About the wonderful science and less wonderful scientists

About the wonderful science and less wonderful
scientists

This text was sent for publication in Guardian newspaper. Let2s hope
it will be accepted!

I have been reading with interest latest news about 2011 chemistry
Nobel Prize and his unpleasant experiences with what we call
mainstream science. Of course, someone might think that this is an
isolated case and not representative of what is happening in science.
But, even in this case, something is fundamentally wrong in our
approach. Referring to the 2011 case, it is not possible in our days
to mock a researcher or to sack him just because he found something
that does not fit to the usual pattern. It is not possible that one of
the most representative scientists of the last century (two Nobel
prizes) and perhaps of all time - Linus Pauling 6 affirmed about this
topic that ,,Danny Shechtman says nonsense. There is no such thing
such as quasi-crystals are only quasi-scientists". It is not possible
then for more than a decade during the rest of Pauling2s live and
based on his top ranked position in the research, he leads a supported
campaign against this researcher and his ideas.
But what intrigues most is the recent statement of Basam Shakhashiri,
current president of the American Chemical Society, who in a BBC
interview said that "This is how we make progress in science.4 Rather
then apologizing for what happened, instead of ensuring the public
that such case will not happen in the future, the statement of Mr.
Shakhashiri shocks and even calls to justify such practices to
continue. That is, someone who reveals something important, outside of
common pattern, have to be harassed and fired as a professional and
eventually be awarded later. Perhaps in this case it would be more
convenient to reintroduce the inquisition burning procedure and after
that for those who were right we have to call them saints.
I my humble opinion, I suppose that is a moral duty of a
representative institutions of world chemistry to seek public apology
for the events happened.
Unfortunately, if someone browses the history of science would notice
this kind of events have been happening so often that Planck affirmed
long time ago:
,,An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually
winning over and converting its opponents; very 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.4
I have made this introduction to discuss a present hypothetical case,
but a future real one:
What would happen if all our modern science is misinterpreted?
What would happen if the foundations of quantum theory, the special
relativity, classical electromagnetism, thermodynamics, etc.. would be
so loose that they could be demolished with simple experiments carried
out in the kitchen and the most of them cost not more than 10 euros?
What would happen if all modern science would be only a replay of
epicycles theory and practical the work of millions of researchers is
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 represent mainstream science at that time, would band together and
with any means would do everything possible to silence the
recalcitrant. No matter the least that he can be right and these
things can be very easily checked! For these gray eminences of modern
science it is a true doctrine to prevent the spread of other ideas
that do not fit in their mental baggage.
This is a case with a new theory of science developed during latest 20
years.
It is worth to remind the position of a scientist2s team asked to
perform some simple low cost (up to 100 euro!) discriminatory
experiments. Here are the original email of Mr. J. Richardson and
answer from experimental team.
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 anyone may notice that actual science has become the property of
some "intelligent personalities" and they decide what experiment is to
be undertaken and what is politically correct in science. Of course,
these gray eminencies of actual science have no sense of history.
Without their agreement, the page related to polarization experiment
has been reading in 2011 by more then 1500 times and another page
related to ionization potential and absurdity of quantum idea has been
reading by more the 2500 times this year.
http://www.elkadot.com/en/corpuscular/Differences%20between%20light%20and%2=
0electromagnetic%20wave%20polarization.htm
http://www.elkadot.com/en/atomic/Ionization_energy_variation.htm
http://www.elkadot.com/en/chemistry/Ionization%20energy%20and%20work%20func=
tion.htm
Few scientific papers published in high IF factor peer review
journals, can attend such number of readers in a comparable time
interval and day by day the number of readers is increasing.
The short history of this theory is presented now online, in Romanian
at
http://www.elkadot.com/ro/comentarii/Comentariu_Nobel_2011.htm

Sincerely,
Dr. chim. Sorin Cosofret

On Oct 11, 2:060pm, Andrex opined:

Obama was awarded the Peace Prize in anticipation of doing exactly
what Bush wanted, and he did. Any scientist accepting a prize from
that Swedish political shower of puppet shit is undignified.

Read all about it! Andrex refuses Physics Prize on conscientious
grounds!

He told a "Naturist" columnist that he would happily take the real
money...

but they could damned well keep their tinfoil covered, chocolate coin,
Christmas tree decorations!

"Quadibloc" <email@anonym; wrote in message
news:email@anonym...
On Oct 11, 2:40 am, sorin <sorincosof...@yahoo.com> wrote:

and his unpleasant experiences with what we call
mainstream science.

Right there, I knew that the full and sufficient response to this has
already been made:

"They laughed at Fulton!
They laughed at James Watt!

But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."

Yes, science is resistant to new and different ideas. And sometimes
this resistance proves to be mistaken.

But that doesn't mean that most of the "new and different" ideas are
right. Most of them are ludicrously and badly wrong.

John Savard
=====================================
All the right words, Savard, but we also laugh at Einstein the clown.
Of course, you understand the bozo, he conned you when you
were young and gullible, now you are old and gullible. So we also
laugh at the ludicrously and badly wrong Savard the clown.