Science and science methedology

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by quarklet8, Sep 12, 2013.

  1. quarklet8 Registered Member

    Messages:
    62
    Science and Methodology

    Dear Forum,

    Before I drool away, I'd like to thank its members for their criticisms and suggestions about my quarklet theory. This forum only needs diplomacy and patience from its "seniors". I think a great deal of frustration exists amongst the latter because they want the "layity" to exercise self-discipline in learning BEFORE posting. Of course, no one can challenge this because it makes sense. This said, I think patience from forum seniors will encourage more to do so. Any criticism should be "constructive" because people respond with interest to those interested enough to lead by "positive example"...

    Thanks,
    the Masked Man
     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2013
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. quarklet8 Registered Member

    Messages:
    62
    Unscience

    To begin, science needs less conformism and more cteativity. Its evolution, like that of any other field, requires amateurs as well as professionals. Science is important to me because I want to build my world view upon it as if it were a "foundation". When knowlege's evolution stalls at the professional level, amateurs take over. Bertrand Russel stated this while discussing Descarte. I think it a good observation. More later...
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,873
    Good point. I think that this should be the norm in professional fields. Take medicine for instance it seems to makes sense that amateurs may have some great ideas about heart and lung transplants and they should be given the opportunity to try out some of their techiques on patients in their basement or garage.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. quarklet8 Registered Member

    Messages:
    62
    Knowlege

    Origin:

    Knowlege doesn't come to us in boxes. For example, aboriginal medicines have led to pharmaceuticals. "Expertism" doesn't solve every question. As I said, knowlege is many-sided and, don't forget, the universe belongs to no one.
     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2013
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    I agree. I was apart of another forum, where any thinking outside the square was immediately caste by certain mainstream professionals as pseudoscience.
    The more examples I gave to show that "thinking outside the box" or the more claims I made about Imagination needing to play a role in science, the more angry and highly disturbed these self appraised mainstream science cheer-leaders became.

    Heavier than air flying machines are Impossible.
    Lord Kelvin:

    or this from an equally great physicist.......
    The energy produced by the breaking down of the atom is a very poor kind of thing. Anyone who expects a source of power from transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine.
    Lord Ernest Rutherford:


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    The should have been listening to the greatest of them all........

    “Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”
    Albert Einstein:
     
  9. quarklet8 Registered Member

    Messages:
    62
    Agony and Ecstasy

    Thanks paddoboy!

    The reason I started this thread is that I have done my own research in Space science as well as in particle physics and have made "breakthroughs" in both areas. Of course, I realize I'll be negated if I claim I'm right but I know what I did was worthwhile and not "LOL", crank, quack or any of other "nicities". However, I'm interested in the logic of discovery as well because I see it as a skill anyone may have. Also, I won't tolerate bullying in this thread...
     
  10. Undefined Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,695
    He he. Let me know who in the Professional Cosmology and Theoretical Physics field is doing "lung transplants", origin, so we can steer clear of them too!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Seriously though, origin; using that 'example' of amateur versus professional is not on, mate. It is contrived beyond validity when it comes to the STANDARD MODEL "Theory of Everything" which you seem all too content with.

    How is your "Gravity Explanation" when it comes from standard model "professionals"?

    Satisfactory? Complete and correct as to all fundamentals involved in reality?

    Or could it be open to be "improved" by some "independent outsider" contribution yet to surface publicly?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543


    No problems!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    This other place I was at, saw three science cheer-leaders, castigate me for raising Einstein's quote, and fumbling around looking for all sorts of excuses re the short-sightedness of Lord Kelvin and Rutherford when I offered them as examples of the sometimes silliness of otherwise smart mainstream people in thinking outside the box and engaging a little Imagination.

    I remember them wanting to screw me totally, when questions about the likelyhood of ETL existing elsewhere in the Universe arose.
    My answer was along the lines of......
    "In actual fact we don't really know. That is the straight down the line answer. But most scientists/Cosmologists/Astrophysicists are of the opinion that the answer is a very very high probabilty of being yes, due mainly to the vast near infinite numbers involved, [if not infinite] the vast near infinite extent of the Universe [if not infinite] and the stuff of life being everywhere we look."
    I also did not tolerate their bullying tactics one iota!
     
  12. Boris2 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106
    the thing is that you rarely see new science being put forward by amateurs on science forums. most do not know the basics of the theory they are trying to either change or disprove. of course science progresses by the input of novel ideas, that really goes without saying. also if you can't handle the criticism then you probably don't know your theory well enough to argue in a logical fashion for its acceptance. do you think real scientists are kind to their peers when it comes to their new theories? science isn't a good old boys club where everyone sits around being nice and agreeing with each other. a good example is the so called "Hubble Wars" between alan sandage and his opponents regarding the Hubble constant. posters on science forums get of lightly in comparison.
     
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    I'm confident that out there somewhere, sometime, a "Zefram Cochrane" will come to light, and show us the methodology of getting to the stars and beyond.
     
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    I'm not particularly inferring amateurs. All I have "highlighted" is the fact that a lot of scientists are incapable and/or are not Imaginative enough to step outside the square.
    On the other hand, I'm not discounting amateurs altogether either.



    Agreed, except the part about the "old boys club".
    There are obviously some arrogant and unrealistic enough to want to convey that impression.
     
  15. Boris2 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106
    scientists are human i believe so you will get a bell curve of types.

    how many scientists do you know? how much of their daily work do you know? what kind of scientist are you talking about? the ones you see in docos? the ones who work in a lab? i would say a lot of people with a science degree do mundane jobs where "thinking outside the box" isn't a prerequisite.
     
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543



    Watch plenty, read plenty, evaluate critically without being cynical......But you did fail to include the self-indulgent, arm-chair variety, that find orgasmic joy in giving cynical criticism judged on their own limited knowledge and egotistical arrogance Boris.
    Give my love to the other place won't you? [I bet you will!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ]
     
  17. Boris2 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106
    there were actually very few scientists on that forum. it was mostly composed of ordinary people. anyway this is a new forum for you and it would be good for you to leave all that bitterness behind. it doesn't look good bringing it here where no one knows the history.
     
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Ummmmm, the evidence so far tells a different story...Pot, kettle, black and all that?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Take a disprin and have a good lie down Boris.......It's telling.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    They were certainly a unruly undisciplined mob of bleating sheep.....glad you recognised it.
     
  20. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    What is needed is a change of funding TOO , the scientific community

    It is the funding at Universities and the like that control the direction of the scientific research

    Their would be nothing better for scientific knowledge progress than to have funding for sound scientific theories which are outside the box
     
  21. quarklet8 Registered Member

    Messages:
    62
    Discovery

    I've investigated the "world of the mind" in my own way (for better or worse). I "went" there to develop a philosophy about the world and beyond. As you may have observed in my thread title "Methedology...", I learned how to spell!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    At first, I would study what science seems to believe and try to "trace" knowlege in the way they did.

    Example: astronomers say the planets formed in place around the Sun but as I analyzed the numbers of the Solar System, I concluded they formed from a disk ejected from the Sun; most physicists think quarks the bottom most level of matter but I concluded quarklets existed (I don't say I'm right). I studied the evolution of the Indo-European language group- said to have been spread by warlike "Aryans" on horseback. Then a scientist proposed the Black Sea to have filled in from the Mediterranean at around 5500 BC. Well, guess which people must have been there? The mechanism of wild "Nazi-Aryans" spreading a language group now seemed assinine to me (although not to linguists yet).

    After years of internet debating, I conclude many people "in charge" of knowlege can't think freely but believe in consenses: if the many believe the same, it's "true". Currently, the advance of knowlege is held back by an inability by many to be able to think for themselves- afterall, aren't experts supposed to know what's best for the rest?
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2013
  22. Boris2 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106
    yes, unfortunately there is only a finite amount of funding available for research. Unis do do a lot of independent work but some is funded by business who do want to see some return for their input. that is the way of the world.
     
  23. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543


    I would argue with that one....Planetary formation via accretion disks that formed from left overs after formation of the parent star, has been evidenced in other solar systems. I don't see why it would be different here.






    You could possibly be right, but as yet we have no evidence....So the status quo must hold for the present.



    You are correct to a certain extent.
    Einstein was held back by his equations telling him the Universe was dynamic, when the belief of the day was that it was static. But he was quick to retract that when Hubble validated expansion....the sign of a real scientist with some humility.
    Lord Kelvin, another giant of his era, even denied the possibility of manned heavier then air flight only a decade or so before the Wright Brothers.....
    Then we have Lord Rutherford poo pooing the idea of useful energy from an atom.

    I'm confident that given time, man will achieve most of which is allowed by the laws of physics and GR.
    I certainly don't believe we are going to stagnate on this little fart arse blue orb!
     

Share This Page