Conundrum

Post Reply New Topic

I'm a stereotypical "eccentric hermit".

(I read a lot)

I figured out a few things that *hadn't* been figured out.
I tried emailing my "discoveries" to scientists.
I got no replies.

My few aquaintances treat me as delusional if I tell them.
Apparently *I* can't figure out things that are *really* important.
If I did then I would have "rank" - autistics don't *get* or need rank.

So,
how do I "persuade" the social entity of "science" to consider my theories?
Online attempts got my threads locked and banishment. This *is* new stuff.

stressing the word "hermit".
so, "tacking it to the doors" of the Church of Science isn't probable
though I *have* been considering "preaching" at a college quad/mall

Hi.

Yes, this is my real username--has been since I joined--and no, I'm not replying just to mock you.

That might be the best way to get listened to by anyone--I'd recommend the college quad.

Just out of curiosity, what are these theories about? You can PM me if you'd rather not publicize them.

Welcome to WP, btw.

Welcome to Wrong Planet ScottTheSculptor! Check out the many interesting and helpful forums here. Establishments don't like having their boats rocked, and will brush off or ridicule new or opposing views.

You are among friends here at WP!

Science doesn't accept intuitive theories - in fact, intuition is antithetical to the whole epistomology of science, which is best summed up as deductive empiricism.

What science does like is empirical observation and experimentation that results in a model which can predict how phenomena will behave under a given circumstance, reliably. This is (supposedly, but dubiously) true of even the "soft" sciences like psychiatry.

Exactly, without a peer-reviewed paper or in-depth experimental analysis to support your claims you're likely out of luck. Without knowing exactly what your "theories" are it's hard to offer much more advice!

link to my blog shows the offending documents

Figured out Einstein's error.

and

Deconstructed the evolution of the human mind.

and

Starting a new religion based on logic.

this "puts people off"

--

Just figured out my blog don't show
working on it . . .

Last edited by ScottTheSculptor on 28 May 2012, 11:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

These are all intuitive suppositions, which is not science - philosophy, perhaps, but not science. For science you need experimental data or observational data, and then models to account for the results (as well as future results under the same conditions).

One thing that most people do not understand about science is the epistomology (philosophy of knowledge) that goes along with it. In science, intuition isn't seen as a valid form of knowledge. Things that come to you and seem to make sense, are not regarded as knowledge.

You haven't perused it yet

Real science.

Real evidence, real logic.

Simply remove the 4th dimension and all observations can be logically explained.

The evolution of humans is evident in their development.

The evolution of pack-mind delusion requires religion.


--
still unravelling blog function

&

wait! wait!

I'm supposed to be figuring out *how* to "persuade".

I've heard scientists comment about how some lone lunatic thinks he has disproved Einstein's theories or discovered some great aspect of physics that no one ever thought of before. These people are usually cranks who haven't bothered to do the long hard work required to develop solid experiments and who wouldn't know the scientific method if they met it face to face.

The scientists have, perhaps mistakenly, pegged you as one of those nut cases. That is likely why they are ignoring your ideas. You may need to work your way into the system by studying at a good university for a long time and then working with other scientists who can help you refine your ideas into clearly reasoned, testable theories. If you have real solid ideas, they will stand up to the intense scrutiny of critical assessment.

I'm not sure where you have "figured out Einstein's error" but since much of modern communications and space technology REQUIRES taking his theories into account in order to work, there is a good chance that he was actually right.

I didn't disprove relativity.

Just changed it from four to three dimensional relativity.

Time is an illusion caused by the relative motion between one dimensional string flows.

--
I'll put a link in as my "homepage"
forum won't let me post a link yet

When you hear people talking about physics, that's not actually science - it is a way of explaining the science to the layperson. Almost all of it is just an approximation and not entirely accurate because much of it can only be expressed accurately as equations. Physics demands mathematical proofs in the form of equations, not just prose. Have you got equations and observational data? If not, you are certain to be ignored by physicists.

perused?

The difficulty is that I'm *removing* math by disproving the 4th dimension.
All you need is the correct "logical extrapolation" to match the given evidence.
Then "Dark" vanishes.

The reason no one has "got it" in the last hundred years is math.
They all start with Einstein's *theoretical* equation and try for *more* math . . . instead of less.
(too smart for their own good, . . .11 dimensions?)

Do it your way, then. If it's better than science you should be able to come up with some practical applications. Better aircraft designs through prosaic intuition rather than mathematics, it would be something to see. Maybe we could hire poets to design a superior GPS system.



Perhaps. Or perhaps just two.

http://www.nonequilibrium.net/175-holog ... e-dummies/

maybe we can get the priests of science to practice logic instead of mysticism.

do you "believe" in time travel?
Einstein *proves* it.

multiple universes?
logical necessity if Eintein is correct.

Can they explain quantum physics and uncertainty?
I can.

Light is two dimensional.
Hits on edge it's a wave
Hits flat on and it's a particle.

Science just shrugs.
And looks for complex mathematical solutions.

--
I can post links!
http://www.psychforums.com/blog/ScottTh ... -1970.html

Not backwards in time. Einstein only shows that time can pass at different rates in different frames of reference, depending on things like gravity and velocity.

What really provided confirmation was that time actually does pass more slowly in orbit than on the ground. The GPS system has to calibrate for the difference, or it would begin to fail in approximately 2 seconds:

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~po ... 5/gps.html

Can your calculations provide a more accurate calibration for the GPS system? Or should we just abandon Einstein's equations and let the GPS system fail because you wrote a convincing essay?

[Moved from Social Skills and Making Friends to Computers, Math, Science, and Technology]