I can post one thing said about me by a guy who went silent after seeing my new stuff. It is from post 16 of a thread
glenn-morton-is-the-garden-of-eden-real/10774/16
I can post one thing said about me by a guy who went silent after seeing my new stuff. It is from post 16 of a thread
glenn-morton-is-the-garden-of-eden-real/10774/16
A couple of posts later, Swamidass said that was high praise from Gregg.
I will post one more thing on why new Ideas have such trouble. These will be cases of secular prize winning science ideas that everyone hated and prevented their publication!! New ideas in science and theology are NOT welcomed.
Read as much or as little as you want. this is an extract from an old post of mine:
"That led me to look up the article, and when I saw again the name, I recalled it from a book I had read about 15 years ago. The author is Mitchell J. Feigenbaum. I will talk about on his latest bombshell in the consciousness thread, but his past bombshell is a grand illustration of who ‘what-everyone-knows’ gets in the way of finding the truth.*
- Feigenbaum graduated in 1964 and got a Ph. D from MIT in particle physics in 1970. Then he did nothing at VPI and Cornell (Gleick, Chaos, p. 159). Those years were*
[James Gleick, Chaos, (New York: Penguin Books, 1987), p. 159-160]
“. …fruitless, that is, in terms of the steady publication of work on manageable problems that is essential for a young university scientist. Postdocs were supposed to produce papers. Occasionally an advisor would ask Feigenbaum what had happened to some problem, and he would say, 'Oh, I understood it .” [/cite]*
[GRM] No tenure for this guy!
-
Feigenbaum moved to Los Alamos, where he didn’t produce anything either, but became a great consultant for everyone else. By this time he had exactly one paper with his name on it–pretty rotten for a 29 year old postdoc. Yet somehow the guy was hired in 1973 to be the head of the Theoretical Division at Los Alamos, where his first act was to fire the department and hire new people. Then progress seemed to stop.*
-
[James Gleick, Chaos, (New York: Penguin Books, 1987), p. 2] “
Even Feigenbaum’s friends were wondering whether he was ever going to produce any work of his own. As willing as he was to do impromptu magic with their questions, he did not seem interested in devoting his own research to any problem that might pay off. he thought about turbulence in liquids and gases. He thought about time–did it glide smoothly forward or hop discretely like a sequence of cosmic motion-picture frames? The thought about the eye’s ability to see consistent colors and forms in a universe that physicists knew to be a shifting quantum kaleidoscope. He thought about clouds, watching them from airplane windows (until in 1975, his scientific travel privileges were officially suspended on grounds of overuse) or from the hiking trails above the laboratory. ”[/cite]*
Even the bosses were getting worried .
-
But Feigenbaum started studying nonlinear equations. He focused on the period doubling of oscillations in the equation. He would calculate the point in the parameter space where the period doubled. and then calculate the next one. Because he didn’t have good computers he had to write down the output of the computations by hand, think about them and wait for the next number. He started a game of guessing what would be the next number out of the computer. Then he realized that the periods were doubling at a constant rate. He came up with a number 4.669.*
-
Then he worked on another nonlinear equation. He found that this second equation engaged in the period doubling with the same rate–4.669! That number worked for lots of nonlinear equations. He then asked a guy to teach him Fortran and came up with the constant 4.66920 by the end of the day. The next day he had calculated the rate as 4.6692016090. Every system was governed by this number. Stream turbulence, electrical oscillation, pendulums etc. He had found something incredible in nonlinear equations. The constant was universal.*
-
[cite= James Gleick, Chaos, (New York: Penguin Books, 1987), p. 180]But what made universality useful also made it hard for physicists to believe. Universality meant that different systems would behave identically. Of course, Feigenbaum was only studying simple numerical functions. But he believed that his theory expressed a natural law about systems at the point of transition between orderly and turbulent. Everyone knew that turbulence meant a continuous spectrum of different frequencies, and everyone had wondered where the different frequencies came from. "Suddenly you could see the frequencies coming in sequentially. The physical implications was that real-world systems would behave in the same, recognizable way, and that furthermore it would be measurably the same. Feigenbaum’s universality was not just qualitative, it was quantitative; not just structural, but metrical. It extended not just to patterns, but to precise numbers. To a physicist that strained credibility.*
-
“ Years later Feigenbaum still kept in a desk drawer, where he could get at them quickly, his rejection letters. By then he had all the recognition he needed. His Los Alamos work had won him prizes and awards that brought prestige and money. But it still rankled that editors of the top academic journals had deemed his work unfit for publication for two years after he began submitting it. The notion of a scientific breakthrough so original and unexpected that it cannot be published seems a slightly tarnished myth. Modern science, with its vast flow of information and its impartial system of peer review is not supposed to be a matter of taste. One editor who sent back a Feigenbaum manuscript recognized years later that he had rejected a paper that was a turning point for the field; yet he still argued that the paper had been unsuited to his journal’s audience of applied mathematicians ”[/cite]*
But importance doesn’t matter, when the consensus credibility is strained, you get no publications through the process.
-
Now, the next account of this includes some other people who faced these consensus problems. But it is from a source that some here will think in appropriate, as if everything from this guy has to be wrong–it is the bias of those who don’t pay attention to facts but pay attention to who.*
-
[cite= Frank Tipler, “Refereed Journals,” in William Dembski editor, Uncommon Dissent, (Wilmington Delaware: ISI Books, 2004), p. 118-120]*
-
"in an article for Twentieth-Century Physics, a book commissioned by the American Physical Society (the professional organization for U.S. physicists) to describe the great achievements of twentieth-century physics, the inventor of chaos theory, Mitchell J. Feigenbaum, described the reception that his revolutionary papers on chaos theory received:*
-
‘Both papers were rejected, the first after a half-year delay. But then, in 1977, over a thousand copies of the first preprint had been shipped. This has been my full experience. Papers on established subjects are immediately accepted. Every novel paper of mine, without exception, has been rejected by the refereeing process. The reader can easily gather that I regard this entire process as a false guardian and wastefully dishonest.’*
-
"Earlier in the same volume, in a history on the development of optical physics, the invention of the laser by Theodore Maiman was described. The result was so important that it was announced in the New York Times on July 7, 1960. But the leading American physics journal, Physical Review Letters rejected Maiman’s paper on how to make a laser. *
-
“ Scientific eminence is no protection from a peer review system gone wild. John Bardeen, the only man to every have won two Nobel Prizes in physics, had difficulty publishing a theory in low-temperature solid state physics(the area of one of his Prizes) that went against the established view. But rank hath its privileges. Bardeen appealed to his friend David Lazarus, who was editor in chief for the American Physical Society. Lazarus investigated and found that the referee was totally out of line, I couldn’t believe it. John really did have a hard time with [his] last few papers and it was not his fault at all. They were important papers, they did get published, but they gave him a harder time than he should have had.”*
-
“Stephen W. Hawking is the world’s most famous physicist. According to his first wife Jane, when Hawking submitted to Nature was is generally regarded as his most important paper, the paper on black hole evaporation, the paper was initially rejected. I have heard from colleagues who must remain nameless that when Hawking submitted to Physical Review what I personally regard as his most important paper, his paper showing that a most fundamental law of physics called ‘unitarity’ would be violated in black hole evaporation, it, too, was initially rejected. (The word on the street is that the initial referee was the Institute for Advanced Study physicist Freeman Dyson.)”*
-
"Today it is known that the Hawaiian Islands were formed sequentially as the Pacific plate moved over a hot spot deep inside the Earth. The theory was first developed in the paper by an eminent Princeton geophysicist, Tuzo Wilson:*
-
’ I…sent [my paper] to the Journal of Geophysical Research, They turned it down…They said my paper had no mathematics in it, no new data, and that it didn’t agree with the current views. Therefore, it must be no good. Apparently, whether one gets turned down or not depends largely on the reviewer. The editors, too, if they don’t see it your way, or if they think it’s something unusual, may turn it down. Well this annoyed me, and instead of keeping the rejection letter, I threw it into the wastepaper basket. I sent the manuscript to the newly founded Canadian Journal of Physics. That was not a very obvious place to send it, but I was a Canadian physicist. I thought they would publish almost anything I wrote so I sent it there and they published it!"*
-
"The most important development in cloning after the original breakthrough of Dolly the Sheep was the cloning of mice. The result was once again described on the front page of the New York Times, where it was also mentioned that the paper was rejected for publication by the leading American science journal, Science." *
The lessen boys and girls, don’t be too original. You must beleive the consensus view or they will get you.
- The current Feigenbaum bombshell, which of course will be subject to huge discussion is that he claims to have derived special relativity from Gallilean postulates in a way that the speed of light is not a speed limit for signals.*
- [cite= Mitchell J. Feigenbaum “The Theory Of Relativity - Galileo’s Child”, p. 2]
“ In this paper, not only do I show that the constant speed of light is unnecessary for the construction of the theories of relativity, but overwhelmingly more, there is no room for it in the theory. ”*
But of course, the consensus is that consensus can’t possibly be wrong!*
One more case:
"Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction. As I recall,and I may be wrong, this was an example of one of Alan Turings predictions about how animals color their skin, yet, it was treated so harshly that Belousove left science completely.Sadly, Christians do the same kind of thing to new ideas, stomp on them till the advocate gives up!!!
" In the 1950s, he had devised a cocktail of chemical ingredients that provided a simple analogue of glycolysis, the process by which enzymes break down sugars. The mixture changed from colourless to yellow as the reaction proceeded.
But then something astonishing happened: the cocktail went colourless again. Then yellow. Then colourless. It began to oscillate repeatedly between these two states.
This was unacceptable. A reaction that went spontaneously in both directions seemed to go against one of science’s most cherished dictums, the second law of thermodynamics. This states that all change in the universe is accompanied by an increase in entropy - put crudely, it must leave things less ordered than they were before. Entropy cannot possibly increase in both directions in a chemical reaction. Belousov was proposing something that only cranks would suggest.
In fact, Belousov was not the first to observe the effect. In 1921, American chemist William Bray had reported similar oscillations when hydrogen peroxide reacted with iodate ions. No one had believed him, either. As for Belousov, he couldn’t get his findings published. In the end, he appended them to a Soviet conference paper on a different topic, where they languished in obscurity.
Or at least they did until a compatriot of Belousov’s, Anatoly Zhabotinsky, modified the original reaction mixture in the 1960s to make it change colour between red and blue - too dramatic a change to ignore. As news of the “Belousov-Zhabotinsky” (BZ) reaction and other similar oscillating reactions percolated through to the west from 1967 onwards, an explanation began to crystallise. " Phillip Ball, “Chemical Pendulum” New Scientist, Jan 31, 2011, p. 32
From Curiosity Stream:
The editor of the journal told Belousov that his finding in the lab were quite simply impossible. They contravened the fundamental laws of physics. The only explanation was that Belousov had made a mistake in his experiment.The work was simply not fit for publication.
T he rejection crushed Belousov. Deeply insulted by the suggestion that his work had been botched he abandoned his experiment. Soon he gave up science altogether . " The Secret Life of Chaos, Curiosity Stream.
Nick, it is extremely difficult to go it alone, believing one has something good, only to have years of people telling them that it is trash. But it isn’t jus ttheology that this happens in, it is everywhere–it is a human thing!.
