Naked Science Forum
General Discussion & Feedback => Just Chat! => Topic started by: hamdani yusuf on 14/02/2024 12:41:23
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
Hamdani, I don't want to get into a slanging match with you but I will give you one example: the magnetic field is well understood as a relativistic correction to the electric field and vice versa. Attempts to tie it in to gravitation are wholly incorrect.
-
Or something significant has been omitted from the calculation, like an unidentified planet.
Not the same thing!
If you've missed something out of the calculation, that means that you have chosen (perhaps inadvertently) the wrong model.
Previously unknown planets were discovered precisely because the model was right and adding a few decimal points to the observation predicted the properties of a perturbing entity. One of my favorite examples of pushing a "good
enough" model was the remarkably accurate prediction of the physical and chemical properties of germanium from what was then a gap in the periodic table.
-
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?
Put it round the other way. If you can resolve an anomaly, publish your observation or calculation and get an honorary PhD from an institution that wants to bask in reflected glory. But publish it in a peer-reviewed physics journal, not a chat forum!
-
Not the same thing!
If you've missed something out of the calculation, that means that you have chosen (perhaps inadvertently) the wrong model.
Previously unknown planets were discovered precisely because the model was right and adding a few decimal points to the observation predicted the properties of a perturbing entity.
That's precisely the case where discrepancy between model's prediction and observation doesn't necessarily mean that the model is wrong.
-
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?
Put it round the other way. If you can resolve an anomaly, publish your observation or calculation and get an honorary PhD from an institution that wants to bask in reflected glory. But publish it in a peer-reviewed physics journal, not a chat forum!
I treat my ideas as memes, just like any others. The ones I posted here had won internal competitions in my mind. I'll just let them to compete externally with everyone else's ideas. Hopefully they will win or lose for their own merits. Whatever the final result, I'll win some or learn some.
-
Here's the definition of guarantee.
Thanks for the definition. I checked and my use of the word 'guarantee' matches up with the definition that you provided.
-
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?
You have no idea how many people have read your posts nor do you know if they agree or disagree with you.
-
Why so? Many of my experiments show that currently widespread explanations for physical phenomena don't provide correct predictions.
This is just another example of your delusions of grandeur. I'll make another guarantee. If your experiment disagrees with established science then I guarantee that your experiment was faulty.
-
Do you think it's necessary, even for an extremely specific thing?
If that extremely specific thing is a physics 'thing', then the answer is yes.
-
The ones I posted here had won internal competitions in my mind. I'll just let them to compete externally with everyone else's ideas.
Science is not about competition, though there can be rewards for first publication or early exploitation of a discovery. Either your hypothesis stands up to experimental test and predicts something better than a previous hypothesis, or it doesn't.
-
I treat my ideas as memes,
The essence of a meme is that it gets promulgated by others, so you can't define anything as a meme until it has been distributed by third parties.
I have no evidence of anyone else promulgating (or even accepting) any of your ideas.
-
@Yusuf
It is Always a Pleasure sharing thoughts & ideas with you.
https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=top_venues
(all the best & tc)
ps - The greatest enemy of Knowledge is not Ignorance,
it is the illusion of Knowledge!
(Boorstin)
-
Strong psychoactive compounds?
-
Here's the definition of guarantee.
Thanks for the definition. I checked and my use of the word 'guarantee' matches up with the definition that you provided.
Where is the formal part?
-
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?
You have no idea how many people have read your posts nor do you know if they agree or disagree with you.
At least more than one.
I find no one else has guaranteed something about my posts. Do you know someone else?
-
Why so? Many of my experiments show that currently widespread explanations for physical phenomena don't provide correct predictions.
This is just another example of your delusions of grandeur. I'll make another guarantee. If your experiment disagrees with established science then I guarantee that your experiment was faulty.
Don't you feel that delusion of grandeur yourself by making that guarantee? Do you think established scientific models never failed and never changed?
-
Don't you feel that delusion of grandeur yourself by making that guarantee?
No, I'm just a realist stating the obvious.
Where is the formal part?
I wore a tuxedo when I wrote the post.
This was fun but I am going to put this thread on ignore with the rest of your threads and let you bask in your delusions with out my annoying input. Have fun.
-
Do you think it's necessary, even for an extremely specific thing?
If that extremely specific thing is a physics 'thing', then the answer is yes.
Haven't you heard about contributors to discoveries in physics who were not a PhD?
-
The ones I posted here had won internal competitions in my mind. I'll just let them to compete externally with everyone else's ideas.
Science is not about competition, though there can be rewards for first publication or early exploitation of a discovery. Either your hypothesis stands up to experimental test and predicts something better than a previous hypothesis, or it doesn't.
That's the competition. Like it or not, our ideas compete for memory space in people's minds, as well as data centers.
-
I treat my ideas as memes,
The essence of a meme is that it gets promulgated by others, so you can't define anything as a meme until it has been distributed by third parties.
I have no evidence of anyone else promulgating (or even accepting) any of your ideas.
I've found some supportive comments on some of my YouTube videos.
-
ps - The greatest enemy of Knowledge is not Ignorance,
it is the illusion of Knowledge!
(Boorstin)
We won't make progress by thinking that currently established science is all there is to know.
-
Strong psychoactive compounds?
Perhaps caffeine.
-
Hi.
I had written a long reply but edited it and then just lost it.
Some brief points:
This forum just has a few people that usually try to help and give up some time. Most of them are not in a position to recommend your articles to the remainder of the scientific community. For example, I am not a TV presenter for a science show, or a journalist for a science magazine etc. I don't know about everyone who uses the forum but I think this is the situation for many of them.
Writing a forum post is not llikely to be a short-cut to getting something published in a recognised journal. As @alancalverd mentioned earlier, that's where you would want something to get to if you want to bring it to the attention of the wider scientific community. I don't think that heads of University physics departments read this forum very often. It's not a sensible place to go looking for new things. The recognised journals are the most efficient place to go looking.
With this in mind, you can relax a bit, it hardly matters if you present the most amazing new discovery in this forum written in the most professional way. There's no-one here to impress that could go on to do anything with your article like print it in the scientfic magazine for which they are the editor.
The main thing which this forum could offer is some discussion. Its not really an adversarial contest, you don't need to hate them if they disagree - they aren't going to stop your idea being published. Equally, you shouldn't lead yourself to think that their positive comments would generally increase the likelihood of your idea being published or widely spread - that probably isn't in their power either.
Hopefully, the discussion is usefull. It may suggest some alterations in your ideas and vice versa (you may suggest alterations to their ideas). That's what the forum can offer.
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.
It's not adversarial in this way. Gain traction with who? anonymous member 1 is probably someone like me and I can't publish your article OR prevent it from being published.
All I can do is give up some time to read something and possibly give some more time to write a reply.
Best Wishes.
-
NOT VERY SMART? IT'S BETTER TO BE CONSERVATIVE! - Jordan Peterson w/ Sam Harris, Douglas Murray
When we're living in an already complex society, being a conservative and having a herd mentality by following the crowd and go with the flow is advantageous in most cases. It requires less effort to make decisions.
But as long as we don't live in a perfect society, there will be some cases where having a critical thinking to act differently than the mainstream is a better option.
-
Writing a forum post is not llikely to be a short-cut to getting something published in a recognised journal. As @alancalverd mentioned earlier, that's where you would want something to get to if you want to bring it to the attention of the wider scientific community.
Being viral in social media is an effective way to get the attention of the wider scientific community. That's why I use YouTube and X.
-
In this video, we talk about what they don't want you to know about academic publishing.
0:00 ? why academic publishing is gamed
1:35 ? predatory journals (Think. Check. Submit: https://thinkchecksubmit.org)
5:25 ? science celebrities
7:14 ? the rules of author order
10:08 ? citation games
12:18 ? the power of politics
What would you add to this list?
-
Nature Neuroscience recently unveiled an 11k dollar open access publishing fee. Tristopher is upset.
-
I usually use forums for brainstorming, and look for feedback to improve my argumentation for my ideas. When I finished condensing them into more compact forms, I'll convert them into videos and upload them to my YouTube channel.
For simple experiments, I often simply uploaded them almost in their raw form without much editing, deeper explanation, nor other considerations. Especially when I think that they are interesting, or not already widely known.
-
The ones I posted here had won internal competitions in my mind. I'll just let them to compete externally with everyone else's ideas.
Science is not about competition, though there can be rewards for first publication or early exploitation of a discovery. Either your hypothesis stands up to experimental test and predicts something better than a previous hypothesis, or it doesn't.
That's the competition. Like it or not, our ideas compete for memory space in people's minds, as well as data centers.
Healthy competitions can be useful to improve ourselves, as well as our ideas. They can also increase our confidence, especially if we win at least some of them.
-
Being viral in social media is an effective way to get the attention of the wider scientific community.
Scorn, not attention, usually. And there is no "wider scientific community".
-
Being viral in social media is an effective way to get the attention of the wider scientific community.
Scorn, not attention, usually. And there is no "wider scientific community".
You get the attention before the scorn.
More general scientific community might be more appropriate. There are science researchers, including theoreticians and experimentalists. There are science communicators, science educators, science students, science bureaucrats who determine research funding, science enthusiasts who conduct independent research out of curiosity.
-
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.
When I first uploaded my experiments about diffraction of light, which shows some results unexplainable using currently common explanations found in textbooks, I thought there would be more reactions from general science community. Many years have past and it seems that nothing has changed. Those results seem to be mostly ignored, and physics education goes on with business as usual. I tried to contact science communicators on social media like Youtube and Twitter (now X), but there's still no meaningful response.
Perhaps showing only weaknesses in currently accepted explanations without providing a better alternative cannot attract public's attention and initiate changes. That's why I continue the efforts in searching for better and simpler explanations.
-
I have seen nothing in your elegant diffraction experiments that disagrees with my textbooks. But they are mostly 60 years old.
-
I have seen nothing in your elegant diffraction experiments that disagrees with my textbooks. But they are mostly 60 years old.
Of course, because they don't mention following results:
- vertically tilted diffraction.
- horizontally tilted diffraction.
- non-diffractive edge using total internal reflection.
- non-diffractive slit using total internal reflection.
- half interference pattern from the combination of a non-diffractive edge and a diffractive edge.
- diffraction by polarizing edges.
- Interference pattern of double thick needles.
- Interference pattern of an aligned card.
How can they disagree with something that they don't say?
-
Nature Neuroscience recently unveiled an 11k dollar open access publishing fee. Tristopher is upset.
Over commercialization of academic institutions have caused many problems. Students debt, paper mills, predatory journals, and stagnation of scientific progress.
-
Of course, because they don't mention following results:
But they predict them all, using Huygens' construction.
-
Of course, because they don't mention following results:
But they predict them all, using Huygens' construction.
Show me Huygens' construction in a non-diffractive edge, which is the simplest case in my list.
Why can't the wave go to the area behind the obstacle?
-
Healthy competitions can be useful to improve ourselves, as well as our ideas. They can also increase our confidence, especially if we win at least some of them.
They can also improve our competitors, and the system as a whole. I remember that as a kid, I was quite competitive in academic skills, especially math and physics. I often represent my school in competitions for fields of study from urban village to national level from various organizers.
Those competitions gave me confidence that I can win some, but also lessons learned not to underestimate our competitors based on appearance.
-
Show me Huygens' construction in a non-diffractive edge
Show me a non-diffractive edge, and I'll show you fairies dancing on a pinhead. It's either an edge, or it's nondiffractive,
-
Show me Huygens' construction in a non-diffractive edge
Show me a non-diffractive edge, and I'll show you fairies dancing on a pinhead. It's either an edge, or it's nondiffractive,
Let's analyze the situation from the perspective of the laser pointer. Let's say the laser beam spotlight is 1 mm in diameter. Half of it passes through the transparent surface of the glass. Another half falls on the reflective surface. The boundary between those halves is the edge.
-
And how thick is the "edge"?
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_autodidacts#Engineers_and_inventors
i won't say anything more.
Not Required.
*Note of Appreciation*
For Everyone who spends Time in here and is Helping...
Thank You So Very Much!
-
And how thick is the "edge"?
How does it affect the Huygens' construction?
-
If it has a finite thickness, it isn't an edge, so you need an infinite number of Huygens constructions to predict the outcome. Better to simply note that as n→∞ so the diffraction pattern becomes less intense and more diffuse than two classic single-ray plots.
-
If it has a finite thickness, it isn't an edge,
Why do you think that an edge must have infinite thickness, which is physically impossible?
-
As usual, we need to distinguish between a model and reality.
"Huygens" is a very good model, using an idealised edge of zero thickness. In fact an edge could be no more than one atom thick and therefore correspond very closely to the model if the photon wavelength is greater than an atomic diameter - true for visible light but not for x-rays.
-
As usual, we need to distinguish between a model and reality.
Adequacy of a model depends on its applications. Flat earth model is good enough for building a house. Newton's model is good enough to send people to the moon and back.
-
lol
Watevr U both eat 4 brkfst, i'd lyk 2 eat it too!
plz cary on,
hav funn!
: )
-
Adequacy of a model depends on its applications.
And as you have shown, you can't apply Huygens usefully to a thick boundary.
-
Adequacy of a model depends on its applications.
And as you have shown, you can't apply Huygens usefully to a thick boundary.
It means that we need a more general model.
-
Not "we". Just you.
-
Not "we". Just you.
I don't think that I'm the only one.
If you choose to be ignorant of it, I can't force you to care.
-
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.
Mockery is a Terrible Tactic for Changing Minds
Sure, there are hard targets out there, but in the one-on-one exchanges about identity beliefs, there's likely a better way. Here's a clip by educator Melanie Trecek-King of www.thinkingispower.com..
let's use a better way.