[Physics] Cubic Atomic Model + Theory

[Ilja Schmelzer]

2020-05-06 22:11 GMT+06:30, Soretna <illumination00 at gmail.com>:
> I must say that your reply has left me completely flabbergasted and in
> dismay Ilja. I don't understand how anyone could take that approach in life
> and at any stage of life. 😫

Very simple, one has to make decisions, in dependence on the own
abilities. If I decide to care about outsider positions about
experiments in physics, I would better have some background in
experimental physics, to be able to distinguish nonsense from serious
experiments. I have studied mathematics, thus, I have much less
education about experimental physics than even theoretical physicists
by education.

That there will be, necessarily, a lot of such nonsense among the
experiments made by outsiders is quite obvious. I don't have
sufficient abilities to detect this. I may be able to identify one or
another bad paper, but there would be enough remaining, and I have no
ability to identify those who are really good. So I would predictably
end up with supporting some outsider experiments which do not deserve
any support, as experienced experimenters would easily see.

> I believe in being as being as free from bias
> and unshackled by preconceptions as possible (although I realize that as a
> human and with cultures the way they are it's never possible to completely
> succeed in this)

I don't believe in any freedom from preconceptions. One should be
ready to question them if necessary, that's all.

> A sever problem always arises when we place our trust, somewhat blindly,
> into so-called research that appears now to have had scientifically impure
> motivations. I don't want to use the term evil as you did (perhaps even
> facetiously?),

ironic.

> Whenever there is clear evidence of such things it is, or should be, our
> personal and societal imperative to change things if we hope to leave the
> world in an improved state, even if it threatens our livelihood.

Here one also has to care. In the case of outsider experiments, I have
not even a chance to be certain that I'm right. I prefer to choose the
place for my fight where I have a reasonable chance to win a fair
discussion.

See, if I accept the SM and GR, there is a large region where I don't
have to be afraid of any attack at all. And this is the whole region
where I'm weak, and where to attack me would be easy.  I'm fighting in
a region which the mainstream physics has neglected out of principle,
based on misguided positivism - the interpretation of the equations of
the theories. So, I'm strong there, because adequately prepared, and
the mainstream physicists are extremely weak.

> For some this presents a moral dilemma, perhaps akin to the professional
> clergyman that has realized that his faith is no longer correct and another
> option is, such as an unpaid lay ministry religion, and now must chose to
> reeducate themself and then place in jeopardy their ability to put food on
> the table for their family.

I have no such problems. I'm financially independent.

My opinion about the scientific community is not really bad, but also
not really good. They are certainly not the heros fighting for truth.
But they are nonetheless not liars. I have studied an example of
science under political pressure. Some results: The politically
incorrect things you will not find in title and abstract, with low
probability in the intro or the conclusions, with higher probability
in the main text, with the highest concentration in the footnotes.

Don't wonder if about the most interesting questions there is no
research at all, except from outsiders. The explanation is simple:
Everybody knows the result one has to expect, and that it is
politically incorrect. So starting to study this question would
suicidal. On the other hand, they don't lie. They could have faked
research giving the politically wanted results. They didn't.

Even more, if they learn from outsiders that all the old studies are
scrap because it would have been necessary to control for some more
variables, the mainstream may accept this.  And this may mean even the
end of some politically correct pseudoscience, however supported by
political pressure. But, don't expect too much: that pseudoscience
will be dead because no prestigeous journal publishes this nonsense
after this. But there will be no publicity about this. Scientists have
simply found other interesting and important questions to study.
Nobody will, in retrospect, name that pseudoscience pseudoscience or
so. And the other interesting questions they study now will be in no
way politically incorrect.

That means, even if they prefer not to fight openly for truth given
the political risks, they at least try not to betray scientific
principles themselves.

A consequence is that I don't believe into conspiracies. They may
easily be misled, and young scientists have essentially no freedom but
to follow the actual mainstream fads (publish or perish, and they need
new grants after the end of the actual one) so that errors of the
leading scientists will be copied. But that's different from
intentional organized lying.

> I realize that this is all difficult, but it is
> an important crossroads that is personally revelatory and ultimately avails
> an opportunity to grow if one choses to go down this path of deciding to
> find the truth no matter the cost and insomuch that this pursuit is indeed
> guided by factual data and truth.

I have no problem with fighting for truth if I'm sure about it. In
particular actually I engage myself against the climate change
alarmism, see https://ilja-schmelzer.de/climate/.

But in this case I also take care about the fights I choose. I prefer
not to question any scientific papers presented, with only a few
exceptions where I can explicitly identify a problem.  So I don't
question the climate change itself, but simply the related alarmism.
Even if the climate change is what it is, as predicted by climate
scientists, the consequences are much less horrible than predicted by
alarmists.