[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

To be clear, everything I wrote here should not in any way change the validity of what I wrote in the other threads. They have their own independent justifications and falsifications.

I see the need for posting this thread to give a story behind what I've written in the other threads. Simply posting facts and figures do not seem enough to get people's attention and gain traction.

Usually, people are interested in something with story, especially when it's based on real life or related to their own lives.

Those who've read my threads in this forum may wonder, where do I get my confidence to challenge established theories, especially in physics, philosophy, and mathematics?

This thread is an anticipation to what may happen when my hypotheses and their justifications somehow get more attention and acceptance among science community and wider audience.

I'd like to prevent the spread of wild speculations and misinformation.\\

Like most people, I learned about science, technology, and philosophy from school/college, textbooks, and online sources, including wikipedia, quora, science web sites, and science forums.

To understand things, I tried to make a mental map of knowledge nodes with relationships among them. Once in a while I found something didn't add up. Something must be missing somewhere.

Sometimes the error turned out to be just a typo in textbooks or websites. Sometimes it was caused by miscommunication and misunderstanding in the part of authors of the article.

Often times, comparing different sources for the same topic can help identify where the errors come from, and how to fix it.

But there are times when I need to get a first-hand information by doing my own research and experiments.

In my workplace, I'm often involved in process safety review, feasibility studies for CAPEX and OPEX, also incident investigations, either as lead investigator or a contributor or adviser.

Those roles give me experience and train my neurons to understand things deeper than what's shown in the surface. The justification for the correct investigation is rather simple.

The error stops occurring, and no repeated case for a long duration of time.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

A couple of questions that come to my mind when reflecting the current status of fundamental physics...

I have similar reasons to do science on YouTube.

[Origin]

This thread is an anticipation to what may happen when my hypotheses and their justifications somehow get more attention and acceptance among science community and wider audience.

The delusions of grandeur is strong with this one!

[paul cotter]

If one is trying to debunk established science, one needs to have a deep and comprehensive understanding of the subject matter. It is obvious that you do not have that necessary understanding. Don't get me wrong, I am all in favour of attempts to falsify the status quo but to do so one has to be adept with the current understanding to challenge it.

[alancalverd]

I really enjoy jousting with HY.

On the one hand he writes a lot of philosophical bollocks but I keep the scientific grey matter active by trying to explain why he is wrong.

On the other hand, his kitchen table experiments display curiosity, ingenuity, some fine engineering, and acute observation - the ghost of Faraday still walks the earth!

And on the third hand, he remains a gentleman throughout any argument - something of a rarity online.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

This thread is an anticipation to what may happen when my hypotheses and their justifications somehow get more attention and acceptance among science community and wider audience.

The delusions of grandeur is strong with this one!

I think success is a possible outcome. I'll just hope for the best, while being prepared for the worst.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

If one is trying to debunk established science, one needs to have a deep and comprehensive understanding of the subject matter. It is obvious that you do not have that necessary understanding. Don't get me wrong, I am all in favour of attempts to falsify the status quo but to do so one has to be adept with the current understanding to challenge it.

Perhaps being involved too much in established science has prevented modern scientists from thinking clearly about explanations for the experimental results.

The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.
Nikola Tesla

They're already convinced by some assumptions used in their mathematical model, and unwilling to abandon them to get a better model. They seem to be caught up into sunk cost fallacy.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I realize that I have my own blind spots, just like everyone else. That's why I tried to publish my ideas as soon as possible to be discussed with someone else in this forum, anticipating to prevent sunk cost fallacy.

What is a crackpot? But more importantly, why is a crackpot?

I'd like to know how my ideas are viewed from the other side. How much symptoms of crackpot do I have?

[Origin]

I think success is a possible outcome. I'll just hope for the best, while being prepared for the worst.

You can stop thinking success is possible.  I can guarantee that you will not put forward a new viable theory in physics. 

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I think success is a possible outcome. I'll just hope for the best, while being prepared for the worst.

You can stop thinking success is possible.  I can guarantee that you will not put forward a new viable theory in physics. 

What's your guarantee?

[paul cotter]

I agree with Alan that Hamdani behaves in a gentlemanly manner despite my disagreement with his technical arguments. On the subject of Tesla and his quotes I disagree. Tesla was a brilliant engineer but he was totally out of touch with the rapidly advancing scientific knowledge of his era and this situation worsened with time.

[Origin]

What's your guarantee?

I just told you in the post (you won't come up with a new viable theory).  If you mean why can I guarantee you won't come up with a new theory, the answer is because I have read your posts so I know that you do not have a good understanding of current physics therefore you will not be able to come up with something new.
If you really want to try add something to physics then you should go to college and get a PhD in physics.

Coming up with ideas and talking on discussion forums is fun, but don't delude yourself into thinking that you are advancing science, that would a bit crazy.

[alancalverd]

Perhaps being involved too much in established science has prevented modern scientists from thinking clearly about explanations for the experimental results.

I have no idea what you mean by "established science". There are numbers and formulae deduced from observation that are considered "good enough for engineering", in the widest sense of that phrase, but the business of science is to investigate phenomena where the textbook turns out to be self-contradictory or just not good enough. 

They're already convinced by some assumptions used in their mathematical model, and unwilling to abandon them to get a better model. They seem to be caught up into sunk cost fallacy.

That's politics, economics, religion and philosophy, not science. If the facts don't fit the model, the model is wrong - that's science.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I just told you in the post (you won't come up with a new viable theory).

Here's the definition of guarantee.

verb
provide a formal assurance or promise, especially that certain conditions shall be fulfilled relating to a product, service, or transaction.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

If you mean why can I guarantee you won't come up with a new theory, the answer is because I have read your posts so I know that you do not have a good understanding of current physics therefore you will not be able to come up with something new.

Many people have read my posts. You are the only one confident enough to guarantee that I will fail. Do you know something that they don't?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

If you really want to try add something to physics then you should go to college and get a PhD in physics.

Do you think it's necessary, even for an extremely specific thing?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Coming up with ideas and talking on discussion forums is fun, but don't delude yourself into thinking that you are advancing science, that would a bit crazy.

Why so? Many of my experiments show that currently widespread explanations for physical phenomena don't provide correct predictions.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

If the facts don't fit the model, the model is wrong - that's science.

Or something significant has been omitted from the calculation, like an unidentified planet. Bayesian inference and Occam's razor are useful to select the most appropriate models.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

On the one hand he writes a lot of philosophical bollocks but I keep the scientific grey matter active by trying to explain why he is wrong.

What do you think is the biggest flaw in my arguments in philosophy, and what can be done to improve or correct it?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I agree with Alan that Hamdani behaves in a gentlemanly manner despite my disagreement with his technical arguments. On the subject of Tesla and his quotes I disagree. Tesla was a brilliant engineer but he was totally out of touch with the rapidly advancing scientific knowledge of his era and this situation worsened with time.

Which technical arguments do you think that I got wrong?

To maintain order, IMO it would be better to discuss technical issues in their respective threads. As far as possible, here we'll discuss non-technical things only.