reply to post by buddhasystem
The sad part is, vortices are incredibly cool
. But the best way to learn about them is doing actual experiments. Actual observations. Actual
quantification. Its great to hypothesize (or philosophize), but you need
to follow through with experiments. That. Is. Science.
To show something as invalid, there needs to be quantified proof that is repeatable. That is a real wrench in the works for the pseudo-scientific
community, it would seem.
While I strongly feel the scientific community can be insular and even myopic, the reasoning behind it is what is actually observed. And, lets be
honest, sometimes the results mirror what the source of the funds for the project wants to see (this happens in both "mainstream" and "alternative"
science though, and that is incredibly important to remember). It may be misunderstood, it may need more exploration, and it may even need to be
re-defined or re-discovered.. But! To do so takes more than a youtube video, some papers, and a few lectures.
I would actually venture a guess that many in the "alternative science" community have never even done an experiment of any kind, much less attempted
to replicate the hypothesized results of what is proposed as a grand unified theory. That lack of participation and experience relegates those
involved to simply cheer from the sidelines for a team that isnt even playing on the field. It also minimizes the efforts of those in alternative
science who are
doing experiments, who are
proving themselves right/wrong.
I am equally skeptical of anyone proposing a grand unified theory, I dont care what their background is. The difference is that when it comes from
certain sources, there is actual data, actual experiments that I can attempt to repeat.
The alternative science community has amazing and incredible ideas. So does "mainstream" science. However, the alternative science community seems
so set on discarding everything
mainstream that the baby is thrown out with the bath water. The opposite happens frequently as well. Its a
bit sad that instead of cooperatively exploring this universe, most are too busy yapping to actually do any exploring. edit: The biggest difference
I see between "alternative" and "mainstream" science is that generally, alternative science is dead-set on proving themselves right while mainstream
science focuses on proving their hypotheses wrong. Obviously doesnt always work out like that on either side, but for the most part, that has been my
edit on 3-2-2013 by Serdgiam because: (no reason given)