Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 173 views

    The Death of Science.

    Uploaded by

    sam iam / Salvatore Gerard Micheal
    The document discusses the death of science due to a lack of open inquiry and willingness to consider unconventional ideas. It proposes a theory that elementary particles are wavelets of temporal curvature that could explain phenomena like general relativity, quantum mechanics, and electromagnetism. However, the author has faced ridicule and exclusion from the scientific community for their ideas. The document laments the closed-mindedness of many scientists and their unwillingness to engage with those seen as outsiders.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    The Death of Science.

    Uploaded by

    sam iam / Salvatore Gerard Micheal
    173 views1 page
    The document discusses the death of science due to a lack of open inquiry and willingness to consider unconventional ideas. It proposes a theory that elementary particles are wavelets of temporal curvature that could explain phenomena like general relativity, quantum mechanics, and electromagnetism. However, the author has faced ridicule and exclusion from the scientific community for their ideas. The document laments the closed-mindedness of many scientists and their unwillingness to engage with those seen as outsiders.

    Original Description:

    R.I.P. or rebirth?

    Original Title

    The death of science.

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses the death of science due to a lack of open inquiry and willingness to consider unconventional ideas. It proposes a theory that elementary particles are wavelets of temporal curvature that could explain phenomena like general relativity, quantum mechanics, and electromagnetism. However, the author has faced ridicule and exclusion from the scientific community for their ideas. The document laments the closed-mindedness of many scientists and their unwillingness to engage with those seen as outsiders.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    173 views1 page

    The Death of Science.

    Uploaded by

    sam iam / Salvatore Gerard Micheal
    The document discusses the death of science due to a lack of open inquiry and willingness to consider unconventional ideas. It proposes a theory that elementary particles are wavelets of temporal curvature that could explain phenomena like general relativity, quantum mechanics, and electromagnetism. However, the author has faced ridicule and exclusion from the scientific community for their ideas. The document laments the closed-mindedness of many scientists and their unwillingness to engage with those seen as outsiders.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    The death of science. for Omar and Caroline When was it?

    When was the day science actually died? Is it dead? Most conventional scientists would say Alive and well thank you! But they'd be lying.. When we can't ask questions, if we do and we're shunned or excluded or mocked or ridiculed simply for asking a question, science has died. When someone who associates with me on common ideas, sharing ideas with each other in a friendly way, but then must 'pull away' because it might jeopardize their funding, science is dead. When I'm ridiculed simply for my unconventional ideas, science has died. When people won't talk with me because if they're seen associating with 'fringe', 'quack', or 'pseudo-scientist', then science is dead. Do I propose something so heinous? Is it so unpalatable that makes convention retch with revulsion? What exactly do I propose? I'm glad you asked that ;) Markus Lazar, within convention, has proposed elements of this model. Adenier has allowed this with his historic refutation of Bell's theorem (and yes, he's an outcast because of it). Caroline Thompson spent the last years of her life disproving it. Before she died, she was shunned and excluded. Wikipedia refused to acknowledge either. I refuse to use Wikipedia in protest. Again, what's so heinous that convention must perform such extreme acts of exclusion and condemnation? Do the ideas actually merit that? ..Essentially, they're an integrated set of concepts pulled from engineering which is ostensibly a very practical profession. Watch Big Bang Theory to see what physicists think of engineers.. For the moment, allow me to label myself one.. They look down on us. To them, we're just 'technicians' who design and build their 'fancy' equipment (such as the LHC).. That's about it. Ideas about time and space and elementary particles? Poppycock.. You'd have better luck asking a chicken. I don't exaggerate. The level of arrogance in math and physics is palpable.. In 30+ years of reaching out toward the physics community.. I've met one or two humble physicists. One or two. Neil Turok is one; he directs the Perimeter Institute. He's never quite said Atta boy Sam! but.. He's never called the police on me for cyber stalking either ;) I'm being facetious because he's never replied to any of my notes/letters.. But neither has Stephen Hawking.. Eventually, I 'get the idea' and stop writing.. So what exactly have I 'wasted' 30+ years of my 'free time' on? What's the essence of the theory? In a nutshell, I propose elementary particles (electrons, protons, and photons) are charged/uncharged wavelets of temporal curvature. Boom. Wow.. It's so simple! Could it be so? Almost unbelievably, the notion explains: general relativity, gravitation, special relativistic effects, time dilation near large masses, Heisenberg uncertainty, the strong force between nucleons, double-slit phenomena, nuclear decay, and electromagnetism if we allow charged antiphotons as mediators. Wow. A fully deterministic local theory of quantum systems .. We've neglected the notion of spin and most physicists would say Prove it. but.. I would have to be a Feynman and Einstein combined to 'do that trick'. I've appealed to colleagues in the NPA who's expertise could provide convincing arguments about such things as temporal curvature = gravitation. They've declined. So.. What can I do? I can't keep writing Stephen Hawking or Neil Turok about it.. That's just plain rude. Nope. I gotta just chill out and focus on other things.. Maybe math.. Maybe I could shake a few branches there.. Get the monkeys howling.. ;) http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson1/ http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0006014

    You might also like