Caution: Limitations on Posting

Tom,

I have a question. I have been to several other boards. I like this one because it appears rooted in sound scientific principles with good background physics and doesn't take the position "Because Einstein said so".

But I appear to have ruffled your feathers by opening up views from UniKEF. I would hope to fit in with this group but I am a bit confused by the fact that it appears people can make comments or ask questions about issues that they clearly don't understand and they are respected and given good answers.

Why is it that ideas based on considerable thought and (not being selfserving) with at least some appreciable understanding of the subject matter, seems to irritate the professionals?

If perhaps it is viewed as being presumptive or assuming a superior view, that is not the case with UniKEF. I know it is incomplete but I hope by presenting what I have developed over the years that it may spark a light in somebody that may carry the truth (whatever it may be) forward.


Mac

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
But I appear to have ruffled your feathers by opening up views from UniKEF.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I cannot speak for Tom obviously but I don't think you ruffled anyone's feathers. Some of your commentary seems to promote your theory as compared to Tom's (which is not forbidden) but you tend to make positive statements that assumes the reader knows what you are talking about. It does no good to say "UniKEF says..." when no one here is familiar with what you are saying. You must supply the physical reasoning up to the point of your conclusion if you are going to grab most of us.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
I would hope to fit in with this group but I am a bit confused by the fact that it appears people can make comments or ask questions about issues that they clearly don't understand and they are respected and given good answers.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

This seems to be a "Why can't we get rid of all the stupid people" kind of argument. It is obviously irritating when someone wants to rant about some well understood phenomena that doesn't need a new explanation. I don't think Tom wanted this forum to just be for card carrying astronomers but to give anyone with insight or genuine interest a chance to contribute. If we all have to prove we have written a book about celestial mechanics then I think the board is going to get rather dry. I for one think it is wonderful that Tom is not being a stuffed shirt and insulating himself from the public. The rest of us who know a bit more on a particular subject try to help the ones that don't. If they get too obnoxious they tend to run themselves off.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Why is it that ideas based on considerable thought and (not being selfserving) with at least some appreciable understanding of the subject matter, seems to irritate the professionals?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Could you give a specific example of this? Most of the irritation that I have seen here occurs when exchanging numerous posts with people who ask a question and then start telling the answerer that he is a misguided fool when the questioner obviously doesn't know what they are saying.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
If perhaps it is viewed as being presumptive or assuming a superior view, that is not the case with UniKEF. I know it is incomplete but I hope by presenting what I have developed over the years that it may spark a light in somebody that may carry the truth (whatever it may be) forward.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

We like new opinions but be careful to not make the board a forum for championing your own theory. The place to do that is on your own website.



[/quote]

Jeremy,
I appreciate your guidance in this matter and I want to address each of your commments.***************************
Perhaps I misunderstood Tom's comments and tone but it gave me the impression that I was being told "You can ask any question you like but don't give your view unless your view has been accepted by the scientific community".
If that was not the case then I owe Tom an apology. I have seen some of Tom's opinions here and I say that I want to learn more about them but at this point what I've seen indicates that we certainly have much more in common than we do in opposition. I don't see this as a competetion. For in that case I would clearly lose in that my work is far more in lay terms than his level.
I thought by my introduction when I joined that I was clear in that I had a theory and that by speaking in reference to it,it would be understood that it was that a theory and not recognized (yet) science fact. But unless a reader picked up my comments chronologically I can see where they might be misleading to conclude that had a firmer bases than perhaps they do. I'll try to rectify that but I'm not quite sure yet how to make that clear without refering to UniKEF.
*********************I certainly never intended to give the impression that people are stupid nor would I want to have some qualification to enter a discussion. Because somebody doesn't know physics or anyother trade doesn't make them stupid. I would make a poor cook but that doesn't make me stupid. My point was more that lack of knowledge about a subject seemed acceptable but to challenge the status quo wasn't.*************************
I believe here you are asking about my credentials or knowledge of the subject.
I am not an engineer nor am I a physicist. I do have (4) years college in mechanical, electrical and nuclear engineering; plus post graduate electronics via a special act of Congress for Nuclear Power development in the US Army. I was a 52K20 - Nuclear Reactor Operator. From 1971 to 1996 I have owned and operated my own research corporation and have had distinguished clients, including NASA. I have several inventions and patents.
Tom made the comment, which is a valid point but I believe casts to broad a net, without first knowing something about the backgraound of a theory, that they are a dime a dozen. Some are worth less others are worth more. I am not thin skinned and accept criticisim, assuming it is made with due consideration.*********************
It has not been my intent to try and make the forum for the promotion of UniKEF. I had hoped that some of the views that have evolved from it could be exposed to critique and/or found useful in generating useful alternative concepts to the many problems that still prevail with some of the currently held theories.**************
I would not ask that you forge through my work, it is lengthy and full of pot holes I'm sure. But it might be good if you at least read the Introduction to assure yourself that I am not here to teach. I am here to learn but I am not so interested in learning the status quo or text book answers that are (in my opinion) grossly flawed.
*****While UniKEF is far from complete and makes a lot of assumptions that need cleaning up, it has been reviewed by the Physics Department at Purdue, The US Army Research Command and others. Nobody raised a green flag of victory but neither did anybody laugh. While at the time I was in Highschool and had never heard of Le Sage you'll find in the History Section, a note from Purdue equating it to a modernized version of Le Sage that ventures into many areas other than just gravity.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Why is it that ideas based on considerable thought and (not being selfserving) with at least some appreciable understanding of the subject matter, seems to irritate the professionals?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Spend a little time reading the USENET newsgroups in the "sci." (science) category. You will gain a little perspective. Everybody feels that way about his/her own pet idea.

The world has no shortage of new ideas and theories. Thanks to the Internet, now everyone can communicate his/her own pet model to the rest of the world. Well and good. But 99% of these are naive because the author has never bothered to read what has already been done, or to learn how the accepted model reached its status, or how to test models, or how to insert controls to prevent the influence of bias, or even how many people have already tried essentially the same model before and why it was rejected. Yet each person cries "listen to me" because each author tends to fall in love with his/her own ideas. Everyone wants feedback.

The perspective that one acquires by seeing what the world is really like is that it is no one's job to educate authors about the mistakes or degree of naivete of their own models. Authors must do the hard work of exposing their ideas first to the most junior of science-interested parties and following up on all that feedback. Then, if the idea communicates well and still survives, they can expose the model to the next level up, and so on. Somewhere along the line, it is time to get a formal peer review at a technical journal. Even passing that and getting published is not enough to be worthy of the time and attention of busy professionals. Something like 99% of all published papers are ignored. Only the rare model has the right combination of relevance, importance, testability, insight, and plausibility to excite scientists enough to want to read and examine an idea further, because they already have a backlog of ideas that will take a lifetime to try out.

If the author doesn't have the background to communicate the idea clearly using standard definitions and concepts, or if the author lacks credentials, that hugely increases the chances that the model will be naive. Adding to all those handicaps for any new idea, authors are rarely appreciative when someone senior in a field shoots their prized model down in flames. Not surprisingly, indignation and denial are the most common responses.

In today's science community, new ideas aren't worth the electrons it takes to post them. The only way to get past that stage takes a lot of hard work and perseverence, in which no one but the author has any interest. You either choose to go there, or you don't. Most ideas, good and bad, die with their author.

As this pertains to this board, anyone can start a new topic, lay out his/her great new idea, and see what feedback (if any) can be had. Most likely, there will be none, reflecting that the idea does not meet those criteria I mentioned for this audience -- relevance, importance, testability, insight, and plausibility. That can be because of the idea itself, or because of poor communication. Work on clearer ways to express yourself. Practice with your grandmother. (Really!) One of the many ways in which authors are naive is by assuming that others know (or are fresh on) all the specific things the author happens to know. Assume nothing. Make everything clear by reasoning, quotation, experiment, or citation. Constantly work on ways to express yourself more clearly.

What is not welcome here is using various Message Board topics about other subjects to drop hints about one's own pet model. That gets old very fast. You can occasionally cite your own papers already in print; but not your unpublished pet idea or private web site. Life is too short to read up on everyone's pet idea. The author has to jump through some qualification hoops first before it is even reasonable to start asking others to read his/her work. The Meta Research "General Advice" letter was intended to make some suggestions about how to get from here to there.

If you are unwilling to work that hard at it, you will take your ideas to your grave. There are no shortcuts unless you can use your idea to discover something that makes headlines. Don't expect help doing that either unless you are independently wealthy and can hire some people to assist you. -|Tom|-

Tom,

Your points are well taken and I will not expend board time responding in that I have already done so for Jeremy above.

I hope my most recent posts are more in keeping with the philosphy of the board, if not please advise.


Mac

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I hope my most recent posts are more in keeping with the philosphy of the board, if not please advise.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Much appreciated, Mac. With a little more experience, I think you'll see ways to "contaminate" <img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle> all of us with your thinking by making reasoned arguments where those are relevant to the topics being discussed. It's only when your ideas depend on special assumptions not in general use, and are therefore not self-explanatory, that problems arise. -|Tom|-