ADMITTED GAPS IN SCIENCE

[dalemiller]

Scientists acknowledge some of the gaps in our understanding of the world or cosmos. For example, the relative rarity of lightning out on the high seas: http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf019/sf019p10.htm

 

Who would like to kick that one around? Many texts admit uncertainty about how lightning really comes about. How about that one? Even when the consensus is but a shrug and a funny face, whatever we come up with will be called pseudoscience because the approved solution is to have no idea. Hopefully, those of us who are retired are relatively free to ignore the pressure and bounds of organized agendas. Who in the world can force us to play dumb? Trying to think beats crosswords and Sudokus all day long. A comical gap is acknowledged for sun spots. They wonder how sunspots and solar flares create vortexes on stellar surfaces. Golly, we get whirlpools on Earth without their help. But watch out when you see muddled cause and effect like that because the muddlers are big shots. We are safer staying within the out-and-out gaps.

 

It would be great to find or make a list of gaps in science. Maybe we could get on a roll that way.

[CaptainPanic]

[...]Even when the consensus is but a shrug and a funny face, whatever we come up with will be called pseudoscience because the approved solution is to have no idea. [...]

Stuff gets called pseudoscience because it's not properly based on observations and experiments that can be repeated.

 

What you mean is that a number of people get frustrated because their fantastic ideas get refused by the scientific community, and they themselves just fail to understand why it's not accepted.

 

Hopefully, those of us who are retired are relatively free to ignore the pressure and bounds of organized agendas. Who in the world can force us to play dumb? Trying to think beats crosswords and Sudokus all day long. A comical gap is acknowledged for sun spots. They wonder how sunspots and solar flares create vortexes on stellar surfaces. Golly, we get whirlpools on Earth without their help. But watch out when you see muddled cause and effect like that because the muddlers are big shots. We are safer staying within the out-and-out gaps.

 

It would be great to find or make a list of gaps in science. Maybe we could get on a roll that way.

I think that it is more a political issue than a scientific one. Former presidents occasionally have a very strong opinion that goes against the current. But in science, this is not so much the case... I really do not like the way you present the scientific world as deliberately keeping everybody dumb. There is no conspiracy by the scientists against the world.

 

Maybe there are a few fields that have some gaps that are deliberately maintained. Certainly, if two groups of scientists have conflicting theories, they will fight and try to come out on top... which, I must add, is a healthy test for those theories. They will be scrutinized and mistakes will be found.

 

And then finally, there are some fields which have relatively few real experts and lots of fans. Astronomy is an example... there is only a handful of people who studied it, but almost everybody has looked up to the stars... and therefore lots of people have an opinion. In astronomy there are some fields that are very conservative. For example, the discussion between some people who like the theory of the "electric universe", and the more traditional scientists. The articles that I read about it did not debunk the theory of the electric universe to a satisfactory level, and seemed to ignore some important things. I should immediately add that I am no expert. But you cannot expect that experts constantly debunk every theory that the laymen come up with. And if there is sufficient proof that the new theory has some merits, then I am confident that the scientific world will ultimately embrace it.

 

So, if you really have a good theory, then you may have to fight for it, but you should get there eventually.

What you seem to suggest is a very different approach: you seem to suggest that the agenda of the scientific world should be set by what you personally think is the best idea. But that's no how it works.

 

It's certainly not a perfect system, and some ideas get ignored when they should instead be embraced... but it's by no means as bad as you seem to suggest.

[swansont]

An article from 1982 raises the question of what's been studied in the last 29 years. But a big question is also what constitutes a gap. Science knowledge is far from complete, that's a given. (If it isn't then one is proceeding from a false premise). So how much has to be missing for there to be a "gap?" Is it that the phenomenon is well-known rather than cutting-edge, and that the question has been unanswered for a long period of time?

 

A comical gap is acknowledged for sun spots. They wonder how sunspots and solar flares create vortexes on stellar surfaces. Golly, we get whirlpools on Earth without their help. But watch out when you see muddled cause and effect like that because the muddlers are big shots. We are safer staying within the out-and-out gaps.

 

I don't think implying incompetence is going to get you very far in the discussion. But on the topic of sunspots, they are making progress

http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/8080

[michel123456]

If you make a catalog of gaps today, and compare to a catalog of gaps of the 19th Century, you will see that the catalog has increased. That is because the answer of one gap raises more than one question.

 

IMHO the gaps are the ocean, and the answers are some boats with scientists.

[CaptainPanic]

I think that the number of gaps in science approaches infinite, especially if you include gaps that we don't know of yet.

[ajb]

I think that the number of gaps in science approaches infinite, especially if you include gaps that we don't know of yet.

 

"There are known knowns; there are things we know we know.

We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know.

But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know." - Donald Rumsfeld, 2002.

 

That quote works all over the place on so may different levels. These must be the wisest words ever spoken...

 

But in all seriousness, science is a lot like that. More importantly, without gaps, that is open questions and the emergence of new open questions, scientists would be out of work. Engineering would be the whole drive.

[DrRocket]

But in all seriousness, science is a lot like that. More importantly, without gaps, that is open questions and the emergence of new open questions, scientists would be out of work. Engineering would be the whole drive.

 

Right, without open questions science would be moribund. Previous predictions that ultimate knowledge of fundamental rules was "just around the corner" have fallen a wee bit short of the mark.

 

The big difference between a research scientist and a crackpot is that the scientist knows what is known and what is not known and concentrates his efforts on that which is not known. The crackpot questions fundamental theories, within their domain of validity, ignoring the mountain of experimental evidence that supports those theories.

 

Vision [math] \ne [/math] Hallucination

 

Open mind [math] \ne [/math] Empty head

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

"There are known knowns; there are things we know we know.

We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know.

 

But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know." - Donald Rumsfeld, 2002.

 

 

These are the really interesting ones ! These are the ones going on under our very noses , in the depths of the atoms, or in the far reaches of the cosmos.

 

Some interesting scientist ( can't remember who) once said " if you look over the edge you will always see something you did not expect, or is interesting". I think we should do more Blue sky research. Bernard Lovelle of Jodrel Bank (The big dish Radio waves) said " If we do not do more blue sky research , we will bankrupt our future of new discoveries and developement."

 

xx So, who's for looking over the edge ? xx

 

 

[dalemiller]

 

I don't think implying incompetence is going to get you very far in the discussion. But on the topic of sunspots, they are making progress

http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/8080

 

I don't think that pointing out what appears to be a most ironic fallacy amounts to characterizing anyone of incompetence. At the moment that I comprehended just how an avalanching regeneration is prevented where fusing plasma occurs, the sole event that I could imagine to prevent such protection was the penetration of a vortex through fusing strata. Logical consideration of the description and impact of an exceptional pressure gradient upon such strata presented a description close the Rob Roy Britt's sunspots description from the previous decade. As far as I could see, a supposition for a magnetic block to stellar convection is unsupported and could be totally ignored. It seems but a placeholder for the localized bipolar regeneration phenomenon that would account for sunspots. I sought to consult him without receiving a reply. The issue I would pursue is with his expressed hope of discovering how the sunspot brings on any vortex, and I cannot imagine a sunspot that was not originated by an existing vortex in the first place.

 

Prior to any opportunity to justify a theory it seems natural to evolve the theory in the first place. Hence, my logical convictions that I believe bear no speculation brought me to an account of why solar flares would emerge from sheathing of sunspots and how any surplus of electrons at stellar surfaces would rise upon such flares attuned to exceedingly low frequencies and some of them would be subject to be carried back down by gravity upon dollops of plasma. The magnetic polarity produced by falling plasma charged to the same polarity as the rising plasma would account for the opposing magnetic polarities observed on the solar surface. Again, magnetic phenomena observed might represent another reversal of cause and effect.

 

If your immediate informant is not among the "they" you refer to who are making progress, then I would be proud to discover who they are in order to offer my expertise. Explanation of the solar flares seems here to require the same concepts that appear to support my theory of lightning formation. Surely, all due progress is in good hands, but is it absurd for an outsider to believe that he has found some useful insight?

[swansont]

is it absurd for an outsider to believe that he has found some useful insight?

 

Statistically speaking, yes. It is much more likely that you don't understand the breadth and/or depth of the problem.

[dalemiller]

Stuff gets called pseudoscience because it's not properly based on observations and experiments that can be repeated.

 

What you mean is that a number of people get frustrated because their fantastic ideas get refused by the scientific community, and they themselves just fail to understand why it's not accepted.

 

 

I think that it is more a political issue than a scientific one. Former presidents occasionally have a very strong opinion that goes against the current. But in science, this is not so much the case... I really do not like the way you present the scientific world as deliberately keeping everybody dumb. There is no conspiracy by the scientists against the world.

 

 

 

It's certainly not a perfect system, and some ideas get ignored when they should instead be embraced... but it's by no means as bad as you seem to suggest.

 

"Pseudoscience" is a swear. Einstein wouldn't have looked for gravitational bending unless he had thought of it beforehand.

Nobody likes to take a bum rap.

 

"Fantastic ideas" is a swear. There are screwballs everywhere. If you just want to play the odds, its a very safe bet that the next guy you meet will be a real jackass. But stay the rope.

 

Honestly, I was not complaining, but just looking for safer venue than to challenge any mutual admiration society. The only dumbing down I would justify would be to stay inside the lines drawn by consensus if possible. But trying to do that is not so easy. Learning that nobody knows how lightning is formed (although I imagine that I do) would mean that there need be no defender of a consensus to fight me off. Wrong again - the consensus is that nobody knows and there are defenders to be encountered if I go there. My theory for polar jets has practical demonstration within millions of TV sets. It also explains why lightning so often enters open windows. If I told you about it, there would be that "false-scientist" sign hung around my neck. So be it. My only point is to seek out truths unprotected by the masters of all they survey.

 

Am just looking for safe refuge. By the way though, is it not foolhardy to challenge man-made global warming? "The debate is over." for crap sakes. Or cosmic acceleration? My cigarette butt. What flavor is your anti-neutrino? Is that really stuff properly based on observations and experiments that can be repeated? Whatever, that that is is that that is so I will not complain.

 

Shouldn't a forum exist somewhere that fits its definition: a place where anybody can kick an idea around? A little less "king of the hill" would be nice. Control freaks are taking over my favorite nation. The soap box is passing like an old buggy whip.

[swansont]

"Pseudoscience" is a swear. Einstein wouldn't have looked for gravitational bending unless he had thought of it beforehand.

Nobody likes to take a bum rap.

 

"Fantastic ideas" is a swear. There are screwballs everywhere. If you just want to play the odds, its a very safe bet that the next guy you meet will be a real jackass. But stay the rope.

 

Honestly, I was not complaining, but just looking for safer venue than to challenge any mutual admiration society. The only dumbing down I would justify would be to stay inside the lines drawn by consensus if possible. But trying to do that is not so easy. Learning that nobody knows how lightning is formed (although I imagine that I do) would mean that there need be no defender of a consensus to fight me off. Wrong again - the consensus is that nobody knows and there are defenders to be encountered if I go there. My theory for polar jets has practical demonstration within millions of TV sets. It also explains why lightning so often enters open windows. If I told you about it, there would be that "false-scientist" sign hung around my neck. So be it. My only point is to seek out truths unprotected by the masters of all they survey.

 

Am just looking for safe refuge. By the way though, is it not foolhardy to challenge man-made global warming? "The debate is over." for crap sakes. Or cosmic acceleration? My cigarette butt. What flavor is your anti-neutrino? Is that really stuff properly based on observations and experiments that can be repeated? Whatever, that that is is that that is so I will not complain.

 

Shouldn't a forum exist somewhere that fits its definition: a place where anybody can kick an idea around? A little less "king of the hill" would be nice. Control freaks are taking over my favorite nation. The soap box is passing like an old buggy whip.

 

It's not the existence of a challenge that is the problem, it's the method. It's the ignoring, or simple lack of awareness, of data and experiment. It's the lack of rigor in assessing an idea. It's the resistance to information that contradicts one's pet theory.

 

A forum where you can kick any idea around? It's called the bar/pub/saloon. Toss back a few and spout to your heart's content. Kick any idea around and call it science? No. You have to play by the rules. You need evidence, you need falsifiability (which means making specific predictions, which means you gotta bring the math). You don't get a "safe venue." Scientific thought is trial by fire. Everybody gets to take their shots at it and if your precious snowflake of an idea doesn't measure up it gets kicked to the curb. Nature has the final word.

[imatfaal]

"Pseudoscience" is a swear. Einstein wouldn't have looked for gravitational bending unless he had thought of it beforehand.

Nobody likes to take a bum rap.

 

"Fantastic ideas" is a swear. There are screwballs everywhere. If you just want to play the odds, its a very safe bet that the next guy you meet will be a real jackass. But stay the rope.

 

Honestly, I was not complaining, but just looking for safer venue than to challenge any mutual admiration society. The only dumbing down I would justify would be to stay inside the lines drawn by consensus if possible. But trying to do that is not so easy. Learning that nobody knows how lightning is formed (although I imagine that I do) would mean that there need be no defender of a consensus to fight me off. Wrong again - the consensus is that nobody knows and there are defenders to be encountered if I go there. My theory for polar jets has practical demonstration within millions of TV sets. It also explains why lightning so often enters open windows. If I told you about it, there would be that "false-scientist" sign hung around my neck. So be it. My only point is to seek out truths unprotected by the masters of all they survey.

 

Am just looking for safe refuge. By the way though, is it not foolhardy to challenge man-made global warming? "The debate is over." for crap sakes. Or cosmic acceleration? My cigarette butt. What flavor is your anti-neutrino? Is that really stuff properly based on observations and experiments that can be repeated? Whatever, that that is is that that is so I will not complain.

 

Shouldn't a forum exist somewhere that fits its definition: a place where anybody can kick an idea around? A little less "king of the hill" would be nice. Control freaks are taking over my favorite nation. The soap box is passing like an old buggy whip.

 

Mutual admiration society??? They fight like cats in a bag. The whole scientific kit-and-caboodle is about constantly testing and challenging current ideas and responding by explanation and enlargement to other's criticisms of one's own ideas. To depict science as a homogeneous grouping that merely accepts the status quo is completely incorrect. Every accepted scientific theory is only still accepted because no ambitious and aggressive young scientist has been able to provide a better alternative. It's survival of the fittest out there; if a theory cannot stand up to all the tests thrown at it then it does not survive.

 

You will find great reluctance to accept a new theory that is heuristic and prosaic rather than mathematical and predictive - but if it is good enough people will fill in the gaps. However, if your theory is free from rigour, maths, predictions and logic, yet it contradicts a well-established theory that does have these attributes, then expect it to be given very short shrift.

 

Is it only not foolhardy to challenge man-made global warming from two standpoints. Firstly, scientific perspective; if you are a climate scientist then feel free to challenge, in fact it is your job to research and test. Secondly, political perspective; if you have been elected on the basis that you will defend the right to burn fossil fuels and increase CO2 emissions rather than take a long-term global view then morally you should keep this view or resign your seat. Otherwise its just bleating and moaning like a two year old for whom 'I want...' is the beginning and end of every argument.

Edited March 9, 2011 by imatfaal

[mississippichem]

My theory for polar jets has practical demonstration within millions of TV sets. It also explains why lightning so often enters open windows. If I told you about it, there would be that "false-scientist" sign hung around my neck. So be it. My only point is to seek out truths unprotected by the masters of all they survey.

 

Sounds to me like you know your "plasma jet" theory has no merit. If it did, the you would have no problem letting me try and attack it. Scientist have to learn to swallow egos or check them at the door. Scientific criticism is not personal, but harsh attempts at falsifying are par for the course. The best scientists are the ones who are the best at catching bad ideas. It shows a strong set of analytical skills.

 

Knowing what doesn't work can be just as valuable as knowing what does.

 

Shouldn't a forum exist somewhere that fits its definition: a place where anybody can kick an idea around? A little less "king of the hill" would be nice. Control freaks are taking over my favorite nation. The soap box is passing like an old buggy whip.

 

We have that here. It's called the speculations subforum. You are allowed to kick around any idea you want. There are just no guarantees it won't get smashed. If you come to the table with an open mind and willingness to learn and be corrected, then the people here at SFN are more than willing [maybe even eager?] to discuss your theory.

 

Just leave your soapbox at home and be prepared to discuss your theory based on its merit alone. Remember, the responsibility lies with you to overturn existing theories.

Edited March 9, 2011 by mississippichem

[John Cuthber]

Further work is required in this field.

[swansont]

Mutual admiration society??? They fight like cats in a bag.

 

Quite. Take the recent announcement about alien microbes and the earlier one about arsenic-based life. Two things that would be awesome, but they were cut down mercilessly by scientists who looked at the claims.

[dalemiller]

Statistically speaking, yes. It is much more likely that you don't understand the breadth and/or depth of the problem.

 

Then I concede your point. If I just play the odds, I can just jump to the conclusion that, whatever the issue, I have it wrong. Now I fear the gross humiliation of getting kicked out of the Pseudoscience department. I do stand ready to supply my rationale if a specific challenge were provided to me in a way I could understand. Am trying to catch on why slighting a notion within general consensus warrants the stigma of junk science. Status quo cannot trump progress. "Defer judgement" is council I always hope to follow.

 

Sounds to me like you know your "plasma jet" theory has no merit. If it did, the you would have no problem letting me try and attack it.

 

I have nothing but gratitude for even a willingness of someone to attack my theory. Dealing with the issues, I can defend myself. Will invite your attention by PM after I install my contention on the Speculations forum where less sniper fire might be expected. Happily, a dunce cap could easily be a "one size fits all" for a pretty broad range of skull sizes.

[dalemiller]

 

Just leave your soapbox at home and be prepared to discuss your theory based on its merit alone. Remember, the responsibility lies with you to overturn existing theories.

 

I stashed "Polar Jets" into the rubber room (Pseudoscience and Speculations). That is where my clarification to a moderator was thrown for reasons unknown to me to this very day. (Hope you will afford me more self defense than that.)

 

It's not the existence of a challenge that is the problem, it's the method. It's the ignoring, or simple lack of awareness, of data and experiment. It's the lack of rigor in assessing an idea. It's the resistance to information that contradicts one's pet theory.

 

Everybody gets to take their shots at it and if your precious snowflake of an idea doesn't measure up it gets kicked to the curb. Nature has the final word.

 

What are you talking about? I am not privy to any confrontation disclosing how a seemingly confrontational revelation of any specified folly or foible on my part has been presented to me. I recently sought to benefit you with my best shot at clarifying lessons taken from Faraday's work with his ice pail. I was trying to help you. In all humility, am an expert in electronics. I have no idea what you have taken exception to. Whom have I offended? How?

 

Mutual admiration society??? They fight like cats in a bag. The whole scientific kit-and-caboodle is about constantly testing and challenging current ideas and responding by explanation and enlargement to other's criticisms of one's own ideas. To depict science as a homogeneous grouping that merely accepts the status quo is completely incorrect. Every accepted scientific theory is only still accepted because no ambitious and aggressive young scientist has been able to provide a better alternative. It's survival of the fittest out there; if a theory cannot stand up to all the tests thrown at it then it does not survive.

 

You will find great reluctance to accept a new theory that is heuristic and prosaic rather than mathematical and predictive - but if it is good enough people will fill in the gaps. However, if your theory is free from rigour, maths, predictions and logic, yet it contradicts a well-established theory that does have these attributes, then expect it to be given very short shrift.

 

Is it only not foolhardy to challenge man-made global warming from two standpoints. Firstly, scientific perspective; if you are a climate scientist then feel free to challenge, in fact it is your job to research and test. Secondly, political perspective; if you have been elected on the basis that you will defend the right to burn fossil fuels and increase CO2 emissions rather than take a long-term global view then morally you should keep this view or resign your seat. Otherwise its just bleating and moaning like a two year old for whom 'I want...' is the beginning and end of every argument.

 

Please forgive my ambiguity. Not one great big society, just some little bands of them. I caught myself surrounded by moderators one day upholding a contention I had challenged. They all contended that increased temperature retards fusing rate of plasma. It freaked my mind, how could any one of them possibly imagine such a thing? I broke and ran away from here for a good six months.

 

You might catch me faulting a garbled interpretation of a well-established theory. Science is thinking too, not just knowing a big bunch of facts. (That's not germane but I wanted to throw it in somewhere.)

 

Am not choosing up sides (here) about global warming, but I hear tell a lot of fraud has mixed up the issue. Politics has brought hijacking into the scientific consensus business.

 

You have made many points that are well taken.

[swansont]

Please forgive my ambiguity. Not one great big society, just some little bands of them. I caught myself surrounded by moderators one day upholding a contention I had challenged. They all contended that increased temperature retards fusing rate of plasma. It freaked my mind, how could any one of them possibly imagine such a thing? I broke and ran away from here for a good six months.

 

Those moderators are also physicists, and if that's your summary of the discussion, it shows that you still don't understand what we were talking about. But anything further should be discussed in that thread.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/51691-hot-fusion-puzzle

[dalemiller]

Those moderators are also physicists, and if that's your summary of the discussion, it shows that you still don't understand what we were talking about. But anything further should be discussed in that thread.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/51691-hot-fusion-puzzle

 

I have now responded to the technical issue in that thread, but my contention that I do know what you were talking about and what I am talking about as well, is germane to this thread if I am to be allowed to defend myself in order to defend the validity of what I can contribute. Your confession that I, as an outsider, am to be deplored for my preposterous hope of contributing any constructive contribution to scientific conversation, suggests that we are up to high speed toward the target of status quo.

 

All moderators contended that increased temperature of fusing plasm reduces its rate of fusion! The ensuing perfect gas law merry-go-round evolved without the protocol of any context at all: that was the problem that none of us realized at the time.

 

The profession of those moderators does not invalidate anything and everything I have to say, nor does your harsh opinion accompany any substantiation. The most casual observer is likely to be privy to the efforts involved by scientists endeavoring to raise the temperature of plasma in hopes of achieving nuclear fusion. Science allows dealing with the issues. Einstein dealt in cause and effect rather than to say his assertions are true just because he was Albert Einstein. The raising of the temperature of a gas represents increasing particle velocity. Increased particle velocity presents increase probability for collisions between protons for consequential increased likelihood of more fusion. Nature's adiabatic way of raising temperature of fusing plasma demonstrates itself to be by compressing it further, thus also adding additional enhancement for increased rates of fusion. It should be difficult for any of the moderators to assert an expansion of gas due to its heating under the effects of compression.

[dalemiller]

 

We have that here. It's called the speculations subforum.

 

But the "Name on the Door" is given as "Pseudoscientific or speculatory threads". Junk scientists, crackpots and jackasses enter here. Public welcome to come in and laugh at the funny monkeys. Not a welcome mat for guys who believe themselves to have tinker-toyed a theory straight up from solid brass tacks. Free dunce caps dispensed inside. Check scalp with infallible moderator of your choice. Alternate entry via trap door provided in place of expressed rebuttal logic dissing contributors above. Complimentary gags optional for non-celebrities. Trash Can waiting next floor down. Step carefully.

 

Couldn't find a "PM" button, but "Polar Jets" awaits your scrutiny. Just one for negative jets. Positive jets from young stars available for the asking.

[Klaynos]

But the "Name on the Door" is given as "Pseudoscientific or speculatory threads". Junk scientists, crackpots and jackasses enter here. Public welcome to come in and laugh at the funny monkeys. Not a welcome mat for guys who believe themselves to have tinker-toyed a theory straight up from solid brass tacks. Free dunce caps dispensed inside. Check scalp with infallible moderator of your choice. Alternate entry via trap door provided in place of expressed rebuttal logic dissing contributors above. Complimentary gags optional for non-celebrities. Trash Can waiting next floor down. Step carefully.

 

Couldn't find a "PM" button, but "Polar Jets" awaits your scrutiny. Just one for negative jets. Positive jets from young stars available for the asking.

 

So if a forum was called Biology and Physics, you would post no physics in that forum? Your logic is foolish and flawed.

 

To send a PM to a user click on their name and then "Send me a message"

 

!

Moderator Note

This is going way off topic and let me remind you that you agreed to our rules on signing up, I suggest you re-read them, read the speculations forum rules and go and have a read about the scientific method.

[swansont]

But the "Name on the Door" is given as "Pseudoscientific or speculatory threads". Junk scientists, crackpots and jackasses enter here. Public welcome to come in and laugh at the funny monkeys. Not a welcome mat for guys who believe themselves to have tinker-toyed a theory straight up from solid brass tacks.

 

That's just it, though. People believe they have this wonderful new theory. But until they can show that it has merit, that belief means nothing. The burden of proof belongs to the presenter, and accepted physics has a mountain of evidence to support it.

 

Free dunce caps dispensed inside. Check scalp with infallible moderator of your choice. Alternate entry via trap door provided in place of expressed rebuttal logic dissing contributors above. Complimentary gags optional for non-celebrities. Trash Can waiting next floor down. Step carefully.

 

Ah, yes. We musn't proceed without the inevitable shriek of persecution, aka the Galileo gambit.

[mississippichem]

But the "Name on the Door" is given as "Pseudoscientific or speculatory threads". Junk scientists, crackpots and jackasses enter here. Public welcome to come in and laugh at the funny monkeys. Not a welcome mat for guys who believe themselves to have tinker-toyed a theory straight up from solid brass tacks.

 

If you haven't noticed, all the crackpots in speculations seem to think they've "tinker-toyed a theory straight up from solid brass tacks. Just because you think you're too intelligent to post in speculations doesn't make you any more intelligent than any other guy touting his speculative theory. It just means that you have pride in your theory.

 

The default truth value for any new scientific theory is false. I assume it is wrong until proven otherwise. As an exercise, you can even challenge science written in textbooks, though I'm sure you'll find it to be solid. You can't come to a scientific discussion with a chip on your shoulder. I've seen doctorates at school totally annihilate somewhat legitimate theses just because the poor PhD student couldn't account for one or two peaks in their spectroscopy. The science world is very cut-throat, as it has to be.

[michel123456]

Dale is right.

Speculation on this Forum has a bad taste.

There is no way to support any speculation there, it is treaten as pseudoscience right from the beginning.

Speculation is out of any other science (as if it was impossible to speculate in science)

And right next to the waste basket.

 

But the Forum will not change policy. I suppose it is made on purpose because the Internet has plenty of rubbish and they want to differentiate.

 

On the other side, many interesting discussions lie under the speculation forum. Dale may get used to its bad taste.