[Physics] Clock time vs. common sense time

[Ruud Loeffen]

To Ilja and Doug and others.

Yes: it's clear that "classical" scientist don't want new or innovative
ideas to supersede the mainstream sciences. Some scientists like Halton Arp
were refused to use the observational tools: “ As Dr. Arp’s colleagues lost
patience
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/07/science/space/halton-c-arp-astronomer-who-challenged-big-bang-theory-dies-at-86.html?_r=1>
*with
his quest, he was no longer invited to speak at major conferences, and his
observing time on the mighty 200-inch telescope began to dry up. Warned in
the early 1980s that his research program was unproductive, he refused to
change course. Finally, he refused to submit a proposal at all on the
grounds that everyone knew what he was doing. **He got no time at all.” *
Than he was engaged in the Planck institute*. *Also Julian Schwinger was
not appreciated: *[Q] But you must have admired his elegance as a
physicist?*
*Murray: No. I despised it *: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmi1MhRfoWU

Physicist seem to be quite human...

I don't know if you know vixra.org (the reverse of arxiv!) They offer
especially place to people who are refused on arxiv.org
I read a warning on a physicsforum: "don't publish on vixra if you want to
be taken seriously".😖

So I think it's very good to exchange our ideas and perhaps we can be
stronger together. Perhaps there are some tools available to be shared (no
accelerator....)

Best regards.
Ruud Loeffen.

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Ilja Schmelzer <
ilja.schmelzer at googlemail.com> wrote:

> I personally see no chance for experiments.  Simply because in the
> particle physics domain you can do nothing without particle
> accelerators, and in gravity nothing without the big observational
> tools used in modern astronomy. The time of experiments done at home
> is over.  One or another accidental thing may happen, like cold fusion
> or so.  But I doubt experiments from outsiders can give more.
>
> I have encountered problems with arxiv.org too.
>
> First they have tried to reject a paper which was a combination of an
> old one with some new results.  Too close to each other, so this can
> be only one arxiv paper - despite completely different publications,
> where the second one was made in full awareness of the publisher that
> some old content will be reused.
>
> Then they have simply rejected an ether paper which was an answer to a
> paper itself published there. The arguments for rejection have been
> completely off,  I was able to reject them, but only to avoid worse
> things (like being allowed to publish there only already published
> papers) but the paper itself was nonetheless not published.
>
> So, arxiv.org is increasingly going insane in their censorship.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Physics mailing list
> Physics at tuks.nl
> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>



-- 
*Ruud Loeffen*
Paardestraat32
6131HC Sittard
http://www.human-DNA.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20161028/f13d5b7c/attachment.html>