Improving Science for a Better Future by Mohammed M. Khalil

Mohammed,

Let me put a question that is less taboo to you:

You wrote: "History of science teaches us not to hold to unjustified assumptions, even if they are held by the majority, we should always consider opposing views. Unfortunately, we are making the same mistake again".

Well, you might argue that what you wrote in the introduction of your essay is absolutely justified.

Let me nonetheless consider your following statement:"Relativity revolutionized our understanding of space, time, mass, and gravity. This understanding made many technological applications possible, such as particle accelerators, nuclear power plants, and the GPS".

Are my opposing essays definitely wrong? Can you please reveal flaws?

Eckard

Mohammed,

I consider strict philosophy at the roots of science, and I question your lazy statement:"This understanding [of space and time] made many technological applications possible, such as particle accelerators, nuclear power plants, and the GPS".

Even David Bohm admitted in his textbook on Special Relativity that achievements attributed to SR can also be attributed to other interpretations.

I maintain what I wrote in my essay: "Several insights that were incorporated into Einstein's theory of relativity and are now ascribed to it did nonetheless prove realistic and useful in practice. In particular, there is no reason to doubt that the speed of light [in vacuum] is constant and constitutes an upper limit for the propagation of energy." Einstein himself was forced to admit that his imperfect understanding of "past, present and future" worries him seriously, cf. my earlier essays. The countless experiments you mentioned confirm facts that are not necessarily related to the claimed relativity of time. What about GPS, those who are defending Einstein are merely claiming that the Sagnac effect does not contradict to SR. It does not confirm it.

I humbly don't feel in position and also not obliged to deal with all arguments that were risen to defend an ideology. I merely found out that Einstein's reasoning was neither his own nor flawless but led to unresolved and perhaps unresolvable paradoxes. That's why I am asking (in vain) for a trustworthy experiment that confirms more than the incorporated contributions of others.

So far, I tend to agree with Luis von Essen on that SR is lacking any own experimental basis. May we call it therefore a mere philosophical fabrication or is it really a discovery? Anyway, I see this allegedly settled question unsettled as long as belonging paradoxes cannot be denied. The future is open. Discoveries and inventions may steer it.

Eckard

Mohammed,

Than you. I hope the extension will now allow you the time to do so.

You'll find the 'discrete field' dynamics model ('DFM') highly consistent and predictive, employing the SR postulates but using Einstein's 1954 descriptions rather than the original 1905 ones which persist along with the paradoxes.

The problem is that despite the good words about open minds and testing some areas are considered 'taboo' so most won't countenance a fair challenge, so in the rut we remain.

Interestingly QM also requires only the slightest re-interpretation (Copenhagen as modulation not 'creation' of reality) for the same model to converge and unite the two.

Can we still escape the theoretical rut by giving new models a fair test, or it it too late? I fear the latter, but have given us until 2020 to evolve intellectually.

Peter

I'm glad I finally got a chance to read your smart, well-written essay, Khalil. I agree completely that we have to improve the way we conduct scientific research. You make a lot of excellent proposals for what we can do (my pet peve, for what it's worth, is the misunderstanding and misuse of p-values).

I would add that while improving the way we do science would be extremely valuable, better science won't address all our problems. Many of our problems aren't technical, but political; that is, over what we should do rather than how we can do it. In some ways--this what I argue in my own essay--I think the technical challenges we face may be easier to solve than the political ones.

Excellent essay, in any case. Good luck in the contest!

Best,

Robert de Neufville

Hello Mohammed, May I post a short, but sincere critique of your essay? I'd ask you to return the favour. Here's my policy on that. - Mike

Okay. If matters change, please let me know. Meantime best of luck in your exams. - Mike

Mohammed,

Writing "accelerate the rate of scientific discovery and its applications ... is important to find urgent solutions to humanity's problems", you advocated the boomer's philosophy that trusts in the solution of all problems via scientific progress.

Although I wrote an essay "Peace via discoveries and inventions" my position is different. I share Nobel's cautious attitude who did obviously not trust in speculations but demanded responsibility. Doesn't this include putting reasonable limits to consumption of resources and to growth of population?

You seem to be prone to believe in propaganda and further propagate it. The Nobel Prize Committee hesitated to accept something that is still unexplained. Don't get me wrong. I merely criticize that you swallowed the dogma of relativity as a scientific revolution. You may believe in this as you perhaps are also believing in Mohammed. However, as Karl Popper stated, a scientific claim cannot be confirmed but only be falsified. Einstein's theory evades falsification because it is a fabrication, something that you called philosophy rather than science.

Eckard

Dear Mohammed Khalil

You wrote a perfect study, how to improve science in the future.

I will add about wrong filters for amateur papers (people not from universities). I wrote about this in my essay. One example is because arXiv almost totally rejects papers from amateurs. Their principle with endorsers leaves almost zero number of amateur papers. I agree with stronger filter for amateurs, but not with almost zero probability. They even do not allow to have references from viXra, as Phil Gibbs writes in this contest. Besides, computer analysis allows today transparency over the papers of different quality.

"Admittedly, amateurs are less intelligent in average than professionals, because professionals go through a larger number of selections. Amateurs have less time and no money for research, except their own money. But probability for correctness of their theories is not zero. On the other side, amateur's theories come across too little arguments for their rejections than professional's ones. Thus their (un)correctness is much less checked. We should know that in influential statistical parameters are mainly distributed by Gaussian curves, or at least, probability never falls toward zero. Finally, because this is only probability, it is never sure that someone will not or will and TOE or anything other. Now, there are too many over-reactions against alternative theories, too rigorous limitations who can publish, what s/he can publish, how s/he should to write, etc. Limitations are necessary,but they should be more precisely set, according to mathematical and statistical laws. For instance,natural selection respects that distributions of aptitudes are more Gaussian ones than rectangular ones, but selection of physical theories does not respect this. Thus, if we have enough large number of papers from amateurs, someone will give scientifically useful ideas. Thus, I predict that after discovery of a TOE it will appear that also some theories of amateurs are correct. Thus, maybe alternative approaches need to be respected with less prejudices."

I wish to add still your principle for publication of papers with zero results. Besides, the extreme, that some measurements are written 10 years, because of checking of results, is also not optimal. For instance one last measurement of gravitational constant take 10 years.

Besides, a possibility appeared that G measurement is changing cyclically through time. If number of such measurements would be larger, it can be statistically checked whether if this cyclical change is really a case.

One rule for the advancement of Science is also to write physical theories more clearly. For example, here is an example for a clearer presentation special theory of relativity.

My essay

Best regards

Janko Kokosar

Above it is my post.

Janko Kokosar

Dear Mohammed,

What I like about your essay is that it is well documented and matter-of-fact. Perhaps mine is on the controversial end. I wish you success in the contest.

Chidi

Best of luck in your exams.

Peter

dear Mohammed,

Congratulations with your high score in the community rating and now being a member of the finalists pool.

Science is one aspect of consciousness and I hope that the discussions will not be ended just after the community rating, you still can give public ratings.

So I feel honored to give you a direct link to my essay : "STEERING THE FUTURE OF CONSCIOUSNESS ?" and hope that you will give me a comment on my thread.

Good luck with the "final judgement" and

best regards

Wilhelmus