Why is PF's Mega Maze hindering revolutionary ideas in physics?

  • Thread starter deda
  • Start date
In summary, Deda thinks that if his idea is good it should be published regardless of who is involved. He asks for suggestions on how to make his idea successful, but ultimately wants to be the last to be successful.
  • #1
deda
185
0
It’s been more than two years since I’m member here on PF. At first I only had a hunch that something’s not right with the traditional physics but, now I’m sure and I know exactly the reason for it. It’s Newton’s mechanics being incompatible with the law of lever. Nowadays you cannot publish something not based on something else previously accepted by the authorities. My question is: How Newton managed to publish his mechanics though it’s against the physics of lever accepted years before Newton’s time? Because today’s physics starts with Newton’s mechanics instead of the law of lever it’s entirely wrong.

It seems that PF is a Mega Maze where folks with revolutionary ideas end up lost in the effort to get to the public opinion and remedy it. PF is Mega Maze where folks like me end up fighting windmills. What’s the point of PF any way? Talk, talk, just talk and do nothing. I think I had enough of it. But before I leave I want you all to make my time and money spent here worthy a while. I want those of you experienced in publishing to help me compose solid undeniable scientific paper and submit it in some physics journal. Let's do finally something that matters. Make my effort finally effective.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
deda said:
It’s been more than two years since I’m member here on PF. At first I only had a hunch that something’s not right with the traditional physics but, now I’m sure and I know exactly the reason for it. It’s Newton’s mechanics being incompatible with the law of lever. Nowadays you cannot publish something not based on something else previously accepted by the authorities. My question is: How Newton managed to publish his mechanics though it’s against the physics of lever accepted years before Newton’s time? Because today’s physics starts with Newton’s mechanics instead of the law of lever it’s entirely wrong.

It seems that PF is a Mega Maze where folks with revolutionary ideas end up lost in the effort to get to the public opinion and remedy it. PF is Mega Maze where folks like me end up fighting windmills. What’s the point of PF any way? Talk, talk, just talk and do nothing. I think I had enough of it. But before I leave I want you all to make my time and money spent here worthy a while. I want those of you experienced in publishing to help me compose solid undeniable scientific paper and submit it in some physics journal. Let's do finally something that matters. Make my effort finally effective.

Well I never enjoy seeing anyone depart from PF, however those who do usually find themselves back after a little break. :smile:

I think your being a little nieve to think PF is just pointless rhetoric. Checkout the homework help forums and you'll see how much PF makes a difference. PF isn't just about advancing or creating a new theory, that isn't our main focus. PF is an equal consideration community to express and develop values, beliefs and attitudes. This is done both scientificly, socially, and culturally. Now if you want to start a thread on seriously developing a new rocket ship by all means go ahead and best of luck to you if that makes you feel like your time here is more worthwhile.
 
  • #3
I take it all back. I got carried away by the impulse I had at that time.
 
  • #4
I have some strong feelings about your post, Deda. As I see it, making new science seems to be the privilige of academic people, who learned how to fit into the system. You can toy with ideas but in the end it is business as usual.

in the old days, being young and wild, I decided a long time ago to trade the "dull" world of the university for the wild blue younder and hence spend some 25 years in the cockpit of fighter aircraft. But after such a carreer you're chanceless if you have some unusual ideas if you are just a John Doe.

Take for instance my https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=2974. It's nice to see that there is not a single post suggesting that it is baloney and we even scored:
I'll have to admit, this is one of the best ideas in Theory Development I've seen. I'm usually very skeptical about these, but you might be onto something. I'll see if I can't pick apart your idea some more later, but good idea.
(Brad ad23)

Nice and thanks, but that's it. what now? It yells to be publizised if we agree that it could have been possible. I can write it but nobody will read it since I'm a nobody. So how about some suggestions, help even? I would be happy being the last one in the row of an impressive array of PhD authors for that paper.

But who wants a major paradigm shift.

Anyway I'll keep being a happy poster :smile:
 
Last edited:
  • #5
Think of PF as a preliminary peer review. We have a lot of great & knowledgeable members who can help you think about & refine your ideas in new ways. Do your best to get your article published. Greg publishes worthwhile articles from PF members at Physics Post (http://www.physicspost.com/)...that may not make you famous, but it's a start. Then send the article to professional astronomers in the field (e.g., planetary scientists at various universities). They may or may not review it. But if the idea is good, then someone may catch onto it. I seriously doubt they'd steal the idea, especially if you had it published already. Don't expect to start the next scientific revolution (only a tiny, tiny fraction of scientists have had that honor), but maybe you can contribute a piece to the overall body of scientific knowledge.
 
  • #6
Thanx Phobos, now publising something as http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/Laurentian%20ice%20sheet%20on%20greenland.htm (references will be added) is perhaps a minor subject with a limited extent but proposing that "terrestial planets like Venus and Earth may (have) come to a screaming halt due to a build-in design flaw (al et Andre)" cannot hardly be considered as something insignificant. So it seems to be either rubbish or implies a paradigm shift, I should say.

Stealing ideas is not done and not a factor. Everybody can see who who posted what.

NB Fig 1 went wrong in the first link. It is http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/gisp-vostok.GIF
 
Last edited by a moderator:

1. Why is PF's Mega Maze hindering revolutionary ideas in physics?

One possible reason for this is that the Mega Maze, being a complex and challenging problem, may be consuming a lot of time and resources from scientists and researchers, leaving less room for exploration and experimentation with new ideas.

2. Are there any specific examples of revolutionary ideas that have been hindered by PF's Mega Maze?

There is no concrete evidence that directly links the Mega Maze to hindering specific revolutionary ideas. However, some scientists argue that the intense focus on solving the Mega Maze may be causing a lack of diversity in research and limiting the exploration of new ideas.

3. Could the Mega Maze be preventing breakthroughs in physics?

It is difficult to say definitively whether the Mega Maze is directly preventing breakthroughs in physics. However, some scientists believe that the intense competition and pressure to solve the Mega Maze may be hindering collaboration and open sharing of ideas, which could potentially lead to breakthroughs.

4. Is there a way to balance research on the Mega Maze with exploration of new ideas in physics?

One approach could be for scientists to find a balance between dedicating time and resources to the Mega Maze and also leaving room for exploring new ideas. Collaborative efforts and open sharing of findings could also help in this regard.

5. How can the scientific community address the potential hindrance of the Mega Maze on revolutionary ideas in physics?

It is important for scientists to prioritize and support diversity in research, and for funding organizations to encourage and support projects outside of the Mega Maze as well. Additionally, open communication and collaboration among scientists can help in exploring and developing new ideas in physics.

Similar threads

  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
3
Views
965
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
967
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • STEM Career Guidance
Replies
4
Views
2K
Back
Top