- #106
Michael F. Dmitriyev
- 342
- 1
I am compelled to repeat once again:Originally posted by russ_watters
Thats a false analogy because a new invention doesn't require that all related previous inventions not work.
Your hypothesis directly contradicts the known laws of physics and the experimental evidence that supports it. These laws have served us well this past century. They work. If what you are doing isn't arrogance, then its ignorance. But I've said that before - you don't understand enough of what we DO know about physics to start to put together your own extending theory, much less a contradictory one. Format doesn't matter, the attachment simply isn't there.
MY IDEA DOES NOT CONTRADICT EXPERIMENTAL DATA.
It differs from an existing EXPLANATION of results of these experiments, i.e. the THEORY. Well, but it is not my problem.
It is possible to bring the set of examples when the new theory replaced old one.
I do not see any tragedy here.
Insignificant ideas led to the slow accumulation of knowledge. Ingenious ideas led to the re-comprehension of this knowledge. It lifts up the evolution of knowledge on a new step of development. I don’t doubt, each participant of this forum have claims for a role of genius. This claim in the some cases can be proved. And I see a role of mentors in the careful research of these bases.
But you even hypothetically cannot assume such situation.
You are not right, Russ.