Challenging the mainstream (Hijack, split from BICEP2 thread)

[I-try]

Hysor.

Stephen Crothers is a university trained mathematician and has the courage to state his beliefs, despite his sure knowledge that such beliefs are controversial.

I clicked on the video link you supplied, but did not listen to it because of my limited monthly download, and because I am well acquainted with his mathematical challenges that do not receive mathematical replies from those whom claim to have found Black Holes. His ideas pertaining to the CMB are based on the findings of a professional in that field of research.

During his student years, he challenged the concept that GR provided mathematical proof for the existence of Black Holes. External experts agreed with his professor and he was expelled. He finished his education at another university. Such is the fate of anybody challenging mainstream concepts. The fate of professional who challenge the trillion dollar year Climate Change Industry is an indication of the fate awaiting those who dare to go against generally accepted beliefs.

My work on The - - - - - - - requires 152 pages and is in book form. Whilst other books can be recommended, as evidenced by some replies to this thread, even so, I dare not mention the title of my book for fear of an accusation of self promotion. My work is definitely contrary to mainstream beliefs, as are some of my posts on this forum. Although my work in part agrees with and conceptually explains the fundamental dynamics of the warping by the presence of matter of that which provides reality to that we call space, it is definitely contrary to mainstream beliefs, as are some of my posts on this forum.

[swansont]

During his student years, he challenged the concept that GR provided mathematical proof for the existence of Black Holes. External experts agreed with his professor and he was expelled. He finished his education at another university. Such is the fate of anybody challenging mainstream concepts.

Bollocks. Scientists challenge the mainstream all the time and remain gainfully employed in science. The journals and the arXiv preprint server are replete with examples of people coming up with alternatives to accepted science, and also full of results of experiments that could falsify mainstream science.

 

 

 

The fate of professional who challenge the trillion dollar year Climate Change Industry is an indication of the fate awaiting those who dare to go against generally accepted beliefs.

There is no "trillion dollar year Climate Change Industry" unless you mean the industries that are actually causing climate change, but that's a different discussion.

[Phi for All]

My work is definitely contrary to mainstream beliefs, as are some of my posts on this forum.

 

Criticizing the enormous body of accepted science without learning it first shouldn't be such a point of pride.

[I-try]

Swansont'

I am confused regarding how I have hijacked the thread you refer to. I have attempted to locate the thread, but have been unable to find it to check if I have posted the reply to Hysor in the incorrect thread. If that is what I have done, then I owe an apology to the Forum. With regard to the thread number one as posted above, that was intended to supply truthful and accurate information concerning the man being discussed on that thread. I have been on his mailing list for some years.

He provides access to all his letters and access or links to replies received from those claiming to have found Black Holes.

With reference to the remainder of the post number one above, that was provided in an attempt to indicate the difficulties attached to any attempt to change majority views regarding concepts derived from The General Theory of Relativity. I have been abused and banned for life from another forum for daring to suggest that gravity and gravitation are both fundamental dynamic phenomena in their own right. At that time, my work was available free of charge. One of my opponents downloaded it and spent a short period of time leafing through it in search of a mathematical description. Because there were no such description, he declared it unscientific and not worth his time reading it. With regards opposing the conceptual finding derived from GR; my work on the fundamental dynamic nature of matter, which I have never claimed to be a theory or correct, has been made available to universities and many physicists for close to forty years without any criticism for or against, despite my pleas for critical comment. The fact that the referred to work demands that there is only an increase in relativist momentum when a particle closely approaches C, with no increase in mass, is an indication of one serious disagreement with GR.

The physical proof of the last statement regarding mass increase as required by GR, would require an equal magnitude of force to achieve a given acceleration in any direction, when a particle closely approaches C. I have noticed on several occasions over the last year, that some physicists are now stating that they cannot understand why relativistic mass is still being taught to students.

 

It would appear that you and I have differing idea of what constitutes an industry. In Australia during 2010, our government imposed a Carbon Tax that extracted eight billion dollars from the community for each of three years. It is expected to grow to fifteen billion dollars per year by 2017 if it is not removed. A large number of bureaucrats were employed to control the many avenues that money is supposed to support. We have been informed by our political masters that other countries are taking similar action.

 

With regards punitive action taken against a professor by a university; I am on the mailing list of a professor (I can supply his name) who was invited to establish a department dealing with climate at a university. He was allowed to be accompanied by his advanced P Hd student. During his subsequent research he found physical proof that an increase in the Earth's heat preceded any increase in CO_{2 .} Following that discovery, the university provided finance for him to attend a conference held in Europe. He presented his paper regarding his research, and to his dismay found that all airline tickets and accommodation had been cancelled. His employment at the university was also terminated. Due to the fact that the university agreed with and paid for him attending the conference, his actual masters did not like the idea that he be allowed to indicate that global warming was not solely the results of CO_2. I suspect that the government money supplied to the university was not to be used to discredit the idea of climate change being mainly the results of our production of greenhouse gasses.

 

Phi for All.

Although I have always had an deep interest in science since childhood, my present endeavour with regards to physics began when I was given the privilege of holding a gyroscope wheel located in a single frame. Whilst the wheel was stationary relative to the frame, I could easily twist it about. However, as the magnitude of its angular momentum rapidly increased, I had great difficulty changing the direction of its axis of spin. Although the instructor provided the macro reason for such a change, I wanted to gain an understanding of the micro fundamental dynamic reasons for the increase in momentum. I was 19 years of age at that time, and 32 years of age when I finally arrived at a satisfactory conclusion. All my subsequent work is based on the results of a long and determined effort to understand.

You refer to pride and criticising the enormous body of accepted science without learning it first. I never set out to become a physicist, and have great respect for the enormous body of accepted science. I am only interested in the fundamental dynamic nature of matter and implications for humanity, such as that I refer to as The Gravitational Thermodynamic Effect of the Great planets on the Sun, and other consequences. After 40 years of almost complete silence with regards to a lack of official evaluation of my work, the feeling is more of disgust, and with no place for pride. I am now aged 92 years of age and rapidly running out of time, and find it difficult to understand why a work on the only comprehensive, (extending from the fundamental nature of matter to conditions at the galactic centre) conceptually explained fundamental nature of gravity and gravitation since Sir Isaac Newton made no conjecture regarding gravity, is to be so ignored and disparaged without knowledge of the physics contained therein.

[swansont]

Swansont'

I am confused regarding how I have hijacked the thread you refer to.

 

The subject of that thread is not Stephen Crothers, his qualifications or history, the alleged fate of people challenging mainstream science, global warming, or your pet theory. It is the science mentioned in the thread, related to BICEP2. Discussion of these other topics is off-topic and thus a hijack.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/82605-faq/

At that time, my work was available free of charge. One of my opponents downloaded it and spent a short period of time leafing through it in search of a mathematical description. Because there were no such description, he declared it unscientific and not worth his time reading it.

 

I would tend to agree. No math makes it extremely limited in potential usefulness.

 

 

With regards opposing the conceptual finding derived from GR; my work on the fundamental dynamic nature of matter, which I have never claimed to be a theory or correct, has been made available to universities and many physicists for close to forty years without any criticism for or against, despite my pleas for critical comment.

There no math, so there's no model. That's critical commentary.

 

It would appear that you and I have differing idea of what constitutes an industry. In Australia during 2010, our government imposed a Carbon Tax that extracted eight billion dollars from the community for each of three years. It is expected to grow to fifteen billion dollars per year by 2017 if it is not removed. A large number of bureaucrats were employed to control the many avenues that money is supposed to support. We have been informed by our political masters that other countries are taking similar action.

Government ≠ industry, and $15 billion << $1 trillion

 

 

With regards punitive action taken against a professor by a university; I am on the mailing list of a professor (I can supply his name) who was invited to establish a department dealing with climate at a university. He was allowed to be accompanied by his advanced P Hd student. During his subsequent research he found physical proof that an increase in the Earth's heat preceded any increase in CO_{2 .} Following that discovery, the university provided finance for him to attend a conference held in Europe. He presented his paper regarding his research, and to his dismay found that all airline tickets and accommodation had been cancelled. His employment at the university was also terminated. Due to the fact that the university agreed with and paid for him attending the conference, his actual masters did not like the idea that he be allowed to indicate that global warming was not solely the results of CO_2. I suspect that the government money supplied to the university was not to be used to discredit the idea of climate change being mainly the results of our production of greenhouse gasses.

That might make for an interesting discussion if all of the facts were available. But as it stands it's an anecdote backed with conspiratorial anecdotes. For all I know the science could be flawed. Reservations are lost all the time. Losing his job could be coincidental. It's easy to spin such stories when no verifiable facts are given.

[I-try]

Swansont.

My computer had to be repaired and now is in working order.

 

As I stated in my post above regarding my search for the thread you refer to, and I have again searched for the thread I was hijacking. My memory of that thread referred to a question from Hysor regarding his uncertainty concerning the qualifications of the author of an article he read on the CMBR. He supplied a link to a Video by S Corothers regarding that subject and wondered if it was so much quackery. AS I stated in that reply, I did not listen to the video because I was well aware of his articles on such subjects.

From my memory of some replies to that thread, the discussion centred on quackery and the believability of such articles.

I would be much obliged if you could supply me with information regarding how to find that thread. Due to my age, if I have posted to the wrong thread, it is important to know how it occurred

[Spyman]

This thread? -> question about criticisms of BICEP2

[swansont]

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83348-question-about-criticisms-of-bicep2/

[I-try]

Swansont and Spyman.

Thanks for the information concerning the thread I was having difficulty finding, and now am relieved that I did not post to the wrong thread. However, I now realise by a comparison with the other replies to that thread, that my information concerning S Crothers was not appreciated with regards to the discussion taking place on that thread.

My transgression appears to be with the fact that I supplied truthful information concerning the author of the subject that Hysor was concerned about, and not commenting on the BICEP2.

With regards to the BICEP2 project, my memory concern the attempt to detect Recurring Gravitational Induced Waves goes back to to the first attempt at detection, by suspending a large cylinder of solid aluminium in the expectation that it would indicate the passage of such waves. The attempt failed and was followed by others of a similar type. No wave was detected and so the attempt was extended to interferometer types of experiments becoming more extensive and expensive. The experiments now involve space-craft and the several buildings at the South Pole. From a euphoric expectation of establishing a new method of investigating the universe in cooperation with radio astronomy, the lack of direct detection has now deteriorated to declaring a perturbation in the polarisation of the cosmic background microwave radiation as indication of the existence of gravitational induced recurring waves. Given the fact that Pulsars in orbit about each-other are supposed to create powerful, recurring gravitational (an illusion according to GR) induced waves, indicates the changes to expectation first envisaged.

[I-try]

Swansont.

Now that I have been able to read the posts on the thread started by Hysor, I can understand why I provided the defence for S Crothers and made the comment regarding the promotion of books. In that regard and under similar circumstances in the future, I probably would be judged to have broken forum rules. My first warning delivered some years ago, resulted from my offer to supply free access for two physicists to my work if it could be arranged via email. I was warned to stop attempting to introduce crackpot pseudo science into general science. I have now received a second warning and will not be posting further to receive any more. I have reached that decision because irrespective of my other posts on this forum pertaining to faults in GR and providing physical backing for such beliefs, there has been no comments or attempts at a discussion. I find it strange that there can be so much speculation involving various peoples ideas concerning gravity etceteras on the General Science category, whilst my work is considered to belong in the pseudo science section.

As stated on other posts, my work is comprehensive and able to provide explanations regarding the Pioneer excess acceleration during the flyby of Jupiter, (regarded as an anomaly) and unexpected slowing later in flight.

 

With regards to the fundamental dynamic nature of momentum, I will provide a further statement regarding mainstream science failure that involves the conservation of energy, also conservation of momentum, both rectilinear and angular. Presently and pertaining to the Earth's orbit about the Sun, the constant gravitational induced acceleration experienced by Earth's matter during closer approach to the Sun, indicates a constant changing of momentum if only a state of acceleration is taking place. Given the mainstream other beliefs regarding physics, the lack of understanding of what is happening is accounted for by the statement that momentum is conserved annually when the Earth returns to any selected particular point in Earth's orbit. In that regard, my work demands and provides comprehensive (with all other phenomena) explanations why angular momentum is conserved instant by instant. I will provide the following hint. Given the fact that the Earth's velocity is constantly changing, (momentum = MV) the mathematicians should try a proportion instant by instant reduction in Earth's mass when the Earth is approaching the Sun and an increase as the Earth recedes from the Sun; then attempt to vindicate the mass changing. Also, what parameters are changing with regards to the conservation of energy. Perhaps they will then realise that the mainstream concept of gravity and gravitation provided by GR is a long way short of reality, and inhibiting advances in the knowledge of physics.

 

I have now received a supply of my books and intend to attempt to issue a challenge to mainstream concepts through the Australian media.

[ajb]

I have now received a supply of my books and intend to attempt to issue a challenge to mainstream concepts through the Australian media.

You should challenge mainstream concepts through mainstream scientific journals, if you really do have some grounds for the challenge. Anything less will make you look a crackpot and your ideas will fall on deaf ears.

 

I have said this many times before, journals that I know of do not insist that you have qualifications nor that you be associated with a university or similar. If our challenge is valid, then submit it to proper peer-review.

[swansont]

I have reached that decision because irrespective of my other posts on this forum pertaining to faults in GR and providing physical backing for such beliefs, there has been no comments or attempts at a discussion. I find it strange that there can be so much speculation involving various peoples ideas concerning gravity etceteras on the General Science category, whilst my work is considered to belong in the pseudo science section.

 

We don't have a pseudo science section. We have a speculations section. Can you point to where your ideas have been published in peer-reviewed work, with experimental confirmation, or possibly is taught in curricula at accredited schools? If not, then the discussion rightly belongs in speculations.

 

As stated on other posts, my work is comprehensive and able to provide explanations regarding the Pioneer excess acceleration during the flyby of Jupiter, (regarded as an anomaly) and unexpected slowing later in flight.

 

I've scanned your posts and see no equations whatsoever. How comprehensive can they be? I see only two posts that mention Pioneer.

 

With regards to the fundamental dynamic nature of momentum, I will provide a further statement regarding mainstream science failure that involves the conservation of energy, also conservation of momentum, both rectilinear and angular. Presently and pertaining to the Earth's orbit about the Sun, the constant gravitational induced acceleration experienced by Earth's matter during closer approach to the Sun, indicates a constant changing of momentum if only a state of acceleration is taking place. Given the mainstream other beliefs regarding physics, the lack of understanding of what is happening is accounted for by the statement that momentum is conserved annually when the Earth returns to any selected particular point in Earth's orbit. In that regard, my work demands and provides comprehensive (with all other phenomena) explanations why angular momentum is conserved instant by instant. I will provide the following hint. Given the fact that the Earth's velocity is constantly changing, (momentum = MV) the mathematicians should try a proportion instant by instant reduction in Earth's mass when the Earth is approaching the Sun and an increase as the Earth recedes from the Sun; then attempt to vindicate the mass changing. Also, what parameters are changing with regards to the conservation of energy. Perhaps they will then realise that the mainstream concept of gravity and gravitation provided by GR is a long way short of reality, and inhibiting advances in the knowledge of physics.

 

 

I'm quite certain that mainstream physics provides explanations why angular momentum is conserved as well. That's a minimum requirement of any alternative explanation, but is not in itself sufficient for an alternative theory — you have to explain some things not already explained by the accepted theory.

[I-try]

ajb.

Thanks for the kindly meant advice to submit to peer review on recognised journals. My attempts to do so have only resulted in an acknowledgement regarding the receipt of my work and no further comment or contact. Submitting to institutions supposedly dedicated to the advancement of the knowledge of gravity meets with the same response; and yes, they may consider the work submitted to be rubbish and don't respond. Then again, what would happen to the future existence of the institution if gravity was no longer considered an anomaly. Black Holes, reoccurring gravitational induced waves and the present understanding of gravity, all have the authoritative backing of one of sciences most revered mathematicians, and consequently now the foundation for thousands of physicists and bureaucratic careers and endeavours.

Swansont. Regarding some of your post number 12.

 

With regards to mathematics and concepts derived there-from, both have their importance in physics. Mathematics can be of little use and worse, misleading, if capable of being incorrectly conceptually interpreted.

Why should there be a need for me to provide the mathematics already supplied by Newton and Einstein where gravity is concerned. Any statements regarding numbers in my work are derived from arithmetic and use of a calculator.

 

 

As already stated, my work is comprehensive with regards to other physical concepts. It ranges from the unmeasurable fundamental dynamic reality, through the levels of reality, and on up to the conditions at the galactic centre.

 

With regards to my posts concerning Pioneer, from memory of one post, I stated that my work predicted and required the Pioneer so-called anomalies to occur, and that the excess boost to the velocity of Pioneer during the flyby of Jupiter resulted because a planets gravity field is varied in exact proportion to its velocity. Also that had Pioneer passed in front of Jupiter’s direction of motion, there would have been less acceleration than expected. The expected questions following that statement never eventuated.

With regards to the excess boost of Pioneer, if Einstein’s mathematics were being used instead of Newtonian, the extra boost may have been expected. In that regard, Einstein’s mathematics may have predicted and required the excess.

 

Re conservation of momentum; mainstream science certainly does insist and require that momentum must be conserved during collisions etceteras. Even so, where orbits are concerned, the statement is that momentum is conserved annually.

[ajb]

My attempts to do so have only resulted in an acknowledgement regarding the receipt of my work and no further comment or contact. Submitting to institutions supposedly dedicated to the advancement of the knowledge of gravity meets with the same response; and yes, they may consider the work submitted to be rubbish and don't respond.

This should be telling you that your work is just not up to standard.

 

Then again, what would happen to the future existence of the institution if gravity was no longer considered an anomaly.

That is an interesting point of view. Institutions dedicated to the study of something don't actually want to study that something just in case they eventually render themselves obsolete.

 

That seems very much at odd with my own experiences.

 

Black Holes, reoccurring gravitational induced waves and the present understanding of gravity, all have the authoritative backing of one of sciences most revered mathematicians, and consequently now the foundation for thousands of physicists and bureaucratic careers and endeavours.

It is true that big names in theoretical and mathematical physics have contributed to our understanding of gravity. To "shoot down" these talented people would take a lot. However, if you had some well formulated and valid reason for a challenge then you can "take a shot". It maybe true that if your ideas are so radical it may be difficult to publish, but the silent treatment you have had from journal editors suggests that they don't read past your introduction.

 

Mathematics can be of little use and worse, misleading, if capable of being incorrectly conceptually interpreted.

And there we have it! This is why you cannot get anything published. You are not using the correct language or framework of theoretical physics.

 

 

 

Any statements regarding numbers in my work are derived from arithmetic and use of a calculator.

I doubt any new noteworthy results can appear in this simple way.

 

...if Einstein’s mathematics were being used instead of Newtonian, the extra boost may have been expected. In that regard, Einstein’s mathematics may have predicted and required the excess.

I am sure that the post-Newtonian parameters were checked. However, from general arguments you can show that beyond more that 15Au or so relativistic corrections become very small, too small to explain the anomaly. Unless you have real reason to think GR has the answer?

 

Re conservation of momentum; mainstream science certainly does insist and require that momentum must be conserved during collisions etceteras.

As long are there are no external forces or fields momentum is conserved for colliding bodies. Conservation of momentum does not seem to hold in electromagnetic theory, but that is because the field carries momentum itself.

 

Even so, where orbits are concerned, the statement is that momentum is conserved annually.

So, momentum is not conserved at any instant?

[swansont]

 

Swansont. Regarding some of your post number 12.

 

With regards to mathematics and concepts derived there-from, both have their importance in physics. Mathematics can be of little use and worse, misleading, if capable of being incorrectly conceptually interpreted.

Why should there be a need for me to provide the mathematics already supplied by Newton and Einstein where gravity is concerned. Any statements regarding numbers in my work are derived from arithmetic and use of a calculator.

 

 

I'm not seeing how you could have anything new to contribute if the model you use is the existing model.

As already stated, my work is comprehensive with regards to other physical concepts. It ranges from the unmeasurable fundamental dynamic reality, through the levels of reality, and on up to the conditions at the galactic centre.

 

Grandiose and ultimately empty words. I have no idea what this is supposed to actually mean.

It is true that big names in theoretical and mathematical physics have contributed to our understanding of gravity. To "shoot down" these talented people would take a lot. However, if you had some well formulated and valid reason for a challenge then you can "take a shot". It maybe true that if your ideas are so radical it may be difficult to publish, but the silent treatment you have had from journal editors suggests that they don't read past your introduction.

 

It should be noted that this is not because they are talented and well-known, it's because the work is thorough and has been repeatedly confirmed by experiment. And the work gets challenged all the time; publication does not require agreement with the mainstream, but it does require rigor.

[I-try]

I have now reread the Forum rules and appreciate the originators attitude concerning giving all persons interested in science a medium through which they can express their ideas irrespective of their educational qualifications.

I also note that an exchange of information between those who post on the forum is allowed via email providing both persons concerned consent to the exchange. That is exactly what I was suggesting when I received my first warning. With regards to my second warning; although Hysor stated that he was reading about the discussion concerning the cosmic background radiation which was being investigated by BICEP2, his question related to whether he could believe the statements of the author of the item he read, and perhaps the author was a quack. Two subsequent posts provided statements concerning quackery, and another provided his belief concerning the author, and provided several recommendations regarding books. None of the posts discussed BICEP2. My post provided accurate information concerning the author of the article Hysor had read and a response concerning books, even so, I was the one issued with a warning for not discussing BICEP2 and considered a hijack. I have since then provided that discussion, and like most of my other statements of such nature, my statements have remained uncontested. I would have thought that stating in an earlier post that the first Pioneer anomaly resulted from a cause related to gravity and Jupiter's velocity would have resulted in a response; it was ignored. Presently, posts are being part quoted and commented on, followed by my answers and therefore, leading to endless useless repetition. However, the following is part answer to ajb and then Swansont.

 

ajb

That is an interesting point of view. Institutions dedicated to the study of something don't actually want to study that something just in case they eventually render themselves obsolete.

Reply

They study gravity because of a professional interest with the hope that they personally become successful. If not successful, they appreciate the continual arrival of their pay cheque.
A number of people working at the referred to institutions are bureaucrats and they also appreciate a regular and continuing pay cheque.

 

abj

It is true that big names in theoretical and mathematical physics have contributed to our understanding of gravity. To "shoot down" these talented people would take a lot. However, if you had some well formulated and valid reason for a challenge then you can "take a shot". It maybe true that if your ideas are so radical it may be difficult to publish, but the silent treatment you have had from journal editors suggests that they don't read past your introduction.

Reply

My attempt to have my work evaluated is for that reason and that reason only. To achieve that purpose may require statements declaring concepts such as relativistic mass to be incorrect; however, each time I make such statements, they are followed by the physics pertaining there to. There were no comments forthcoming following my earlier post stating relativistic mass to be incorrect, as indicated by the physics then provided. There was no challenge or questions when I stated in my post number 10 the following: Quote, Given the mainstream other beliefs regarding physics, the lack of understanding of what is happening is accounted for by the statement that momentum is conserved annually when the Earth returns to any selected particular point in Earth's orbit. In that regard, my work demands and provides comprehensive (with all other phenomena) explanations why angular momentum is conserved instant by instant. I will provide the following hint. Given the fact that the Earth's velocity is constantly changing, (momentum = MV) the mathematicians should try a proportional instant by instant reduction in Earth's mass when the Earth is approaching the Sun and an increase as the Earth recedes from the Sun; then attempt to vindicate the mass changing. Also, what parameters are changing with regards to the conservation of energy? Perhaps they will then realise that the mainstream concept of gravity and gravitation provided by GR is a long way short of reality, and inhibiting advances in the knowledge of physics. Unquote.

Because the phenomenon we refer to as gravitation is resulting in the acceleration of the Earth, and the acceleration of mass requires a force to be acting, the comment regarding changes to mass was provided. Because the mass now referred to as invariant was being referred to, therefore I expected a challenge.

With regards to the immediate above, the Earth is constantly being acted upon by the Gravitational Thermodynamic Effect previously mentioned in my posts. With regards to the Earth, the GTE has only a slight effect, unlike that acting on Jupiter’s moon Io. Because Io undergoes a rapid orbiting of Jupiter, and undergoes large and rapid changes to proximity, the time-rate-of-changing of proximity create a GTE that conform to the inverse of the square of the distance between the two bodies and results in excess volcanic activity. When Io travels away from Jupiter, the GTE diminishes by the square and Io undergoes cooling other than radiated heat energy. The referred to work provides the physics requiring those statements.

ajb

I doubt any new noteworthy results can appear in this simple way.
Reply.

There are two such attempts supplied in the referred to work; One concerns the maximum rate of oscillations of an electron. The other provides a slight difference between acceleration of a kilogram mass by gravitation acting between the accelerating mass and Earth, and horizontal acceleration of a kilogram mass by 9.81 newtons of force. The physics related to both are provided.

 

Swansont.

Grandiose and ultimately empty words. I have no idea what this is supposed to actually mean.

Reply.

Comprehensive implies the full meaning as supplied by the Oxford dictionary. The work attempts to provide conceptual understanding of all phenomena ranging from a fundamental dynamic level of reality and so on to conditions at the centre of the galaxy. A sample is supplied in my answers to ajb.

Swansont.

It should be noted that this is not because they are talented and well-known, it's because the work is thorough and has been repeatedly confirmed by experiment. And the work gets challenged all the time; publication does not require agreement with the mainstream, but it does require rigor.

 

My reply.

I am inclined to agree with you, however, being well known helps, and the editors of such journals have to be very careful with regards to how far from mainstream concepts presented papers have strayed.

[swansont]

Swansont.[/size]

Grandiose and ultimately empty words. I have no idea what this is supposed to actually mean.

Reply.

Comprehensive implies the full meaning as supplied by the Oxford dictionary. The work attempts to provide conceptual understanding of all phenomena ranging from a fundamental dynamic level of reality and so on to conditions at the centre of the galaxy. A sample is supplied in my answers to ajb.

In trying to be comprehensive the detail is lost. Accepted theory has the detail, and if you want to supplant it, you have to do better than accepted theory.

 

Swansont.

It should be noted that this is not because they are talented and well-known, it's because the work is thorough and has been repeatedly confirmed by experiment. And the work gets challenged all the time; publication does not require agreement with the mainstream, but it does require rigor.

 

My reply.

I am inclined to agree with you, however, being well known helps, and the editors of such journals have to be very careful with regards to how far from mainstream concepts presented papers have strayed.

 

 

It's trivial to find papers that stray from the mainstream*. The issue is not the distance but the support. Proposals that have no support (i.e. no mathematical model) will not be considered. Proposals that are contrary to previous experiment will be rejected out of hand.

 

*as an example: I attended a talk on topological dark matter (basically, defects in spacetime) last week at a conference. The presented discussed how such a phenomenon could be detected — he had predictions of how the effects would manifest themselves and what we'd need to do as an experiment in order to find such things if they existed. It was accepted as a talk because the author had fulfilled the requisite scientific obligations to have it considered. Like most new ideas, it's probably not going to pan out, but as it's well-formed you can do the experiment.