Warning: "continue" targeting switch is equivalent to "break". Did you mean to use "continue 2"? in /home/elkadotc/public_html/plugins/system/helix3/core/classes/menu.php on line 89

Warning: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable in /home/elkadotc/public_html/plugins/system/helix3/core/classes/menu.php on line 258

Warning: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable in /home/elkadotc/public_html/plugins/system/helix3/core/classes/menu.php on line 258

 We are looking for investors to support a new start up company  which is going to use the new Tardin technology for electricity production. You can be one of them even your investment is a couple of thousands euro. 

The webpage is in progress!

 

Newsletter subscription

The amazing science and the less amazing scientists

This is a version of an article entitled ,,Extraordinara ştiinţă şi mai puţin extraordinarii ei reprezentanţi" advertised in several online discussion groups in 2012.
I read with interest the news about Nobel laureate for chemistry in 2011 and about his unpleasant experience with what is called official science. Of course, somebody could think this is an isolated event and not representative for the entire science.....
But even if that were the case, something is fundamentally wrong in our approach for this problem. Referring to the case in 2011, it is not possible to further harass a researcher and to give him the sack only because he has just discovered something that does not fit to the usual pattern. It is not possible that one of the most remarkable scientists of the last century (two Nobel prizes) and perhaps of all time - Linus Pauling – commented about this subject: " There are no such thing as quasi-crystals, there are only quasi-scientists ". It is not possible that for more then a decade, as Pauling was in life and profiting of his influential position in the field, to lead a sustained campaign against such scientist and his ideas.
But what intrigues most is the recent statement of Bassam Shakhashiri, current president of the American Chemical Society, who in a BBC interview, told: "This is how we make progress in science". Rather to apologize for what happened, instead of ensuring the public that such thing will not happen again, the statement of Mr. Shakhashiri shocks and even justifies to continue with this kind of practices; i.e., one that reveals something important, out of the common pattern, have to bear others opprobrium, must be professionally harassed and fired as necessary to be awarded later. Perhaps in this case it would be more convenient to reintroduce burning at the stake and then we have to sanctify the people we've cooked for ideas they supported. I assume that is a moral duty of a representative institution of ,,global chemistry" to seek public apology for the events happened.
Unfortunately, if someone browses the history of science it would appear that these kinds of events are so common in the history of science that repeatability of these events enabled Max Planck to affirm: "An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out and that the growing generation is familiarized with the idea from the beginning". This was said more then a century ago ...and how alive are his words in these days...
I have made this introduction to discuss a case, a hypothetical "for the present time" but a case which will become reality sooner or later:
What would happen if our whole modern science has got a biased interpretation?
What would happen if the foundations of quantum theory, special relativity, electromagnetism, thermodynamics, etc. would be so loose that could be demolished with simple experiments made in the kitchen and in some cases these experiments cost no more than 10 euros?
What would happen if all modern science would be only a replay of epicycles theory and the work of millions of researchers will be only the addition of new epicycles, more or less complicated, to a basic model which is wrong in its essence?
The answer to these questions would be more than obvious: All people who are representing official science at that time would band together and do whatever it can to silence the recalcitrant. It does not matter that they can be wrong and these things can be checked very easily! For the ,,grey eminences of modern science" it has to be a true doctrine to prevent the spread of other ideas that do not fit in their mental baggage.
To get to the point I will report certain events in a quasi-chronological order.
In 1994-1995, I completed the work on a new theory of gravity. Although this theory can explain many experimental facts which even general relativity cannot explain, no serious scientific journal has agreed to publish this theory, or part of it.

Certainly this first official contact with mainstream science was not so pleasant. Disappointed, without money and support from anyone, between 1995 and 2005, I continued to work for the foundations of a new theory of sciences. As in 1994, when as student, at a national symposium of physics, I had the chance to feel on my skin the comments of seniors working in the natural sciences research for decades, I considered it is necessary to get a job in another field for a living. So for nine years (1995-2005) I had the opportunity to work in agricultural research (and on this occasion I greet my colleagues still working in this field!).
It is important to remember, at least for the history of science, that the foundations of this theory have been established in a period when my monthly income was less than the equivalent of 250 euros. This amount of money which was available for living and developing a new theory was comparable with what an average west European spends to feed their pets. And I had this tiny budget to develop a new theory that is forced to compete with what other millions of researchers have developed with a budget beyond someone imagination.
For me the situation was improving in 2005 when I had the opportunity to get a temporary better paid job outside Romania. At first I was very reluctant to even talk to other people there about my ideas. I did not want that my ,,subversive" work to make me lose the well paid job. Therefore for another few years, I have worked quietly in my free hours and with second hand equipment I performed new experiments without publishing something.
At the end of 2007, I hve afelt it was time to officially start the fight with a whole system. There is an interesting fable with a flea and the elephant, but unfortunately compared to the system that had to be demolished I was not a flea ... I was not even the size of a bacterium and the elephant was a well fattened one....First I built a website and I published some materials at www.pleistoros.com.
The advertisements to make visible this theory have got an upward trend since 2008 and this will be continued in the future.
Besides this website, texts about these researches were posted on the discussion groups about physics and chemistry of the Internet and some texts were sent for publication in professional journals. But as the saying goes: ,,Old habits die hard", though it has passed more than a decade and the reviewers at journals were others, their answers were like carbon copies of previous ones. Not only that, but because I dared to contest the decision of referees at a certain journal, and requested a review from a super commission, I was forbidden to send articles for publication at that journal (the name is not relevant for the moment ...).
On the other hand, at least initially, a lot of science newsgroups accepted to post messages about this theory. But soon, the most representative groups have labelled me as crazy and banned the publication of my messages.
A complete history of this tragic situation will be published as soon as time allows.
In 2009, I have tried to present some of my ideas in an official event and so I chose to participate at the European Week of Astronomy which was held at the University of Herefordshire, near London between 20 and 23 April in 2009. A big mistake! And this mistake costs me enough money from my pocket and lots of other unpleasant events. Events went like this: I sent two papers for oral presentation. I received confirmation that the works are accepted. It was a very pleasant surprise and while I was reading that email I thought that's not true! They asked me to pay £ 200 fee for participation. Besides this, I booked accommodation in advance to a hotel close to University. A few days before the Symposium, I controlled the conference website and to my surprise I found that only one of the papers is accepted and was in  ,,the poster" category. Of course, I got in touch with the organizers and asked them information: how it is possible that such a thing is happening!
I have received a formal email and they told me the live program was to crowdy and it was not possible to include my work in oral presentation so I was moved to section poster. About the second paper they told me they have no information. I informed the organizers that in such conditions I was no longer interested in participating in the conference ...and I wanted to visit London as a tourist. But with a really bad series of events, my visit to London turned into a financial hole bigger than I imagined.
As far in order to get refund for the conference fee I was asked to go in person at an university office and this was not possible, I lost those money too ...

The article abstract is currently in conference summary (can be found as pdf) at this address:http://star.herts.ac.uk/ewass/programme.html
Coming back to the publishing activity, five books have been published between 2007-2010 and other five books are in working, as follows:
Theory of gravity (published in English)
Atomic structure (published in English)
Relativity and Other (published in English)
Corpuscular nature of light (published in English)
Concepts in Chemistry (published in English).
Magneticity (former Electromagnetism)-in working, will be published in Romanian
Physical Chemistry- in working, will be published in Romanian
Astronomy and Astrophysics- in working, will be published in Romanian
Particles and nuclear physics - in working, will be published in Romanian
Thermodynamic and statistical- in working, will be published in Romanian.
After sisyphean efforts in which I tried to publish some materials as ,,a hypothesis"; I managed to convince an editor at Optical Society of America (OSA), not to publish, but to help me perform some experiment. But the initial joy suddenly disappeared when I received the answer from the team that should have help me to perform the experiments. Here are some relevant emails discussions:

Dr. Cosofret
After conferring with our Science Advisor and other OSA Editors, they believe that the best people to contact would be Masud Mansuripur for the first two topics (angular momentum and electromagnetic pressure), and Russ Chipman for the (experimental) polarization issue. I hope
this is helpful ......
Joseph Richardson
Optical Society of America, Peer Review Manager


Dear Dr. Cosofret:
I totally disagree with your proposals. As far as I know there is no difference between visible light and microwaves with regard to momentum, angular momentum, or polarization. Your ideas have no basis in electromagnetic theory and I will not support the conduct of any experiments to confirm or refute these predictions. .......
Masud Mansuripur
Professor and Chair of Optical Data Storage College of Optical
Sciences The University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721


As it can be seen science has become the property of influential leaders and they decide what experiments can or can not perform according to their personal interests. Of course there is more than suggestive analogy between Pauling and Mansuripur. It is true that the latter did not receive any Nobel Prize, but if someone is looking for CV's on the Internet remains more than impressed with his scientific work. Unfortunately his work is mostly just a new model epicycle in a fake science and of course it will come the time when such Talibans of science will take their bags and go home.
Even the site was mostly in English and Romanian a great deal of efforts is made in order to update the versions in other languages.
It is worth mentioning that it is not so difficult to demolish something that already exists. What has been really exhausting in this work was the problem of finding simple and consistent solutions, in other words to put something in place stronger than you demolished
If we look at the overall situation in modern science, there is a war between so-called orthodox (mainstream Scientists) and opponents (Fringe Scientists). Both camps are organized and have their own media. Of course, Orthodox science have almost all funds for research, while opponents are mostly close to retirement or retired personalities who understand that science is not quite so true as stated in the manuals.
Unfortunately, this theory has to go on its way independently on both sides of modern science. Certainly there is little difference in nuance:  while orthodox science has banned publication of any material on this theory, papers were accepted to be published in a fringe scientist's journal.
I was expecting that fringe scientists will help me to in a joint commitment to support the proposed solutions. But it seems they prefer to fight among themselves and to waste their few resources in vain.
I prefer to follow a principle I learned in the days when I was in a ham radio club and it is in fact their motto: Experiment or die!
So I'm sure this theory will find its own way long before a generation of Taliban scientists will die.....

© 2017 All Rights Reserved Coșofreț Sorin Cezar

Warning: "continue" targeting switch is equivalent to "break". Did you mean to use "continue 2"? in /home/elkadotc/public_html/plugins/system/helix3/core/classes/Minifier.php on line 227

Please consider supporting our efforts.for establishing a new foundation for exact sciences

Amount