Re: Is it possible to be an important and influential amateur physicist?


PD wrote:
There's been much flambe flung about having to do with whether
scientists have institutions (like the scientific method) that are
specifically designed to keep outsiders away or to suppress valuable
contributions from amateurs, and on the other hand whether an amateur
has any hope of making a substantial contribution to physics without
formal training in physics at the hands of professional physicists.


You have self awareness I see.



It is certainly possible for outsiders or amateur physicists to make
notable contributions and to have their work published in reputable
peer-reviewed journals. There are a number of notable cases even from
the past century:


And you live in the past... way in the past...

Alfred Loomis - electroencephalography, radar, spectroscopy, LORAN
Gustave Le Bon - light transport
Forrest Mims III - various


But it is plain that these folks did something different than the
cranks that populate this group. Clearly delineating what the
difference is would be instructive to all. Comments?

Red herring around again PD?

A genious of the past is a crank of tomorrow and a crank of the past
may become the genious of tomorrow depending on which metaphysical
foundation of physics prevails.

Because after all, experimental facts are facts. It is the underline
mettaphysics that make the difference.

Got rejected in peer-review PD? Try accepted metaphysics blended with
some differential geometry. You will make it through.

Mike





PD

.

Relevant Pages