Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lunatik
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by papageno
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lunatik
This means, not being a professional scientist, I am an 'amateur scientist' instead.
|
And you refuse to listen to professional scientists. |
So what are you saying? Professional scientists cannot be wrong? Amateurs are of necessity wrong? Were you there when they argued why the Earth has to be at the center of the universe, with the Sun going around, along with the rest of the heavenly host? On what premises were built their arguments? Ptolemeic epicycles? Were you there when Galileo had to retract his statments that he saw mountains on the Moon? Or when Bruno was burned at the stake in Rome for saying that the universe is infinite, with many worlds, and that there may be people on them? Has the dogma of the past hundred years become so strong that to challenge it means persecution, cut off funding, bypassed promotions or dismissals? But you may be there when they announce that there is an inherent flaw in Relativity's first postulate. Even professionals can make mistakes, if the basic premise on which the whole theory is base has an error in it. That's what testing is supposed to do, not confirm over and over again how Einstein was right, but test for why there is evidence that perhaps he was wrong. No, not my "theory" to be proven right, but any hypothesis to be tested in a non-circular-reasoning way. What are the double blind tests for gravity? What are they for distant locations on site? Nothing against professionals, mind you, but because they had achieved a lauded status does not absolve them from error. A title does not suspend reason. |
Cool down, Lunatik... You are reading way too much in papageno's statement.
Professional scientists aren't always right, but you treat them like they are always wrong. Some of your errors have been pointed out to you again and again with arguments, not purely on authority, but you keep on going on.
You have stated repeatedly that you feel that any hypothesis (I assume especially yours) should be tested. But we have tested yours already: we have checked if your hypothesis matches the observations, and while it can perhaps (ignoring the math problems for a moment) explain a few observations (Pioneer anomalies), it fails miserably to explain most other observations. So your hypothesis is wrong and doesn't need further testing, certainly not the expensive testing you're asking for.
What needs to be done is to either abandon your hypothesis (which would be the smartest thing), or to adjust it to reality.
If a hypothesis would contradict only a few observations, then you can consider if those observations may be wrong or so. If a hypothesis contradicts almost all observations, then it is wrong. This has nothing to do with professional or amateur being better or worse, this has only to do with reality and knowing ones limitations.
Scientists don't belief blinly in their theories, no matter how often they have been shown to be correct. That's way there are going to be tests of gravity in outer space. But they are going to test possibilities, not the impossible hypothesis you propose.