Why is science structured using pyramidal hierarchy? It's a conspiracy that's why! The technocrats and scientific elite do not want to be reduced to the same level of consciousness as the masses by raising the ignorant to their level. It's about power and control, it is said that knowledge is power and as they also say, absolute power corrupts absolutely. People in selected in KEY positions mandate and dictate policy to their subordinates. These key people being subordinates themselves. As I said these institutions and world authoratitive bodies were created by the elite establishment to be The Authorised Authority on the subject and only authorised authors of the authority get published and promoted in the main stream of human consciousness. The human factor and one defending their position and having to work for a living are well understood by those at the top. Thus the system can self perpetuate itself for a time without too much constant involvement from the controllers at the top, the culture creators. A lot like the way religion functions and is perpetuated by their believers or faithful. Belief and faith in their leaders above them. It is only when the faith of the believers is shaken or in trouble that that KEY leaders and controllers take action and shut the whole thing down to safeguard the true knowledge. They are known as the gatekeepers.
p.s. I fully respect your views and intelligence
davidAuthor
Re: Is scientific genius extinct?
I want to make the case for simple solutions. I think that it has always been the simple solutions that made havoc with established dogma. This is because simple solutions generate simple truths, one that the common person (as opposed to the elite) can understand. Dogma on the other hand replaces understanding. Here you state the official party line or else! . Galileo seeing the moon of Jupiter and questioning Earth's placement in the heavens is an example of simple truth. Newton's concept of forces was another. I feel that our newest simple truth will have to do with the concept of ether. What was throw away 100 years ago will be our greatest insight.
tayga
Re: Is scientific genius extinct?
davidAuthor wrote: I want to make the case for simple solutions. I think that it has always been the simple solutions that made havoc with established dogma. This is because simple solutions generate simple truths, one that the common person (as opposed to the elite) can understand. Dogma on the other hand replaces understanding. Here you state the official party line or else! . Galileo seeing the moon of Jupiter and questioning Earth's placement in the heavens is an example of simple truth. Newton's concept of forces was another. I feel that our newest simple truth will have to do with the concept of ether. What was throw away 100 years ago will be our greatest insight.
I think you've hit the nail on the head regarding simplicity. The non-mathematicians among us would love to believe that this is true. It occurs to me that this very notion, with its appeal to intuition, is exactly what was subverted by Einstein, knowingly or unknowingly, in promoting the mathematical elegance and simplicity of Special Relativity.
Of course the quest for unification and elegance in the mathematics has led to solutions that are further and further from simplicity as non-mathematicians understand it.
On the other hand, Einstein's dismissal of the ether concept can been seen as the starting point for the complexity that has been the hallmark of particle physics with its ill-conceived fields and gauge bosons travelling the void from particle to particle to explain interactions between more familiar particles which may not be separate at all. I sincerely hope you're right about the ether. I can't get my head around the idea that universe is not physical and real as it appears to my senses.
Goldminer
Re: Is scientific genius extinct?
tayga wrote:
davidAuthor wrote: I want to make the case for simple solutions. I think that it has always been the simple solutions that made havoc with established dogma. This is because simple solutions generate simple truths, one that the common person (as opposed to the elite) can understand. Dogma on the other hand replaces understanding. Here you state the official party line or else! . Galileo seeing the moon of Jupiter and questioning Earth's placement in the heavens is an example of simple truth. Newton's concept of forces was another. I feel that our newest simple truth will have to do with the concept of ether. What was throw away 100 years ago will be our greatest insight.
I think you've hit the nail on the head regarding simplicity. The non-mathematicians among us would love to believe that this is true. It occurs to me that this very notion, with its appeal to intuition, is exactly what was subverted by Einstein, knowingly or unknowingly, in promoting the mathematical elegance and simplicity of Special Relativity.
Of course the quest for unification and elegance in the mathematics has led to solutions that are further and further from simplicity as non-mathematicians understand it.
On the other hand, Einstein's dismissal of the ether concept can been seen as the starting point for the complexity that has been the hallmark of particle physics with its ill-conceived fields and gauge bosons traveling the void from particle to particle to explain interactions between more familiar particles which may not be separate at all. I sincerely hope you're right about the ether. I can't get my head around the idea that universe is not physical and real as it appears to my senses.
Tyga and Dave, I appreciate your comments! They make my day. David's quote by Robin Williams: "Reality, What a concept!!"
I'd like to comment further, but my comments seem to get thrown out with the bath water. Mathematics and other abstract ideas are simply descriptions attempting to describe reality. All are works of fiction.
davidAuthor
Re: Is scientific genius extinct?
I actually went one step further and made a theory based upon the concept of ether that explains gravity, electrical, magnetic, and strong nuclear forces. I placed this theory in the Mad Ideas section under Subspace. The only problem is a convention definition; my Magnetic vector is 90 degrees off from Maxwell's. My problem is that there are no peer review processes that strips ideas down to their fundamental concepts and then, between all of us, builds a universally acceptable theory. We have different ideas but they remain separate ideas. Without unity any scientific progress can not succeed. They are just ideas blowing in the wind. My time in this endeavor is ending. My mental facilities are in retreat, my ability to concentrate is fading. I would hope that a younger generation would pickup the fight for new insight. I hate to think that my work was for not. Genius or foolish, it's hard to know the difference.
CharlesChandler
Re: Is scientific genius extinct?
davidAuthor wrote: My problem is that there are no peer review processes that strips ideas down to their fundamental concepts and then, between all of us, builds a universally acceptable theory. We have different ideas but they remain separate ideas. Without unity any scientific progress can not succeed. They are just ideas blowing in the wind.
Lloyd & I have been having conversations on this, and we totally agree. We're "trying" to organize teams of experts (or just interested individuals) to write reviews of the various works within their fields of focus. So I'd like to suggest that you post your material into the relevant section on my site:
Unlike other sites, where you get to say whatever you want, as long as you agree with the moderators on my site, you can say whatever you want, and form workgroups of like-minded people to collaborate with you. We don't have an aether workgroup yet — but we've collected a few leads. Maybe you can get upriver to comment.
davidAuthor
Re: Is scientific genius extinct?
I posted in the Aether Theory fields and also in my own sandbox area. Feel free to do what ever you can with the ideas. I am going camping for the next few months so I probably will not be responding to comments.
