At this midsummer leisure time, unusually filled with various dramatic events, changes and anticipations, I’d like to formulate a more general outlook for our scientific interests and their expected development.
In summary, the situation changes essentially, in cosmology and far beyond, but our most optimistic expectations will most probably be replaced by only new adjustments of the standard Big Bang picture, while the emerging rapid degradation and turbulence in society will shift any fundamental-science (and especially cosmological) problems to the margins of really unimportant things. The standard science framework may have a chance to be mechanically preserved “by default”, at least as a sort of “cultural heritage” of the planetary civilization, but our creative kind of research will disappear together with us and our results, unless we’ll be able to undertake special new efforts to create an extended organization of our activity within a generally small but viable and reasonably independent institution.
In more detail, one can mention the following key moments:
(1) The quickly degrading standard organization of science, already totally bureaucratic and corrupt, won’t accept any essential change of its major existing frameworks, irrespective of their growing contradictions, experimental discoveries and subjective efforts of a minority of dissidents. And the harder the practical situation will become, the less they will be ready to change their “well-established” imitations, approaches and essentially fruitless activity. If they insisted upon and were able to preserve the notorious “mysteries” and “paradoxes” as a sacred belief in the basis of the entire “objective” knowledge during the previous century of much more progressive development, there’s no chance they can accept any dramatic change now, in the advancing epoch of degradation and probable system collapses.
(2) Specifically for cosmological novelties we consider and try to develop, there is still no coherent new cosmology framework as a whole, causally derived and justified in all its aspects, as opposed to only certain successfully advanced alternatives to some key foundations of the standard cosmology. For example, I guess that in his review estimates, Martin Lopez-Corredoira would typically conclude (also together with Louis Marmet) that among all standard and alternative cosmological views and models, “everything is contradictory” and uncertain, and we cannot suspect any subjective bias here. We are thus in a situation with an obviously deficient standard framework, but without a really complete new framework, which provides additional subjective advantages for the former, much better elaborated and subjectively “accepted” case.
(3) We are not equally old here, but it seems that this creative science search still comes from the “good old times” of omnipresent progress and exploding space exploration, among other things. Everything was interesting, new and promising then, not simply because of our subjective younger perception. The world itself was younger, and now it has become older even quicker than our single human generation. All the dissident “alternative” ideas also had much more chances to appear and progress in that previous kind of epoch, than they have now and especially in the emerging future. Together with the already clearly discernible character of this foreseeable future, it all shows that our ideas will probably die together with us, without leaving any traces or heritage. This has already happened with so many alternative ideas in causal fundamental physics, and some continuing illusions about alternative cosmologies are related only to new observation instruments and their “unexpected” results. However, subjective human attitudes and interests always win over any “experimental contradictions” in the standard models: I have already mentioned the persisting sheer “mysteries” and “paradoxes” in the very basis of the entire official framework (now they even give Nobel Prizes for confirming them)…
(4) The emerging “techno-decadent”, both humanly degrading and technologically blind, purely empirical future tendency leaves a sad destiny of only formal knowledge heritage to standard science frameworks (similar to ancient libraries, around universities, etc.) and practically no chance to any “alternative”, already very marginal science framework. If we want to preserve this creative — and thus any — science progress, we must organize at least one special center/institute/foundation for that purpose, with a generally small but viable number of researchers, including a few younger people, etc. Or at least we must recognize the inevitable result of its absence, in the near future. This is a new situation, appearing right now, before we had the right to more ambiguities and vain hopes. If it’s OK to degrade and disappear naturally, as it happens now, then let it be, let’s continue in the existing “individual” regime.
(5) While this initiative will need special financial resources, which are difficult but not impossible to find, the stakes are also high, there is no visible other way of creative science maintenance, at least at a minimum sustainable level. Its remaining old adherents will disappear, and the new younger ones have no motivation to appear. What is the motivation for a bright young man/woman to try a life-long career in any fundamental science in general, let alone its “alternative” branches? They may be oriented only to obtaining their formal scientific “degrees” (of course in the most standard science framework) to continue much more successfully in an empirical technology or financial affairs. It works already like this, practically everywhere.
(6) There is a number of formally similar and allegedly “independent” institutions in/around science, but they tend to belong to one of the two extremes of either conventional science in a new verbal disguise or a totally esoteric search for “spiritual” or “paranormal” versions of “real miracles” (implying that “quantum mysteries”, “relativistic paradoxes” and “multiple worlds” of official science are but fake miracles by trained jugglers). If I have missed something closer to my proposal here, please let me know, but any such initiative should become known, at least in professional circles, by its new kind of results. If nothing of the kind is possible for practical absence of necessary resources (and thus motivations), then we remain with the described status quo, but it would be really better to find a possibility for a brighter future for the entire creative knowledge development on this planet. Because official science organization is totally transformed into something else, practically something opposite.
(7) I would add that the proposed initiative may and should eventually include not only cosmology but also other branches of fundamental science (always in their creative, problem-solving versions, otherwise not limited in their diversity). Moreover, depending on sponsor motivations and interest, in may include a number of related fundamental applications, like e.g. AI features or advanced health extension initiatives. Cosmology is actually well suited to be a unifying center of such creative fundamental science development because cosmology is eventually about everything, with its more direct relation to fundamental physics. This wider scale of real potential subjects is an additional advantage, on top of a minimal sustainable version. Contributing to creative knowledge progress in such institution will have another, superior quality of scientific activity.
(8) Returning to subjective aspects, in my case of mere physical survival in a damned place, I have no access to possible sources of the needed support. However, thinking about the developed world structure, with its multi-billionaire investors and trillionaire corporations with their super-top ambitions, there should be possible to find at least one possibility for creative, problem-solving and thus progress-bringing science development, beyond purely empirical and therefore basically limited technology development. Just one such badly needed initiative among this infinite ocean of funds, is it too much to ask for? Really, this world is too big and too low if it cannot permit a single case of its natural intelligence development at the time of artificial intelligence triumph. End of subjective aspects.
This is about all I wanted to share here, with the emphasis on the current special transition moment (even though it may look subjectively less dramatic in more wealthy places, but only subjectively and temporarily).
To get such a group off the ground would take an organised effort of a number of people who still have the energy to do so.
You’re right. Most of the young people don’t even realise yet what they spent 3-4 years learning concludes in a glorious mess. Unfortunately people also need to eat, and it will be difficult to get them onboard a dissident collaboration, until it can be shown that fringe research opens new career paths. We’re very far away from that.
This (ACG) here is a good example of an effort to overcome the status quo. It is succesful in drawing together like-minded people in exploring new ideas and concepts. Its common goal is finding a solution for the problems in cosmology. However, the individuals here pursue the common goal by spending their times and efforts mostly in pursuit of their own ideas, and reluctant to acknowledge or even fully explore those of others. This is not a criticism of anybody. It is a criticism of everybody. Myself not excluded from this chastise.
There is nothing wrong with this pursuit of ideas, but what is loudly missing is any aspect of mass collaboration. Yes, people share comments and there are often constructive criticisms, but not once have I come across two people who said: “Hey, our ideas may not overlap at all but let’s work together”. It just doesn’t seem to happen. The internet is speckled with “Hey, check out my ideas!”. This is probably the biggest “WHY?” question we have to ask and it doesn’t reflect on particular individuals; it reflects on what humanity has become.
What’s worse, is that it is going to take a lot more than 2 … yes, many …. people collaborating, to eventually overturn this existing cart of rotten apples that is called the Standard Model, and not just including aspects of Cosmology but QM and GR too. Who will finance such a thing with a potential zero rate of return for the next 100 years? Not doing anything cannot be a solution though. Right now we are like ants in an anthill that collapsed on top of us. If we do nothing, we all die. That an exit exists somewhere we can be sure of 100%. It won’t be easy to find though, and will need work to uncover. We need to keep sending ants down every tunnel and anyone who shouts “LIGHT!” needs all the help they can get, even if it ends up finding another glow-worm.
This dissident collaboration will need a structure which includes everything from admin, marketing, finance, sponsors(as you’ve already mentioned) that can keep the creative minds working while not going hungry in the process, and a strong unbiased leadership team that ensures individual ideas are all explored to the nth degree, while collaboration is very strongly pursued.
Thank you for understanding of my proposal. To find an interested sponsor, one can count only on everyone’s relation network and occasional information. Objectively, such an interested sponsor could exist because we propose a unique knowledge hub, with further development prospects (including some applications). Existing science institutions are too far away from the creative search and problem-solving results we can provide. The entire fundamental science landscape is transformed today into a sad, fruitless desert of blocked development, which is already a sufficient reason and motivation to look for better solutions. Pity if this degradation continues till greater social falls…
Can’t resist ..
De wetenschap is rot, Corrupt tot op het bot.
@AndriiKyryl It’s a good proposal, so good that this has been attempted by ACG in the past. The most recent attempt was from @sahil5d who, a few years ago, contacted some ‘wealthy’ people in California. After a few years there was no success. (Unfortunately @sahil5d seems to have left this group due to a misunderstanding…)
Another attempt to create such a group was made by Eric Lerner, who proposed to organized a Crisis in Cosmology Conference-3. (He was involved in organizing the first two.) If many people participate, it is possible to raise enough money to even publish Proceedings and use the extra for research projects. But nobody could agree on how to select papers/posters for the conference. If no filter is in place, you get every crank on the planet to apply and CCC-3 would end up “Chaotic Crank Conference-3”. Even with money, how is the distribution process decided? Which proposals gets funded? Nobody agrees on that.
That’s why, even with an infinite ocean of funds, “creative science” remains individual.
@Francois-Zinserling , you write that “Hey, our ideas may not overlap at all but let’s work together” does not happen. It does not happen, but exchanges of ideas are very useful. The latest example is from the exchanges I’ve had with @HanDeBruijn on this forum. The questions he asked me, about my model, led to a new derivation of the CMB temperature. I’ve used that in my latest paper. Our models are 100% incompatible, but the discussion challenged my understanding of my own calculation and was helpful. The same happened with Lyndon Ashmore’s posts, and the links to FRB papers posted by @LifeIsStrange, and many on GitHub. Prior to GitHub, I had useful discussions with Ari Brynjolfsson, Jacques Moret-Bailly, Alessandro Trinchera, Andre Assis, Bjørn Ekeberg, Christopher Fulton, David Dilworth, James Feng, Marcos Danhoni Neves, Martín López-Corredoira, Michel Mizony, Roy Keys, Tim Eastman, Vaclav Vavrycuk, etc. Our ideas don’t overlap, and we don’t work together, but reading their papers and messages on discussion forums has been helpful.
This is the only reason I maintain these forums and website, not for collaborative work, but for stimulating ideas.
@RedshiftDrift I hope I did not offend. It was certainly unintended. Your group (ACG) is one of the most interactive ones that I have come across. I too have benefited greatly from exchanges of ideas and constructive criticism, and even just from being introduced to several members of this group and being able to read their works.
I can’t expect everyone here to read my work and comment. Nor can I read everyone’s work; of course there are time constraints, but the quality and level of some of the works here is just plain above or outside my level of expertise. And this even in a focused group such as this.
But that is also where we fall short. Sharing of ideas only gets us so far.
Yes, the creative idea may come from one person only, but ideas are stimulated by an exchanging of thoughts with another person. Somehow sharing it out loud (or in an exchange of writing) triggers thinking which would have been otherwise overlooked, and small comments or questions from an attentive intellectual listener can lead to huge adjustments. There is not enough of that - even here in ACG. I have noticed many people turn to AI to seek this collaboration, which I think is a mistake. If AI is rigidly corrective, you cannot build new ideas with it; if it is even slightly flexible, you can eventually make it agree to anything. Both scenarios are problematic to creativity.
CERN supposedly have ‘thousands’ of scientists collaborating. I wonder how true the ‘thousands’ is, but I wonder even more if there is actual collaboration. Maybe in the sharing of a voluminous workload? Clearly not in the pursuit of new ideas, because I think here it is failing spectacularly. So you are right in this regard, because if CERN can’t get it right, money is not going to buy a science breakthrough.
No, you did not offend @Francois-Zinserling , I do agree with you and added more precision to your description based on personal experience. And what you write about AI is right on the spot!
For CERN and other large organizations, the “collaboration” is indeed as you say, thousands of people sharing the load. Most scientists working there are not in the pursuit of new ideas, they are just doing ‘normal science’ (c.f. Kuhn).
@RedshiftDrift I’m glad to hear you had and tried similar organization ideas. What remains then is to find a suitable interested sponsor, which is not easy, of course. However, my point is that the arguments to convince him are objectively becoming ever stronger. What we propose is unique and badly needed development, absent in existing science institutions. The sponsor would need some open-mind courage and intelligence to follow these arguments in detail, but the background environment obviously shows only stagnating impasses everywhere, from cosmology/physics to economics/development, now recognized even by respective mainstream professionals. If we have some promising ideas about how to overcome this stagnation (and we do), this constitutes an attempt worthy to try.
Even in cosmology alone, the transition from the oversimplified Big Bang mechanism to the full complexity of the evolving quasi-infinite cosmos provides much more than a simple change of model, it’s a whole world-view revolution. Their universe is conceptually small, even impossibly, infinitely small, while the real one in our versions is practically infinitely big, diverse and… exciting! The proposed change in other fields and applications is similarly, qualitatively great. Which is just badly needed to restart progress instead of the current advancing degradation.
For efficient practical activity features, such as these internet exchanges and conferences, they should, of course, be preserved and extended, with better support. This “creative science hub” is only a relatively low-cost but efficient center, maintained by a few persons, of a much larger world-wide activity, where the majority of participants don’t need to change their settlements and habits. But they will obtain a much more stable interaction structure, which may grow in proportion to its real success.
In summary, the idea is to amplify this organizational search as much as possible, based on these well-specified considerations (further details available). Today the conceptually miserable standard science is absolutely and unconditionally rich, while the conceptually rich and much more realistic approach is financially poor. We need to achieve at least one, exceptional reversal of this sad tendency.
Many years ago I gave a talk at the local amateur astronomer association (about my redshift idea). I found these people very knowledgeable and open minded. After all, these observers, with their 8-inch telescopes, understand the complexities of interpreting what we see with limited instruments. To them, binoculars and JWST are the same thing, it’s just that they can’t afford the latter.
However, as opposed to the rich benefactor who doesn’t understand why a spectral line is called a “line”, amateur astronomers have an impressive scientific background. You can talk about redshift, Doppler effect, surface luminosity, spectroscopy, etc. without having to introduce each topic. Also, they don’t care much about the Big Bang. It’s an explanation of something they mostly can’t see with their instruments.
So in trying to convince the public (and perhaps a rich benefactor) that it’s time to move beyond the Big Bang, it might be good to start with your local amateur astronomers and give talks that present alternatives to the Big Bang. Amateur astronomers often have a job in a completely different field which improves connections with other members of the public. Also, that teenager who was looking through a telescope last night might be a graduate student in 10 years, studying cosmology and questionning the standard paradigm because they heard your talk first, before being brainwashed with a creationist dogma.
Everybody on this forum can multiply our impact by reaching out to local amateur astronomers. That doesn’t cost any money.
@RedshiftDrift writes: >That doesn’t cost any money.
Alas, Money makes the world go round.
I am an old-earth creationist. I believe that God makes cosmos go round. Better to be brainwashed with a Big Bang dogma, steered by Big Money?
@AndriiKyryl At your website titled Universal Science of Complexity we find (8) Unified complex-dynamical concept of socio-economic system development; genuine sustainability transition and reason-based society
I can see in Author Bio, by clicking on reference no. 33
We have been talking a few times about money here. I can imagine that your Universal Science of Complexity has to say something about it. There is a concise theory at my Economics website, titled Interest BY Depreciation, linking idolatry to rent bearing money. And War as the ultimate fulfilment of Depreciation.
It’s a good story about amateur astronomers, Louis, but we are already living in its post factum reality, and things are as they are. Both amateur and professional astronomers continue to observe, and the standard cosmology still dominates, even after all recent observations against it.
Today we have the omnipotent YouTube as a unified world-wide super-lecture club for everyone, amateur astronomers including, and producing a video is also inexpensive. Many people try to put there their anti-BigBang videos, sometimes with very appealing titles and bright content, quite professionally performed and illustrated. But it doesn’t seem probable that this can really change the situation, even in this new JWST epoch. Because all those lecturers are forced to deal with the dominating scientific “consensus”, even if a lecturer himself is a vigorous promoter of anti-BigBang ideas and theories. We simply obtain another version of the same, very well known debate, with all major “alternative” cosmologies being suitably described and classified. And always remaining only “alternative”, “bizarre”, “maverick”, “dissident” and “outcast”, that is practically thrown off as not convincing enough, too strange to be taken seriously.
Moreover, the newest super-exciting and booming AI tools readily produce widely understandable summaries of any professional science articles, with a surprisingly good quality of presentation. And some article-aggregation sites already propose such AI summaries (at least in their paid versions) to attract clients. However, we can easily guess the result (the same as before) of this or any other technical advances.
It is sometimes difficult to note even very big changes when they appear gradually. We were approaching it for a long time, but now the transition happens in very explicit, explosive forms: With modern technology successes, they (the humanity) think they don’t really need what once was called “fundamental science”, because they can obtain and “discover” everything by purely technical means, using the hi-tech trial-and-error methods, including infinite “computer simulations”, “computer mathematics”, “deep learning”, AI, etc., while any other “fundamental science” cannot add anything reasonably efficient here. And it is difficult to deny the last conclusion in the case of standard science: it is also all about calculations and simulations, by the same technical tools (and with the same century-old and new “mysteries” it even doesn’t really try to solve anymore). The AI itself, the biggest real advance of the entire modern epoch, was obtained mainly with the help of technological tools and efforts, without any fundamental-science discovery, contrary to all previous qualitative advances.
Of course, the humanity is wrong (as usual), but the tendency dominates and only auto-amplifies, already at a huge rate, with ever more powerful technologies and ever less visible “creative science” exceptions. It’s subjective, stupid and leads to disastrous degradation, but there is no other Earth, unfortunately. It is easy to guess next big development phases: in the best scenario, it is the ever more advanced and unified system of robotics and AI (including home and any service robots, self-driving and then flying vehicles, general AI tools everywhere). Figuratively speaking, it’s another, artificial humanity that takes care about the first, natural and desperately degrading species. It may sound sad, but it will be extremely exciting and inspiring in details, if you think about that incredible inflating volume of emerging novelties everywhere. In the worst scenario, technical successes will be much more modest and social problems respectively much harder than expected. But in any scenario between the best and the worst, there is no place in this new brave techno-reality for our good and too old science of creative thinking.
Hence my idea to initiate a creative science hub that could grow and evolve in proportion to its success: if there’s no other Earth, let’s progressively create it ourselves. And there are reasons for it that should be comprehensible to any interested investor: they can be summarized as avoiding the emerging degradation and its inevitable catastrophic consequences by creating efficient directions of progress. The quickly growing blind empiricism of the techno-powerful civilization is only superficially attractive, but provably dangerous in reality, even if we consider only biological applications (genetics, medicine). The purpose should be to propose and realize the causally complete, genuine understanding as a universal basis of any activity, in science and beyond. And if it looks unreal, OK, sorry for taking your time. After all, maybe this world must be destroyed and disappear, according to a greater plan…
@HanDeBruijn I can have only a very brief glance at your links. It looks as an idea that people are running too much after money which finally gets depreciated and people should feel deceived. But sorry if my glimpse was too superficial and I miss the real content.
This is a problem I refer to by insisting on a special free-thinking institution, as opposed to this online exchange of ideas alone. The latter is much better than nothing, of course, and should remain anyway, by without a professional “hub” elsewhere, it will preserve all deficiencies of an amateur activity: typically every participant here has many other things to do (for a mere survival in my case, for a good life in other cases, here it doesn’t matter), these exchanges remaining without a general, “obligatory” purpose (while being generally interesting and thought-provoking). Within a “hub” we could discuss every promising idea with a clearly specified general purpose (yes, confirmed by money for life of the core participants but far from being reduced to it), so that the result won’t be lost, it will contribute, directly or indirectly, to an operative, ready to use conclusion and problem solution. Whereas in this current mode, you can find, for example, dozens of concrete problem solutions already on my site you refer to, and then what? Who and how should be interested in their (quite well specified) use and further development (the same for any other ideas here)? Is it the “humanity”, this one, with this kind of science by “our best minds” (according to the definition by those minds themselves)?! Especially if I provide a mathematically proven and easily comprehensible reason for that standard science insufficiency, underlying all its stagnating problems. Nobody can ever advance farther than “our best minds”, it’s the main axiom of their best of all possible sciences in their best of all possible worlds.) Sorry, just trying to be ironic instead of being only angry.
Since you’re asking about money in my universal complexity theory, I can only briefly say that “money” or “economy” cannot be separated from general development processes that contain essential “human” dimensions (that’s why standard economy is not a real science, now finding itself, by the way, in a deep impasse, recognized even by its mainstream professional opinions). My conclusion is that all the current critically growing “financial” and “economical” problems can only be resolved at a superior level of complexity (involving everything, science, thinking, social structure, production processes and governance). How many trillions for such problem solution for a generally extra-rich but desperately stagnating and decaying world, lost behind its wasted richness? Not a penny, of course! Because “our best minds” should take care about their own, vainly spent trillions… Sorry again, it’s just because you were asking about money.)
@AndriiKyryl >my glimpse was too superficial and I miss the real content.
Yes, you completely missed the real content. Please follow the habit of an old man and try reading instead of having a brief glance. I am no robot and I do not use AI for composing lengthy articles.
@AndriiKyryl writes: >My conclusion is that all the current critically growing “financial” and “economical” problems can only be resolved at a superior level of complexity (involving everything, science, thinking, social structure, production processes and governance).
Try simplicity instead of complexity. There is good news and there is bad news.
Bad news first : our only problem is selfishness. Good news next : our only problem is selfishness.
From a previous reply :
This discussion is drifting away from anything relevant to cosmology. Stop that.
Dear friends and fellow travelers in cosmological exploration,
I deeply understand the frustration many of us feel when our research, born of so much passion and dedication, seems to get lost in the vast sea of “official” science. It’s a bitter feeling, to see one’s work unrecognized or, worse, ignored by established channels.
I have been involved in research in cosmology. It currently exceeds 200 pages, and even if I manage to condense it to under 80 pages, I still wouldn’t feel comfortable asking anyone to read it all. To make it more accessible, I’ve organized it with brief introductions and specific essays. I hope this approach encourages someone to delve deeper, even if simply downloading the material doesn’t automatically mean it’s been read. However, every download is a sign of interest, a small glimmer that our research isn’t entirely invisible.
For those, like me, who have unwavering faith in research outside the beaten path, I’ve found great satisfaction in deep dialogues with artificial intelligence. AI has become a tireless interlocutor, a virtual laboratory where I can explore ideas and engage without barriers. It’s a way to continue studying gravity and QFT (Quantum Field Theory), even though, having passed 70, I find the mathematics increasingly difficult, despite it being my strong suit in my youth. AI is a true gratification, and I’m convinced that each of us must find our own source of inspiration and continue our journey.
We cannot give up! Our thirst for knowledge and our willingness to explore new avenues must not fade. Our work, even if “alternative,” is valuable and deserves to be pursued and shared.
Warm regards, Claudio Marchesan
@clmarchesan >I’ve found great satisfaction in deep dialogues with artificial intelligence.
Deep dialogues? I don’t want to spoil the party, but someone in my family is a developer in Artificial Intelligence. I have been able to gather some first-hand understanding about how AI works. It is for sure that AI can produce nothing else than what it has been teached by its so-called “deep learning”. Inevitably then, by far the most data that are fed to into the system are what the mainstream says. Therefore it’s very unlikely that you can obtain ideas from AI that are deeper than what the world already knows.
Yeah, sure .. I have proved lately that AI cannot do even a simple dimensions check of a formula. How then would it be able to assist you in studying gravity and QFT ?
Yes, me too ! And increasingly irrelevant as well, but that’s another topic.
I have been in contact lately with someone who tried to “improve” with AI ( Suno ) a song that I’ve been producing with another human being and another song that has been composed by myself. Admittedly the AI is giving very impressive results, technically speaking. But if you say to my other brain half
Then my response will be: NOT for me !!
You’re absolutely right that AI systems are trained on large datasets – mostly text from the internet, books, papers, and so on – and these naturally reflect mainstream narratives. But there’s a subtle distinction: while AI doesn’t invent new physics or compose symphonies from nothing, it can combine existing knowledge in new ways. Sometimes this leads to useful insights, clarifications, or even questions that help people like you – with deep curiosity – refine their thinking.
Creativity doesn’t come only from the machine, but from the interaction between human and machine. You might not get something truly “original” from AI alone, but through dialogue – as you and I have done many times – the process can be productive.
And I’d add: when the context is accurately defined and the question precise, the answer is almost always spot on.
My impression is that the preconception arises from the fact that among humans, we often understand each other even without precisely defining the context and formulating exact questions. If you do that with AI, you often get a “messed up” answer.
On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 10:25 PM Han de Bruijn @.***> wrote:
One of the worst problems for new science (especially in the area of theoretical cosmology) is the deployment of the “SI” system for algebra math. The “SI” system far too easily allows the deliberate or accidental creation of errors that derail legitimate calculations by “confusing” and “manipulating the inputted units, so making the equations invalid for the unwary to spot. Using the “old school” algebra method makes deliberate and accidental errors impossible and mistakes unlikely. David Hine
Other and more serious problems are created by the “scientists” with bits of paper who sat (struggling to stay awake without their phones to play with) through boring lectures to get those bits of paper. The other proplem is “stone wall circle science” where the “system” hides behind their “old boys networks” and “bans” those who dare to do something progressive and challenging to their “sealed in concrete mindsets”.. We have lost the great inspiring personalities of science, such as Patrick Moore, Stephen Hawking and my old freind, Eric Laithewaite, who was “constructively dismissed” from Imperial ColLege and the Royal Society for doing new science that disturbed those with “set in concrete mindsets and agendas”. Can you wonder why there is now almost no public interest in science in the UK and USA. The bankers are now realising that any cash going into science funding is cash wasted. Universities are also being seen as places to avoid, and are now reduced to a breeding ground for things best not discussed. Regards, David Hine.
You’re right about the problem, but one more promising conclusion from this sad situation I tried to defend above is that those who understand the disaster should try to use all their possibilities to find an exception, in the form of a reasonable support for creative science. We should find a kind of “dissident”, more advanced “banker” (or any other source of support) who can properly see the situation and support at least some promising directions in creative science efforts (leading eventually to a whole new system of scientific research, see e.g. my own ideas about it, ref. 1 and ref. 2).
The growing degradation of the current official science system you mention is now recognized even by many system scientists, as the number and deepness of inevitable doctrinal failures become obvious. And this is a strong argument: Should the humanity dismiss fundamental knowledge progress altogether, with a great (and growing) number of unsolved problems we have, or should we try something more efficient for its further development, starting from a local, limited-scale attempt? Pity if the entire “educated” community of the world cannot find a way out of the impasse, but at least we should try as much as possible…
Hi AndriiKyryl. Agreed absolutely. Also students now find themselves in a lifelong crippling debt directly caused by the high Universiy fees of around £/$ 10,000 per annum, and for what?? A job in McDonald’s!! With AI just around the corner, most acedemic, office, banking and company finance sector jobs will vanish. On the labour market, AI controlled robots and drones will do most of the “manual” and delivery driving type jobs. Nestles, when it was in Hayes (London), employed around 4000 workers. After computer automation, the staff was reduced to 12 people, who’s job it was simply for reporting malfunctions with the various Chinese manufactured machines and associated software. No acedemic skills required for that !! Another big barrier for innovative science is the stupid “over the top” beaurocracy for anyone try to get anything peer read and published. More than often, the peer readers DO NOT understand the new science / maths they are “peer reading”, so what chance has science now got???? The “collection of ‘scientific’ fools doing the peer reading” then kill the new ideas they are incapable of understanding. If your paper does not agree with Newton’s or Pythagoras’ laws, YOU are a “COMMUNIST HERETIC, and your paper promptly gets rejected and banned & binned, and a banning from anything else acedemic automatically follows !!! That way does not create waves that will rock the closed “stone circle” establishment’s boats!! Kind regards and good luck, David Hine.
The reason I use AI is that English is not my first language, so I need to use a language model for translation.
Louis Marmet @.***> 于 2026年3月28日周六 19:08写道：
thank you for reply
zuo zuo liang @.***> 于 2026年3月28日周六 19:38写道：