Regarding yesterday's post, I received a response:

It has been proven correct by scientists that work for me, and these are people who can make mince meat out of the scientists at NASA so don't even think about "they may be wrong" the conclusive proof will be released later this year. However it is always interesting to see how people react, its like watching someone try to convince Columbus that the earth is flat after he has already been over the horizon. The purpose is a study in human emotional thinking, to understand why humans continue to make the same mistakes and why they are unable to "get" the blatantly obvious.

I have provided a basic theory that any intelligent person could accept and expand upon and anyone with any scientific knowledge could validate themsevles without me needing to spoon feed them with "equations"; any idiot can accept the truth if you hand it to them on a silver platter and any fool can go to college and memorize other peoples work and make out they are a genius by babbling in jargon and technobabble but it takes intelligence to take a basic idea and make something out of it.

All ideas start out as very basic ideas "an apple falls, maybe its some sort of invisible force". Some people will accept that idea, some will reject it.Some scientists chose to believe that bacteria could be responsible for stomach ulcers and that the fact that they were killed by stomach acid was not the be all and end all, while others chose not to and chose to believe that they had the final proof. They all had access to the exact same information but chose different directions. When proof of this theory is provided, scientists will come out of the woodwork going "wow (not woo) thats amazing", it will be seen as one of the most significant scientific discoveries of all time and what I have written will make perfect sense. So of course when any scientist is asked whether they would have accepted that theory when it was first shown to them they will of course say yes.

By providing the basic raw idea I have the proof that many of those scientists are fooling themselves; its like shooting fish in a barrel. So I am not trying to prove my theory is correct, I shouldnt need to, anyone with any degree of intelligence or expertise in physics should be able to do that for themselves. I am trying to prove that many scientists are unable to "get it" because they are controlled by their emotions, as logical as they like to believe they are. Before releasing the "proof" I shall be making this theory available worldwide through the media where I shall attract attention from scientists eager to prove how wrong I am. When I am finished toying with them, I shall let my scientists at them to finish them off and wipe the floor with them.

There will however be some scientists that will "get it" and it is those scientists that I am interested in as they are the ones that we need running the world of science, not egomaniacs. It will be an opportunity for corporations to see who is working for them and whether they can be trusted to make logical decisions.It is one thing to make an error when you have the wrong information or to come to different conclusions when you have different information but when you have the same education and the same information but choose different directions, then it shows that your thinking is being influenced by something other than facts and that is the difference between emotional thinking and logical thinking.

4. you state that light travelling at the speed of light violates a law of physics (it does not, and you do not state which law of physics it supposedly violates. And in fact light can and does travel slower than the speed of light when not in a perfect vacuum)

I did not state that the speed of light travelling at the speed of light violates the laws of physics, I said that the speed of light being constant violates the laws of physics, something that is quite well known. The speed of light being constant means that if you are in motion and turn on a torch in the direction you are headed, the speed of light should equal the speed of light plus your speed but it does not, therefore it is said to be "constant", its speed is not affected by additional velocity, thus violating the laws of physics. http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module3_weird_logic.htm

Even though I did not specifically state this aspect of the speed of light being constant, it is the only aspect of that concept that actually violates the laws of physics and is the only aspect that is widely known to violate the laws of physics, therefore assuming that it does not require explanation.

"It appears you have little or no understanding of quantum physics (in particular, you don't seem to understand wave/particle duality. In all fairness, most people don't get it, but you are basing your theory on a redescription of light's fundamental properties while completely ignoring tested behavior). Your description of nuclei as being vortexes of magnetic energy also shows that you have little or no knowledge of particle physics (do you even know what the strong and weak forces are? What about quarks?)"

Virtually any observations of light made so far will still stand with this theory, it doesnt discredit them, it just enables them to be explained better, so wave particle duality is irrelevant as are quarks. I did not say that nuclei were vortexes, I merely gave that as a means to illustrate the principle of a stationary space of changing energy. It seems you are using the "I am correct, therefore you must be wrong" method which history has shown is prone to failure.

I dont have time to go through all your "advice" but I may include it as a case study in my book and go through it in detail, one of the reasons why I do these little "experiments".

The mistake you have made is the same mistake most people make and that is you preocuppy yourself with searching what you perceive to be flaws because you subconsciously want to believe that I am wrong. When you are looking for flaws, you dont read properly but instead "scan" the words which is a process by which you dont attempt to comprehend what it written but merely "read" the words in order to remove them from the page in order to locate the "flaws". The result is that you make errors that are often easily detectable.

Its one of the tragedies of the human race that whenever a new idea comes along, most peoples instinct is to try to prove it wrong and to want it to be wrong which is like going to a job interview and trying to convince the employer that you are not suitable.

Some people believe that man has not been to the moon, they will point to "evidence" such as there being no stars in the photographs. If you look at the moon you will see stars behind it so naturally you think that if you are on the moon taking a photo that there will be stars in the background and since there are none, they cant have been taken on the moon. People will find that evidence and once they have found it, they stop looking as they have found what they are looking for; flaws. If they find enough flaws it allows them to believe that the other person could be wrong. Its a means of denial, at the basis of a concept will be an idea that is obviously correct but you dont want to believe that it is correct and so you look for flaws. If you find a few "flaws" it enables you to think "if there is one flaw, there must be more therefore it could be wrong".

They could if they choose, find an explanation for why there are no stars but they don't want to do that, they want it to be wrong and so they don't try, they have found what they are looking for and so there is no reason to look in that direction any further. They make no attempt to validate their finding, instead they just look for more flaws. They could easily find out that the reason why there are no stars is because the film is not exposed long enough to capture them since the surface of the moon is quite bright. You cant see stars in the daytime on earth but they are still there, you cant see them because your eyes are adjusted for the bright daylight.

Finding flaws is a trap people fall into because everything contains flaws and finding them is easy. No stars in the moon photographs is a "flaw", and anomaly that doesn't make immediate sense but its not a real flaw is it, its just something that can create a question.

If you really want to get people to think, try starting with the person in the mirror; if you are unable to find and fix your own mistakes, how in the hell can you expect to fix anyone elses? Its one of the things that amazes me about humans, they can be so convinced that the other person is wrong and too blind to see it but it never occurs to them that if its possible for the other person to be "too blind to see it" then it must also be possible that they may suffer that affliction.

The other thing that amazes me is how someone can spend years working on something and someone will come along and expect that they can just "know" exactly where that person went wrong with the first idea that pops into their head without needing to do any thinking whatsoever.

If I go to the zoo and explain the theory of relativety to a chimpanzee and they dont "get it", then whose fault is it, the chimpanzees or Einstein's? If other people "got" this theory, then why didnt you? I shall leave it up to you to work out which side of the bars you want to be on.

It makes perfect sense to me but it doesnt make sense to you, one of us must be wrong and since I am the one with the 100m plus contract and you have sold how many books, who do you think that is more likely to be? Which one of us is.................. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PV6Is6PS-98

But thanks for the "advice".

To which I responded:

Wow chill dude. You are not attracting anyone to prove you wrong. I doubt anyone is working for you and you seem totally delusional about science and scientists. No scientist worth his salt would ever write something like this before submitting a proper paper to a respected journal. If the paper is rejected then you ask other valid scientists for their opinion. You try to get experimental results duplicated in other labs. You attempt to build up a burden of proof that is unignorable by the journals. It is never appropriate to "contact the popular media" to try to get attention. Contacting the general population is even more irresponsible, because if this is genuine woo (and I believe it is) then you risk amassing misguided followers (the zero point energy movement is guilty of this, and they have a more solid foundation than you do) and causing harm to science education. The process of science is strict and anal about what it accepts and how, and while that might be frustrating to you, and it might retard the progress of radical ideas, it's a damn good thing, because it's a very good sieve that separates truth from fiction.

You state:
"When I am finished toying with them, I shall let my scientists at them to finish them off and wipe the floor with them. "

This really scares me. You show profound arrogance, and worse, disrespect for other humans. You are possibly a sociopath -- I don't know for sure, I am not your therapist. It seems at the very least, you have a really big bone to pick with someone. You also state that you have a 100 million dollar contract (probably delusional, or from the government, since lawmakers are often profoundly ignorant about science) while I've sold a questionable number of books -- what an egomaniacal jab. So what's wrong, couldn't find anyone higher up on the science food chain to harass with insults? Did they not even respond (I think that's the likely scenario)?

I don't think you idea has even an iota of merit. I don't have a closed mind, it's rather quite open. Your idea does not have merit because:

1) you are appealing to the everyman before the scientist (somehow you think your idea is too radical to provide a proper scientific proof to the science community, and that it will eventually be accepted by science through popular demand -- when has that ever happened?) That is my definition of a crank.

2) you have not provided a proper proof

3) you have not provided experimental data

4) you have not provided experimental circumstances to test your hypothesis

5) you have completely dismissed quantum theory and relativity. To have any merit, you need to explain EXACTLY how your theory negates both of these, and how it describes the experimental results of all proofs associated with these theories (which is a very heavy burden). So for instance, how would you explain neutron decay? How would you explain isotopes? How do you explain time dilation when an object travels at a fraction of the speed of light? How do you explain the universe's background radiation? How do you explain quantum tunneling? How do you explain the Casimir effect? How do you explain solar fusion? How do you explain how gamma ray bursters work? How do you explain the rainbowing on a bubble that's about to pop? You as the provider of the theory, have a huge burden of proof -- you cannot dismiss quantum mechanics and relativity out of hand (not to mention string theory and M theory by implication) with a simplistic appeal to the everyman.

Furthermore, you seem to have found great delight in ripping me apart for finding flaws. Yes of course I'm looking for flaws. That's the analytic science brain at work. That's why the vast majority of scientists also happen to be atheists. We don't believe in random shit just because someone tells us we should. We want to know the whys and hows of things to our own satisfaction. We need to know that an idea fits with other related ideas harmoniously.

No one is going to take you seriously, especially since you have such evident and angry disdain for the science community. I don't what they ever did to you, but if you ever want your idea to be looked at, be humble. Be really fucking humble.

good luck,
Katharine

The dude is actually getting a little scary. I hope he goes away (if this were a comic book, he'd be a supervillain).