The mainstream approach is to not question the mainstream theories
The recent who-hah about neutrinos possibly moving faster than the speed of light clearly disproves your assertion.
and so developed for instance the concept of "dark matter" to match the mainstream theories with the observation in spiral galaxies.
So postulating we don't know about the vast majority of what makes up the universe is sticking to the mainstream?
Of course some other observations were found to enforce the concept.
Why are you complaining about scientists taking an approach which not only accounts for one observation but has seen explained
additional different observations?!
But there's another possibility, that the theories could be wrong and need changes or alternatives and this is the right way I think.
What other approaches are you talking about?
And people have and are considering others. MOND for instance. The problem is that all thus far presented modifications to gravity are tailored to explain
one of the observed results. When it has to deal with all of them they too end up adding in invisible matter. MOND can explain galaxy rotations but not the bullet cluster or deformations to the CMB.
I'm not misinterpreting current mainstream nor anybody. I just believe in other possibility
And yet by saying that you've just misinterpreted people! It
isn't that the mainstream is saying "Thou shall not consider anything but dark matter!", people
have considered alternatives and all have failed to be as viable. People continue to present ideas, even such things as 'abhorrent' as Lorentz violations. If one manages to out do dark matter and makes predictions which dark matter does not and which are validated it will replace the notion of dark matter. Until then we go with the best and simplest models.
and please, I'm not infallible and do not pretend to be. As I say in the main page and even in the manuscript, I make mistakes may be everyday.
You seem to have updated your 'a new light in physics' little in the years I've seen you plugging it on forums, despite plenty of people pointing out problems or short comings.
Which would be my incorrect assertion now?
As I just highlighted.
Right but you are not making any productive criticism in my work.
You and I have crossed paths about your work before.
You are just coming here saying the mainstream is right because of the already known arguments.
Really? Where did I say the mainstream was right. Please link to said post.
Good job on misrepresenting me, while claiming you aren't misrepresenting people!
You didn't point out any possible error or flaw in my work. I don't think you ever read it properly.
I didn't intend to. I didn't even read it. I've read it in the past, you and I have conversed on PhysForums before. I distinctly remember pointing out some issue with your page on neutrinos.
I didn't make any comment on your work on your website, I made comments about what you've said here. If I feel the need to waste my time and read your website
again I'll do so but I've made no attempt to discuss it with you. I haven't been off topic, I've replied to things you've said. The fact you don't want to engage in a discussion about various misapprehensions you have isn't my fault. Don't make them and I won't point them out. How's that for a deal?
You just see it as something against current mainstream theories and so something to "combat" systematically.
My my, are you psychic? Or are you just showing us a bit of that chip on your shoulder and you're getting all defensive. Remember how you said you don't pretend to be infallable? You sure are getting defensive and making plenty of bald assertions for someone who is supposedly comfortable saying "I was mistaken"!
That's my impresion on you and some others in the forum.
If you were doing an impression of me you'd appear a little smarter
Joking aside, I don't give a whoot what your impression of me is. I'm not the one whose pushing his work on forums and has been for the better part of a decade. I chose to engage you in discussion about something specific you said. I'm not required to jump through your hoops just because you want to change the subject. Your understanding of the mainstream forms part of your motivation for your work. If you're misrepresenting the mainstream and have a poor understanding of various models within it it's unwise of you to try to present your work as somehow superior to it. Even if it is, if you show you don't know of what you speak people are less likely to take you seriously.
As I said before, that's a piece of advice, something you can benefit from. If you want to be taken seriously as someone doing physics than you need to show you're up to speed on it. I don't deny that when someone says "I think the mainstream is wrong about...." then immediately red flags go up in my mind and likewise other physicists. That's why it's
essential you show you know your shit about whatever it is you're disagreeing with. As soon as you show you don't people will dismiss your criticisms as ignorance based. If you show you know the subject inside out then people will be more inclined to listen.
But I think the aim is to consider, analyze, criticise, etc the presented propositions and not just to stay bringing the mainstream arguments of its approach.
I replied to this thread because you made a mistaken statement about the mainstream. "You are mistaken about the mainstream" and "The mainstream is right" are two different things. I claim the former, I didn't say the latter. I don't claim the latter. I claim the mainstream is more accurate and viable than
all non-mainstream things I've ever seen on a forum, but that too is not the same as "I think the mainstream is right". Cranks often have issue distinguishing those two statements too, often because in their minds they cannot separate their claims from reality, they think they are unquestionably right. An example would be Sylwester on this forum and PhysForums.
Not because they would not have their value but because the aim here is to focus on the validity or not of the presented alternative. May be you think this would be a waste of your time but in this case would be better to leave the discussion to someones that could be interested in something about, don't you think so?
Yes, hence why I haven't made any statements about your work which you've linked to, I instead engaged you in discussion on what you've said here. I didn't seek you out to say "Your claims are nonsense", I replied to something you'd said. Sorry if you don't want to talk about it, don't be mistaken next time.
As I said is not about learning. Is that when someone present something alternative wants it to be analyzed properly pointing precisely the flaws if it has it and not just hear the already known mainstream approach.
Your grammar suddenly seems to have vanished but from what I can decipher you're saying it's not about learning but about having your claims analysed properly. Sorry but part of having your claims examined is learning. Some of the biggest jumps in my understanding have come from instances where someone has said "You're wrong and here's why....". Yes, it's a bit upsetting (traumatic would be a better word when it happens in your PhD viva!) but it is part of how intellectually honest people learn. You won't find a single academic who hasn't had to face up to and learning from mistakes which were highlighted when their work was analysed. That's what peer review is about. However, you'll find plenty of hacks online who claim to have 'everlasting theories' or 'the final theory' or 'the master theory' or 'the ultimate theory'. Honest scientists title their work a little less egotistically. Some of the greatest works in physics and maths have had titles like "A comment on...." or "Aspects of....", not "Feynmans Ultimate Theory of the Universe!".
