Leaderboard

Wow. I was wrong on so many levels here. Haha thanks for the insight

Of course, here I must chime in... The definition of free will you use here implies that 'consciousness' must have the lead, if it is supposed to be genuine free will. But that is a definition that stems from (bad...) Christian theology. Most modern concepts of free will got rid of this inheritance, but obviously neurologists still haven't noticed. 'Free will' means that somebody recognises that he can act according his own reasons, and is not forced to go against them by somebody else. But 'according to' does not mean 'caused by'. You are (unconsciously?) using following argumentative strategy: Use a single, and outdated, heavily metaphysically loaden concept of free will Argue that this kind of free will does not exist Conclude that 'free will' in any meaningful sense does not exist. For the rest, I completely agree that we are 'wet robots'. But it nowhere follows that these 'wet robots' have no free will. The psychological trick with the word 'robot' is that we still imagine some kind of machine that might look like a motorised puppet. Reality is that our 'wet robotism' is many complexity levels above motorised puppets. wtf gives a perfect example of this equating a robot with a (computerised) puppet. A few remarks: - Qualia are no things in themselves. They can be completely analysed in terms of (brain) processes - No, I am not aware of my 'subjective self'. I am aware of things and processes around me, of feelings, thoughts, memories inside me, but I do not find a 'self'. Do you see your eyes (no, mirror or video do not count) - No I do not think I am 'executing a crude, physically implemented Turing machine'. I am a highly sophisticated process implemented in my body. This 'crude' is just rhetoric.

Please don't.

This one? http://www.tapir.caltech.edu/~teviet/Waves/empulse.html

"On April 10th 2019, the Event Horizon Telescope (EHT) Collaboration will present its first results in multiple simultaneous press conferences around the world, and many satellite events organized by its stakeholder and affiliated institutions. Press conferences will be held simultaneously in Brussels (in English), Lyngby (in Danish), Santiago (in Spanish), Shanghai (in Mandarin), Tokyo (in Japanese), Taipei (in Mandarin), and Washington D.C. (in English), starting at 13:00 Universal Time [...] Major press conferences will be streamed live online via the following channels: Brussels: European Comission Youtube Channel Tokyo: National Astronomical Observatory of Japan channels on Youtube and Niconico Washngton: National Science Foundation Live Stream " Simulations and expected results can be found here : https://eventhorizontelescope.org/simulations-gallery More informations : https://eventhorizontelescope.org/science What do you think/expect, are you excited ? I surely am!

Already covered but I thought it would be good to reiterate some of it: the difference between maximum and minimum there is not "seconds". The moon has a day that's about 27 Earth days long. So a rock on the surface (depending on where it is) might be in Sun for about 13.5 Earth days, then in darkness for 13.5 Earth days. It's over those time frames that the rock heats up and cools down. The idea that an astronaut is exposed to almost instant swings from max to min, when in sunlight or shadow doesn't make sense. The sun does not heat things up that fast (unless you're much closer!) and things don't lose heat that fast (especially in an almost vacuum). I'd also point out that the Apollo landings occurred in Lunar morning to avoid the extremes of heat: A good resource - http://www.clavius.org/envheat.html --- In terms of "dark spots", were you thinking that at some far distance you'd be "in between" rays of light coming from the sun? (Is this what you meant by "between the arrows" in your post after studiot's diagram?) Basically, there's so much light coming from the sun, at so many angles (and it's not actually a point source) that anywhere where you can see it at all, you'll not be "between" all the rays of light from it. Think of it as "bazillions" of arrows. An object will have more of those arrows hitting it when close, than when far away. But it's not going to be "between" all of the arrows. Looking at studiot's diagram, imagine another twenty arrows between the two drawn, and imagine the arc "A" is an actual metal plate. All of those arrows would hit the metal plate. If you move that plate out as far as "C" (but keep it the same size), then some of the arrows will pass to the left and right of it (so it won't get as hot). But some will still hit it. Instead of twenty arrows, now imagine a "bazillion". Space around the Sun is flooded with light. You'll not find a place where the plate is between all of the arrows (but if you keep moving further away you'll find eventually there are so few arrows hitting the plate, that they can't be detected.)

My take actually says that it is spacetime that is ringing and/or oscilating, analogous to gravitational waves and the Lense Thirring effect. Your last question is best answered imo simply by the fact that all frames of references are as valid as each other.

Then why did you introduce subquarks in the thread? How was it relevant? It does not improve the credibility of the speculations you provide regarding light.

Now I know this is a thread about Voodoo not Physics. First you deny that photons are particles suggest but they are actually scalar fields. Then you suggest that magnetic fields are actually particulate, with not one but two types of particle.

It is absurd to believe that "the government" acts with one mind, and that the inevitable outcome is likely death.

Loops have an area RL gives an area L = 2*pi*R*n where n is the number of loops RL = 2*Pi*R^2*n pi*R^2 is the area of a circle. Where does this equation show up in the paper? Page and equation number, please. What is the velocity referring to? Sagnac depends on rotation.

Who knows. There is some evidence that is the only stable configuration: From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

So it's not 'free' ?

Metaphysics? You can disprove a hypothesis with experimentation, but you can't prove a hypothesis with experimentation. An experiment can certainly support a hypothesis, but it cannot prove it. This is not new age metaphysics, it just logic and regular old normal physics.

I don't think your style of discussion works well on this forum. It may be successful in other contexts. bold by me: I don't think the concept of quarks was introduced until much later.

Well then that sort of dooms your whole idea, doesn't it? When shaving this morning I am fairly certain the person looking at me from the mirror was my reflection. Hypothesis falsified. I guess it is back to the 'drawing board'!

A given object will receive more light when close to the sun, than the same size object further away. Just stand close to a heater (say, an open fire) then move further away. The heat (IR light) is spreading as it moves away from the source. (Maybe think of a balloon. When it's small, a coin on the surface has a certain amount of rubber under it. Blow up the balloon some more, and the same coin will have less rubber under it, as it's been stretched out as the balloon expands to make the larger radius (representing further distance from sun)). On the other hand, the energy radiated out into space by the thumb, or coin, will be pretty much the same regardless.

Extremely unlikely. The core of galaxies tend to be Population I stars, which have lower metalicity than the Population II stars out in the disk. In addition, you need second generation stars (stars formed from remnants of Supernovae) to form stellar systems with the type of element diversity needed. All this takes time. Galaxy center black holes form early on during the Galaxy's formation. This formation could even start before the first stars came to life. ( just because it is made up of 6.5 billion solar masses worth of material doesn't mean that that material was in the form of stars to start with.) Also, during the early active part of its life, when it is gobbling up all the nearby material, collisions between the in-falling material produces a lot of energetic radiation. Until it settles down, this radiation would be too intense to allow life to take hold in the galaxy. Any civilizations would likely have risen long after the BH had finished growing for the most part.

To get back to the topic of the thread ... A nice overview of what we have learned from the first results from the EHT (including ruling out some alternative models): https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/04/11/10-deep-lessons-from-our-first-image-of-a-black-holes-event-horizon/ Also touches on some of the information we should get from further observation and analysis: polarisation data telling us about magnetic fields, the cause of flares from black holes, finding more black holes with the higher resolution now available.

If there is something biological about consciousness, such that a TM-equivalent computer cannot have consciousness, it raises an interesting question. We can (in principle) simulate all the internal chemical and physical processes of a cell. We can also simulate the interaction of multiple cells. So it would seem a logical conclusion that we could (again, in principle, ignoring the awesome complexity) simulate the interaction of all the cells that make up the brain (plus, if necessary, the rest of the nervous system, blood chemistry, hormone levels, external stimuli, etc). So if consciousness can't be created by a computer, it implies one (or more) of those stages has to be non-simulatable. But there is no obvious (to me!) reason why that should be the case. EDIT: I suppose that is almost the inverse of Searle's Chinese Room argument...

The meaning in your mind and mine, is nothing but "marks" upon neurons. Demonstrate that there is a significant difference between a bit and a neuron.

(I added bold font to your last sentence.) Yet here I am, reading a bunch of words, put there by flipping bits. Are you acknowledging your posts lack meaning?

Ah you see what you did there. I said consciousness is not computational. You immediately claimed that the alternative is nonphysical or metaphysical. You are implicitly assuming that the mind is a computation. Perhaps the mind is physical but not a computation. That is a perfectly sensible possibility, is it not? Computations are severely limited in what they can do. The human mind does not (to me) seem so constrained. In passing,I just happened to run across this a moment ago. Why Deep Learning is Not Really Intelligent and What This Means https://medium.com/@daniilgor/why-deep-learning-is-not-really-intelligent-and-what-this-means-24c21f8923e0 This relates to the present discussion as well as the similar one in the Computer section. I'm on the side of those who say that whatever consciousness is, it is not algorithmic in nature. That is in no way an appeal to the supernatural. It's an appeal to the profound dumbness of computations. They just flip bits. They can't represent meaning. One can be a physicalist yet not a computationalist.

Yes, emergence is a murky concept but there it is and we as 'wet' machines are proof of it.... unless you want to go all metaphysical on me. The task is to find the paths from which sentience/consciousness emerges. Dark matter and dark energy are 'murky' concepts but you don''t dismiss them do you?

Such an AI is still implemented on conventional computer hardware and can be executed line by line by a human with pencil and paper. So my questions still stand. Parallelism is still a Turing machine, just as your laptop can run a web browser and a word processor "at the same time." Any parallel computation can be implemented by a computation that just does one instruction at a time from each of the parallel execution threads, round-robin fashion. You get no new computational power from parallelism. Your point that simulation = reality is wrong IMO. If I simulate gravity in a program running on my laptop, nearby bowling balls are not attracted to my computer any more strongly than can be perfectly accounted for by the mass of my computer. Likewise a simulation of a brain would exhibit all the behavioral characteristics of a brain, lighting up the right areas in response to stimuli, for example. But it would not be any more conscious than my gravity simulator attracts bowling balls; which is to say, not at all. I don't want to get into a lengthy convo about emergence till you (or someone) responds to my questions. But emergence is a very murky concept. It doesn't explain anything. "What's consciousness?" "Oh, it's just emergence from complexity." "Well that tells me nothing!"

It emerges from the complexity of simultaneous operations; there isn't a 'point' at which it appears. That's like saying "At what point did we evolve from our most recent ancestor to what we are now?" or "How many grains of sand does it take to make a desert?" There comes a level of sufficient complexity that is indistinguishable from that which AI is trying to emulate. If it walks like a duck... If an AI performs every operation of a sentient being, it is sentient. The hardest thing to grasp is the idea of emergence; it's a major feature in biology.

A thought experiment. Suppose we have someday an AI that is self-aware. Suppose that this AI works on the same principles as conventional computers. That category would include all current implementations of machine learning AI's. And in the 80+ years since Church, Turing, and ‎Gödel worked out the limitations of formal symbolic systems. nobody has found any other model of computation that could be implemented by humans. Therefore its code could be equally well executed by a human using pencil and paper. Beginning programmers learn to "play computer" to figure out why their program's not working. You step through the code by hand. A human sits down with pencil and paper to execute the AI's code, one line at a time. Where is the consciousness? In the pencil? The paper? The "system?" What does that mean? Secondly, when doe the consciousness appear? In the initialization stage of the program? After a million iterations of the main loop? How does this work? If a computer starts executing instructions, at what point does it become self-aware? If it's not self aware after a million instructions have been executed, what makes it conscious after one more instruction? How is all this claimed to work?

I agree. I believe it is possible for AI to become sentient. What consciousness is and exactly how it works is still unknown. Are there degrees to consciousness (awakened, enlightened, etc), are there types (subconscious, unconscious, etc), and do all living things experience consciousness the same as human isn't totally understood. So how sentience may apply to AI is difficult to categorizes. In my opinion (seriously just an opinion I am aware it could be off) I think consciousness as experienced in humans is just an illusion. The senor inputs we receive aren't processed by our consciousness. Numerous decisions are made in the brain and projected into our consciousness as fully developed thoughts. A superficial example of this would be waking up in the morning and knowing you want eggs rather than cereal. The idea arrives complete. We do not consciously analyses how our stomach feel or our nutritional needs and then conclude eggs would be best. We just waking up and want eggs. Often in my case I wind up not even having eggs and am stuck eating cereal anyway, lol. Also the experience of sensor inputs can be manipulated in real time by our mind. Something which may feel debilitating as I am casually walking around the house may entirely go away if there were and emergency. We are not consciously throttling those inputs ourselves via decision making. It is done by our minds for us utilizing chemistry. I think consciousness in humans as we experience it exists to provide us with a personality. We have selected for personality well as intelligence. Between 2 people one with normal intelligence but a great personality and the other with great intelligence and normal personality I think the person with great personality would be considered more desirable to potential mates. Insufficient levels of either (personality or intelligence) is bad but it seems to me that when it comes to attracting a mate more than normal levels of intelligence doesn't seem to help where as additional levels of personality does. I think the sense of control over ourselves and our minds we consciously have is needed to have a personality as our actually true motivators are dry and fairly standard across the species. I realize I failed to define personality but that was for brevity as my views on consciousness overall are not the topic of this thread. I outlined it to set up the question of how would we know if AI were sentient? What would need to happen for us to identify an AI as sentient?

Right. So there is no point having any laws or police because it is not possible to protect anyone from criminals.

No, that's not what I said. Not really even close. It's off-topic if you do it in a mainstream science thread. That does not preclude you from starting a thread criticizing a mainstream theory — you can do that in speculations, as long as you live up to the expectations of rigor we have. And you've brought up such an issue in speculations, so presumably you already knew this. I don't think the rules are that hard to parse, especially for anyone presenting themselves as having some level of expertise in GR and quantum physics. It's not unreasonable to expect such a person to follow them. Again, you have done a poor job of reading the green. The restraint you showed is truly amazing.

"in the public interest" is a metaphor for "in the interests of the politcians or global elite."

im 64, what ive learned in that time is all politcians are lying two faced bastards who are thinking of their bank balances.

?????? A hypothesized spacetime quantization 'rescuing' classical GR from 'actual singularity' has NO bearing on that in either case such an 'extreme object' is, purely owing to existence of an EH, an event in the infinite future. Raise a Tooheys Blue to a blurry image exhibiting only the most basic features common to any generic metric theory of gravity? Umm...no. It is a fantastic technical achievement, so maybe that alone is a good enough excuse for you to keep swilling beer. But I shall reserve celebrations for the time - maybe not in our lifetime, when a final theory has been confirmed beyond any reasonable doubt. Via multiple observational methods. And GW 'astronomy' looks to be imo the best approach by far. 'Single-handedly responsible'?! This is a sad example of what I meant earlier by hype being rife. The many able-bodied physicists and engineers working tirelessly on the huge collaboration that is EHT would be perfectly justified in feeling slighted indeed insulted by that absurd claim.

There you go again - claiming certainty re validation of GR/BH's. Anyone with an ounce of caution would not use such commitment words. And btw the logical statement would have it "GR, and BH's as an extension" and not the reverse as you incorrectly worded it. Not just GR but various other, rival theories, have also 'passed another crucial test'. Something tacitly denied by the hyped pro-GR rhetoric. I don't need resorting to bold text to emphasize that point.

Whichever theory of gravity eventually proves true. Something bleeding obvious from preceding context I would have thought! Evidently whoever red carded me earlier here is not up to justifying it - as i requested be done. The trouble with anonymity - too easy.

Is it because they are Marxists (in the economic, cultural or racial sense)? Why the double standard? This is hardly a scientific attitude. Such people betray their agenda. After all a "racist" just thinks races are different and a "Marxist" thinks they are the same. I guess one side wants a monopoly on name calling. Also their sacred idols like (((Jared Diamond))) are above any criticism. Criticising a theory is "an agenda". Go figure. I notice the Marxist pseudoscientist swansont trashed my thread. I suppose then this is a Marxist forum. Rationalwiki is also like this. A Marxist forum calling itself a science forum.

You haven't done your homework on the subject at all. But I have. Please read the copious references posted earlier: right from the start, on the CORIOLIS effect formula. Then, you need to read Professor Yeh's papers, published by the US NAVAL RESEARCH OFFICE, and having been peer-reviewed in the Journal of Optics Letters: SAME formula as that derived by me. My derivation is flawless. The SAGNAC EFFECT is directly proportional to the RADIUS of rotation, and thus to the VELOCITY (v = R x ω). The CORIOLIS EFFECT is directly proportional to the AREA of the interferometer, thus this effect is much smaller in magnitude than the SAGNAC EFFECT. The SAGNAC EFFECT is an electromagnetic effect upon the velocities of the light beams. The CORIOLIS EFFECT is a physical effect upon the light beams. A light interferometer CAN detect and register/record BOTH the Sagnac effect and the Coriolis effect. CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2Self-pumped phase-conjugate fiber-optic gyro, I. McMichael, P. Yeh, Optics Letters 11(10):686-8 · November 1986 http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a170203.pdf (appendix 5.1) Look seriously into this subject, and you will discover/see that my formula is perfectly derived and thus is correct. You mentioned the ether. Ether = longitudinal waves (telluric currents) of subquarks = potential/scalar Whittaker waves Aether = medium through which these waves propagate/travel E.T. Whittaker, in 1904, showed that all EM fields and waves can be decomposed into differential functions of two scalar potentials. Each of these two base scalar potentials can be decomposed by Whittaker's earlier 1903 paper into a set of longitudinal EM waves. All EM fields, potentials, and waves are comprised of longitudinal EM waves and their internal dynamics. E.T. Whittaker, "On the Partial Differential Equations of Mathematical Physics," Math. Ann., Vol. 57, 1903, p. 333-355 (W-1903) http://www.cheniere.org/misc/Whittak/ORIw1903.pdfE.T. Whittaker, "On an Expression of the Electromagnetic Field Due to Electrons by Means of Two Scalar Potential Functions," Proc. Lond. Math. Soc., Series 2, Vol.1, 1904, p. 367-372 (W-1904)http://hemingway.softwarelivre.org/ttsoares/books_papers_patents/books%20papers%20patents%20(scientis/whittaker/whittaker%20et%20-%20on%20an%20expre.pdf The seminal Aharonov-Bohm paper:https://journals.aps.org/pr/pdf/10.1103/PhysRev.115.485 The Aharonov-Bohm effect, where potentials alone can interfere, even in the absence of EM force fields, and produce real force effects in charged particle systems. That is, the sole agent of the interference of scalar potentials can induce EM changes, according to the experimentally proven Aharonov-Bohm effect, even in the total absence of EM force fields. “What? Do you mean to tell me that I can tell you howmuch magnetic field there is inside of here by measuringcurrents through here and here – through wires whichare entirely outside – through wires in which there is nomagnetic field... In quantum mechanical interference experimentsthere can be situations in which classically therewould be no expected influence whatever. But neverthelessthere is an influence. Is it action at distance? No, A isas real as B-realer, whatever that means.” R. Feynman“throughout most of 20th century the Heaviside-Hertz form of Maxwell’s equations were taught to college students all over the world. The reason is quite obvious: the Heaviside-Hertz form is simpler, and exhibits an appealing near symmetry between E and H. With the widespread use of this vector-potential-less version of Maxwell’s equations, there arouse what amounted to a dogma: that the electromagnetic field resides in E and H. Where both of them vanish, there cannot be any electromagnetic effects on a charged particle. This dogma explains why when the Aharonov-Bohm article was published it met with general disbelief. . . E and H together do not completely describe the electromagnetic field, and. . . the vector potential cannot be totally eliminated in quantum mechanics. . . the field strengths underdescribe electromagnetism.”C.N. Yang, Nobel prize laureate https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4323049/The Aharonov-Bohm effect and its applications to electron phase microscopy, A. Tonomura (state of the art proofs of the Aharonov-Bohm effect) So, the Heaviside-Lorentz equations apply ONLY TO VECTOR FIELDS. But J.C. Maxwell published his original set of dynamical equations WHICH ARE INVARIANT UNDER GALILEAN TRANSFORMATIONS. https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/back-to-galilean-transformation-and-newtonian-physics-refuting-thetheory-of-relativity-2090-0902-1000198.php?aid=80761 "Maxwell's original EM theory was written in quaternions, which are an extension to the complex number theory and an independent system of mathematics. In short, since the quaternion is a hypernumber, Maxwell's theory was a hyperspatial theory -- not just the limited three-dimensional subset that was extracted and expressed by Heaviside and Gibbs in terms of an abbreviated, incomplete vector mathematics.Maxwell's quaternion theory was in fact a unified theory of electromagnetics and gravitation, and that the scalar component of the quaternion was the electrogravitational part. That part was discarded by Heaviside and Gibbs, and so electrogravitation no longer appears in the electromagnetics that resulted from Heaviside's and Gibbs' surgery on Maxwell's quaternion theory.” “It appears that the union of gravitation and Maxwell’s theory is achieved in a completely satisfactory way by the five-dimensional theory (Kaluza-Klein).” (Einstein to H. A. Lorentz, 16 February 1927)“Kaluza's roundabout way of introducing the five dimensional continuum allows us to regard the gravitational and electromagnetic fields as a unitary space structure”Einstein, A. & Bergman, P., On a Generalization of Kaluza's Theory of Electricity. In: Modern Kaluza-Klein Theories. Menlo Park: Addison-Wesley, p. 93."Hamilton's algebra of quaternions, unlike Heaviside's algebra of vectors, is not a mere abbreviated mode of expressing Cartesian analysis, but is an independent branch of mathematics with its own rules of operation and its own special theorems. A quaternion is, in fact, a generalized or hypercomplex number ..."H.J. Josephs ("The Heaviside Papers found at Paignton in 1957," Electromagnetic Theory by Oliver Heaviside)T. Kaluza, Zum Unitatsproblem der Physik, Sitz. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Phys.Math. K1 (1921) 966O. Klein, Quantentheorie und funfdimensionale Relativitatstheorie, Zeits.Phys. 37 (1926) 895In 1921, T. Kaluza showed that the gravitational and electromagnetic fields stem from a single universal tensor and such an intimate combination of the two interactions is possible in principle, with the introduction of an additional spacial dimension.In 1926, Oscar Klein provided an explanation for Kaluza’s fifth dimension by proposing it to have a circular topology so that the coordinate y is periodic i.e., 0 ≤ y ≤ 2πR, where R is the radius of the circle S1. Thus the global space has topology R4× S1.Kaluza-Klein compactification: although there are four space dimensions, one of the space dimensions is compact with a small radius.Theodor Kaluza and Oscar Klein were able to recover four dimensional gravity as well as Maxwell’s equations for a vector field.The extra space dimension somehow had collapsed down to a tiny circle "smaller than the smallest atom"."Klein theorized that Kaluza's new dimension likely had somehow collapsed down to the "Planck length" itself -- supposedly the smallest possible size allowed by these fundamental interactions: 10-33 cm.""Kaluza and Klein showed that this extra dimension would still have an effect on the space around us. In particular they showed that the effect of gravity in that very small fifth dimension would actually appear to us, from our larger-scale perspective, as electromagnetism." "The scalar portion of the original Maxwell equations expressed in quaternions was discarded (by Oliver Heaviside) to form "modern" EM theory; thus also the unified field interaction between electromagnetics and gravitation was discarded as well.The quaternion scalar expression has, in fact, captured the local stress due to the forces acting one on the other. It is focused on the local stress, and the abstract vector space, adding a higher dimension to it.One sees that, if we would capture gravitation in a vector mathematics theory of EM, we must again restore the scalar term and convert the vector to a quaternion, so that one captures the quaternionically infolded stresses. These infolded stresses actually represent curvature effects in the abstract vector space itself. Changing to quaternions changes the abstract vector space, adding higher dimensions to it.Quaternions have a vector and a scalar part and have a higher topology than vector and tensor analysis."

Let us not bring metaphysics into our technical discussions. It is unfortunate that a new age concept (no proof in physics) has found its way into the scientific mainstream. All physics is based on experiments. They either work or they don't. "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." Richard P. Feynman Then, using the language of mathematics we derive formulas which are correct. What is needed in physics is a new impetus, knowledge of the original equations published by Maxwell. "...the failure of the world's physicists to find such a (satisfactory) theory, after many years of intensive research," says Dirac, "leads me to think that the aetherless basis of physical theory may have reached the end of its capabilities and to see in the Aether a new hope for the future".Paul Dirac, the Nobel Prize winner in physics in 1933Scientific American, The Evolution of Physicists Picture of Nature, May 1963

..to not end up in jail.. ? like in the example that I just gave.... After revealing criminal/misbehave activity of employer and/or co-worker, environment in which they would work would be extremely unpleasant and hostile.. Working in such environment would be unhealthy. Didn't you hear about e.g. police officers who shot their partners, after they revealed misbehaving on duty? Here you have similar (quite extreme) case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Dorner_shootings_and_manhunt whistle-blower was discredited, and then fired from LAPD. Outraged started murdering police officers in revenge.. How can you protect somebody against criminals tossing illegal things for revenge for revealing their criminal activity.. ??