[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Strong psychoactive compounds?

Perhaps caffeine.

[Eternal Student]

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.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Nature Neuroscience recently unveiled an 11k dollar open access publishing fee. Tristopher is upset.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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.

[alancalverd]

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".

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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.

[alancalverd]

I have seen nothing in your elegant diffraction experiments that disagrees with my textbooks. But they are mostly 60 years old. 

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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.

[alancalverd]

 

Of course, because they don't mention following results:

But they predict them all, using Huygens' construction.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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.

[alancalverd]

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,

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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.