field Theory and Quantum Electrodynamics kicks ass and is good to 12 significant digits.

In a handful of ideal examples where the systems are simple enough to calculate. Most

calculations are simplifications having nowhere near that kind of precision.

Epicycles and similar theories also work well in some ideal cases. In any case you're

talking about theory from 2 and 3 generations ago - What has the current stagnant

generation done for us in the way of fundamental theory? Why is the wonderful

Quantum Field Theory and Quantum Electrodynamics not able to explain gravity? [among

a great many other things remaining unexplained].

Could it be that success has created a legacy theory which is also a dead end?

Dennis

[BaalChatzaf]

Quantum Field Theory and Quantum Electrodynamics kicks ass and is good to 12 significant digits.

In a handful of ideal examples where the systems are simple enough to calculate. Most

calculations are simplifications having nowhere near that kind of precision.

Epicycles and similar theories also work well in some ideal cases. In any case you're

talking about theory from 2 and 3 generations ago - What has the current stagnant

generation done for us in the way of fundamental theory? Why is the wonderful

Quantum Field Theory and Quantum Electrodynamics not able to explain gravity? [among

a great many other things remaining unexplained].

Could it be that success has created a legacy theory which is also a dead end?

Dennis

Because the gravitational field is not like the electromagnetic field. Gravity sucks.

And Nature is under no obligation to make it easy for us to find out how She works.

Ba'al Chatzaf