My point here is that one experiment is being accepted as proof of a theory while other anomalous, yet highly empirical, evidence is ignored because they contradict current theory. Why? Science must have no biasness. If there is evidence contradicting an established theory, then that theory must be reanalyzed thoroughly, but this is not the case. The current scientific community, especially those at the helm of the establishment, refuses to entertain, and much less finance, certain evidence and consequential theories in contradiction to established doctrine. They place a large amount of effort in reinterpreting certain contradictory evidence in favour of established theories obscuring the data and confounding established theory with nonsensical mathematical interpretations.
Take myself for example. I had a theory, a hypothesis, for many years about relativity and a few years ago I formulated the theory mathematically as simply as possible just as Einstein did with his Special Theory of Relativity. I wanted to make it absolutely understandable by the majority of readers and not just elite scientists. To me, it makes no sense deriving a theory that only a few can ever understand. To my astonishment, I derived an equation that subsequently calculated Jupiter's mass to the numerical value of an electron charge which validated my initial hypothesis exactly. I was ecstatic, but still skeptical so I didn't share it with anyone and instead decided to write a non-formal eBook with all my theories on pretty much everything.
About a year later, I was looking at my relativistic mass equation again, the one the calculated Jupiter's mass to an electron charge, and noticed that the scale value (The Reality Scale Constant) I had derived, which was key to all my equations, was further composed mathematically of the speed of light to power of the e (the mathematical constant); S=c^e. Now I had two mathematical coincidences and not just one. The probability of two coincidences relating to each other and in circular reference to the hypothesis was staggering (mathematically improbable). I figured it was time to publish my theory to the scientific community because I was armed with not just one coincidence but two. The first person I approached was an open-minded and admired physicist in the scientific publishing business. He read my theory and had a hard time absorbing it initially. Several days later, he contacted me saying that he liked my theory but that he could not endorse my paper. I asked why. He openly said that it would affect his reputation in the physics publishing business and that he couldn't have that. I was disappointed but he gave me some good advice and opened my eyes to the reality in the scientific community beyond the conservatism that I was familiar with. He told me to promote my radical theory and share it with many individuals to gain support for it. Basically, the idea was as I shared it with more and more people that I would start to gain a following in the scientific community for a theory that was," much more viable than String Theory." He mentioned that this was a major paradigm shift which would take time. Of course I realized that it was radical, "but how about the mathematical coincidences?" He replied by saying that was the most compelling part about my theory but even with remarkable data like that the community will still not publish my paper and most likely not give any reason in fear of wording any statement that I might use against them if and when my theory gains mass acceptance.
Reputable scientific journals ignore thousands of papers without ever reviewing them. The junior, assistant and senior editors screen the papers by researching the author and his or her associated institution(s). For all those individuals that are not associated with an academic institution, many journals reject their work outright. These rejections include many individuals from the private sector in companies at the forefront of scientific exploration and technology development. There are even cases of individuals from government agencies being rejected again for the same reason. This is a tragic biasness and practice which is absolutely unacceptable. I know of two other individuals that also have remarkable mathematical coincidences that have also been rejected. One theory is to do with wave theory and the other is to do with an energy theory. Both are nothing but astonishingly remarkable and yet they have the same grievance. Again why would the established community ignore papers that could possibly revolutionize the word? The answer, as posed by a friend of mine, is simple. It's called the herd factor and Dr. Thomas Gold describes it perfectly in his paper titled "New Ideas In Science" ( http://amasci.com/freenrg/newidea1.html).
To summarize, the herd follow each other communally for multiple reasons but essentially because the group can benefit the survival of the individual as long as the individual follows the herd. Obviously a communal herd is beneficial, but what about those individuals that have foresight to see that the herd is nearing a cliff and decides to warn them? The bigger the herd the slower it will be for them to accept change even at their own survival, but the real problem is with the leaders of the herd. If the lone individual is unable to convince the leaders, or if this individual poses a threat to the hierarchy of the herd solely because he is clever or because the leaders openly contradicted the individual (which becomes of matter of reputation again affecting the credibility in the hierarchy), then this individual can be violently ostracized by the herd. He will be left to his own defenses without the protection from the herd and possibly be attacked by the herd. This in a nutshell is how most communities operate including the scientific community. The progress of science should have nothing to do with the reasoning of how a community operates and much less be stifled by the community's psychological dynamics. From what I know, I can confidently and boldly state that if Einstein had attempted to publish his work in today's era of scientific screening and peer-review that he would not have been published.
I am very grateful to UFO Digest for their willingness to share my paper with their community. Please share my work freely with your friends and colleagues.
Sincerely,
Robert L. DeMelo
www.gpofr.com
|
Today:
Printer
friendly version
