Among other things they discuss Einstein’s relativity theory and cold fusion.
Btw, I couldn’t fail to notice that I see the very same tendency to suppress evidence that goes against certain established theories here on LW. 9/11 would be one case for certain.
I don’t know enough about cold fusion, so I haven’t read that part. As for relativity theory, it seems that the only valid argument against it presented in the linked article is, translated into more “lesswrongian” language, that doubting special relativity strongly endangers your status. Which is true, at least in general. Then they mention a “Modified Lorentz Aether Theory” without giving a single link to a place where this theory is explained, and support it by saying that the Michelson-Morley experiment conducted in 1887 in fact gave slightly different results than it is now believed it gave—as if these results were not anyway screened off by more recent experiments of the same kind.
The overall feeling I got from reading the passages is that the physical community is ready to censor any theory which doesn’t precisely agree with special relativity. Which is a nonsense. First of all, general relativity itself extends special relativity and thus disagrees with it, and the differences between GR and SR are arguably bigger than between SR and Newton. Moreover, practically all physicists expect GR to break somewhere, at Planck scale at the latest.
Well, nobody really believes that the progress will take us back to æther. There is nothing strange with that. The authors of Suppressed Science have, as usual in similar debates, written about how the Newtonian physics was supposed to be absolutely correct until it turned out to be false, but they somehow forgot to notice that it wasn’t replaced by “Modified Galilean Epicycle Theory” or something of that sort.
Or more generally, their style of writing ignores that most of the alleged crackpots really are crackpots.
It’s too bad that this will be downvoted into invisibility just because you didn’t have the discipline to leave off the last sentence.
The ‘suppressed science’ link is worth reading IMO, even though I think it’s highly probable that the experimental results therein are bunk; it’s quite conceivable that the scientific establishment draws its “crank research” line too early in some modern cases, given its history.
Here’s one case where I’d say the crank research filter is too sensitive—natural vision improvement. I’ve had some experience of it working, but the usual response to the idea that anything other than surgery or lenses can improve eyesight in well-nourished people has been “it’s all about the shape of the lenses of your eyes”, and anything else is nonsense.
Since I knew you’d ask, my night vision has improved considerably. I’ve been too stubborn to wear glasses (details later if people are interested). When I moved to Philadelphia in 1995, I couldn’t read the street signs at night. And when I say couldn’t , I mean that I couldn’t read them if I stood as close to the sign as possible and squinted. Now I can read them at a moderate distance (will check on just what, but a definite improvement).
I haven’t been testing my vision—it’s mostly been more acuity checked by at what distance I can read street signs.
And it isn’t just a shift of the clear visual range with time. (I’m 56.) I can still see the little Lincoln in Lincoln memorial on the back of a penny.
It’s too bad that this will be downvoted into invisibility just because you didn’t have the discipline to leave off the last sentence.
Actually, the article has about as much substance as a typical 9/11 conspiracy diatribe. That whole site is almost enough to make me abandon my own contrarian opinions, for fear of being just another fool.
Btw, I couldn’t fail to notice that I see the very same tendency to suppress evidence that goes against certain established theories here on LW. 9/11 would be one case for certain.
Not to be rude but I couldn’t fail to notice that you systematically overestimate claims against established theories and routinely fail to notice indicators of crank science, unprofessional-ism and mental instability in your sources.
Who is opposing New Energy science and technology?
Only fools and small-minded people would oppose research on something so wonderful—even if there were only a 10% chance that it was correct (and the true percentage is far higher —100%, in our opinion). Sad to say, there are plenty of fools arrayed against New Energy. [...] There are plenty of science Ph.D.s and even Nobel laureates who have obscenely attacked cold fusion, vacuum energy, hydrino physics, and investigations into loopholes in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Their credentials are worthless. What they have to say on the subject of New Energy usually amounts to no more than uninformed bigotry. These people apparently believe that science has come to an end—that the broad outlines of physics and biology, as described in current texts, are on absolutely secure grounds. One of the greatest buffoons in the sad array of enemies is Robert Park of the American Physical Society and the University of Maryland, whose “What’s New” electronic column gives weekly cues to an army of incompetent “science journalists,” who then misinform other journalists, the establishment’s so-called “scientists,” and cowering government bureaucrats and politicians.
Emphasis added. Like are you kidding us with this stuff? Scare-quotes, ad-homs, hyperbole, obvious distortions… Also, they think the chances all these theories are correct is 100%? ONE HUNDRED FUCKING PERCENT?
Same goes for the “suppressed science” article above. “A new Inquisition”?! Btw, see this review of the book where that quote comes from.
And this is coming from someone who thinks contemporary physics has some problems and who has had threads downvoted where I suggested Lorentzian ether theory hadn’t been falsified (though I don’t know if this was the cause of the downvotes. I still don’t understand what I was doing wrong there). A few of these sources might even end up being right about things. But their tone, style and positions are strong evidence that they are cranks and what they say should be taken with the appropriate grain of salt.
Going back to the 9/11 discussions you routinely cited this paragon of rationality and professionalism. The claims the site made were instantly rebutted with a cursory google search.
Well, I might have cited specific articles from that source, that doesn’t mean that I agree with everything from it.
As for your mention of rebuttal referring to the passenger lists in 9/11, AFAIK there still is a lot of controversy about it. There were several lists published by different news outlets at different times. The way to resolve this issue would be to see the official list of the FAA but that one hasn’t been made public.
Very interested article about supressed science in physics: http://www.suppressedscience.net/physics.html
Among other things they discuss Einstein’s relativity theory and cold fusion. Btw, I couldn’t fail to notice that I see the very same tendency to suppress evidence that goes against certain established theories here on LW. 9/11 would be one case for certain.
I don’t know enough about cold fusion, so I haven’t read that part. As for relativity theory, it seems that the only valid argument against it presented in the linked article is, translated into more “lesswrongian” language, that doubting special relativity strongly endangers your status. Which is true, at least in general. Then they mention a “Modified Lorentz Aether Theory” without giving a single link to a place where this theory is explained, and support it by saying that the Michelson-Morley experiment conducted in 1887 in fact gave slightly different results than it is now believed it gave—as if these results were not anyway screened off by more recent experiments of the same kind.
The overall feeling I got from reading the passages is that the physical community is ready to censor any theory which doesn’t precisely agree with special relativity. Which is a nonsense. First of all, general relativity itself extends special relativity and thus disagrees with it, and the differences between GR and SR are arguably bigger than between SR and Newton. Moreover, practically all physicists expect GR to break somewhere, at Planck scale at the latest.
Well, nobody really believes that the progress will take us back to æther. There is nothing strange with that. The authors of Suppressed Science have, as usual in similar debates, written about how the Newtonian physics was supposed to be absolutely correct until it turned out to be false, but they somehow forgot to notice that it wasn’t replaced by “Modified Galilean Epicycle Theory” or something of that sort.
Or more generally, their style of writing ignores that most of the alleged crackpots really are crackpots.
It’s too bad that this will be downvoted into invisibility just because you didn’t have the discipline to leave off the last sentence.
The ‘suppressed science’ link is worth reading IMO, even though I think it’s highly probable that the experimental results therein are bunk; it’s quite conceivable that the scientific establishment draws its “crank research” line too early in some modern cases, given its history.
Here’s one case where I’d say the crank research filter is too sensitive—natural vision improvement. I’ve had some experience of it working, but the usual response to the idea that anything other than surgery or lenses can improve eyesight in well-nourished people has been “it’s all about the shape of the lenses of your eyes”, and anything else is nonsense.
Since I knew you’d ask, my night vision has improved considerably. I’ve been too stubborn to wear glasses (details later if people are interested). When I moved to Philadelphia in 1995, I couldn’t read the street signs at night. And when I say couldn’t , I mean that I couldn’t read them if I stood as close to the sign as possible and squinted. Now I can read them at a moderate distance (will check on just what, but a definite improvement).
I haven’t been testing my vision—it’s mostly been more acuity checked by at what distance I can read street signs.
And it isn’t just a shift of the clear visual range with time. (I’m 56.) I can still see the little Lincoln in Lincoln memorial on the back of a penny.
Now, it turns out that neuroplasticity applies to the visual system.
What did you do to improve your vision?
Actually, the article has about as much substance as a typical 9/11 conspiracy diatribe. That whole site is almost enough to make me abandon my own contrarian opinions, for fear of being just another fool.
This article might be of interest to you.
Feel free to post the link again leaving off the last sentence.
Not to be rude but I couldn’t fail to notice that you systematically overestimate claims against established theories and routinely fail to notice indicators of crank science, unprofessional-ism and mental instability in your sources.
Start here.
Could you provide a specific example to support your claim?
Infinite-energy.com. Linked from this comment. Their “Who We Are” page uses the word “new” twenty-eight times.
The faq includes this lovely bit:
Emphasis added. Like are you kidding us with this stuff? Scare-quotes, ad-homs, hyperbole, obvious distortions… Also, they think the chances all these theories are correct is 100%? ONE HUNDRED FUCKING PERCENT?
Same goes for the “suppressed science” article above. “A new Inquisition”?! Btw, see this review of the book where that quote comes from.
Going back to the 9/11 discussions you routinely cited this paragon of rationality and professionalism. The claims the site made were instantly rebutted with a cursory google search.
And this is coming from someone who thinks contemporary physics has some problems and who has had threads downvoted where I suggested Lorentzian ether theory hadn’t been falsified (though I don’t know if this was the cause of the downvotes. I still don’t understand what I was doing wrong there). A few of these sources might even end up being right about things. But their tone, style and positions are strong evidence that they are cranks and what they say should be taken with the appropriate grain of salt.
Well,
maybe some sources look like crackpots, but that doesn’t mean all their claims are false.
Well, I might have cited specific articles from that source, that doesn’t mean that I agree with everything from it.
As for your mention of rebuttal referring to the passenger lists in 9/11, AFAIK there still is a lot of controversy about it. There were several lists published by different news outlets at different times. The way to resolve this issue would be to see the official list of the FAA but that one hasn’t been made public.