3 ms·

It's not worth noting - because we also know that almost all theories of this ilk tend to be dismissed because they break the laws of physics.

czbond 6y ago
Mind expanding ideas are - because they help the mind to make connections in the future in which they involved. The field of science contains numerous personality types, some of which are creative, some of which are analytical. It is often worth the analytical (who must see data) to entertain those with creativity or intuition to make the jump - since often data does not lead to leap insights. Incremental science happens because of data; leap science happens because of creativity and intuition to explore the areas data hasn't 'gapped to'. And it is the difference when 'the data does not yet lead there, so we can't think there' that I refer to for social conformity.
- mellosouls 6y ago
  Non conformity is used as an excuse by cranks to justify their lack of academic groundwork and resulting acceptance. Once in a blue moon one of these outsiders turns up something genuinely impressive. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that is the case here.
jlokier 6y ago
> almost all theories of this ilk tend to be dismissed because they break the laws of physics. Actually no. Theories of this ilk which demonstrate their consistency with laws of physics to the level of observations already made and significantly beyond, tend to end up studied more, by more people. Especially ones that take an unusual angle, and end up deriving existing laws of physics almost as a surprising side effect. It suggests a useful insight. Even better if they take an unusual angle, predict some differences from assumed existing laws but only in unusual circumstances nobody has tried to observe so far, and are consistent with those laws in areas already observed. Or ones which explain existing laws better than current explanations. Notably the inconsistencies between general relativity and quantum mechanics mean that anything which can explain both at the same time and give correct answers to both is quite interesting. The ones that get dismissed quickly are those which aren't consistent with laws of physics that are already assumed, especially at the level of existing observations.
- mellosouls 6y ago
  No, that only happens if there is a convincing argument that covers more ground than existing theories with testable predictions. What new predictions (ie. not covered by existing theories) does this theory propose that are testable?

czbond 6y ago

Mind expanding ideas are - because they help the mind to make connections in the future in which they involved. The field of science contains numerous personality types, some of which are creative, some of which are analytical. It is often worth the analytical (who must see data) to entertain those with creativity or intuition to make the jump - since often data does not lead to leap insights. Incremental science happens because of data; leap science happens because of creativity and intuition to explore the areas data hasn't 'gapped to'. And it is the difference when 'the data does not yet lead there, so we can't think there' that I refer to for social conformity.

mellosouls 6y ago
Non conformity is used as an excuse by cranks to justify their lack of academic groundwork and resulting acceptance. Once in a blue moon one of these outsiders turns up something genuinely impressive. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that is the case here.

jlokier 6y ago

> almost all theories of this ilk tend to be dismissed because they break the laws of physics. Actually no. Theories of this ilk which demonstrate their consistency with laws of physics to the level of observations already made and significantly beyond, tend to end up studied more, by more people. Especially ones that take an unusual angle, and end up deriving existing laws of physics almost as a surprising side effect. It suggests a useful insight. Even better if they take an unusual angle, predict some differences from assumed existing laws but only in unusual circumstances nobody has tried to observe so far, and are consistent with those laws in areas already observed. Or ones which explain existing laws better than current explanations. Notably the inconsistencies between general relativity and quantum mechanics mean that anything which can explain both at the same time and give correct answers to both is quite interesting. The ones that get dismissed quickly are those which aren't consistent with laws of physics that are already assumed, especially at the level of existing observations.

mellosouls 6y ago
No, that only happens if there is a convincing argument that covers more ground than existing theories with testable predictions. What new predictions (ie. not covered by existing theories) does this theory propose that are testable?