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

"PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1151450239.539977.31780@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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.

I don't think the scientific method is a good example here. How could
that keep "outsiders" out? In this day and age of specialization, a
"true" amateur doesn't stand much of a chance at all. There are even
trained physicists with good ideas that don't stand a chance. ;-) But I
don't see any kind of suppression going on other than from some string
theory folks. LOL! The ones that think there is suppression going on
are just not clever enough to figure out how to get around it or deal
with it.

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:
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?

It is simple; they had an idea that was good enough, testable, etc.

FrediFizzx

Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuum-physics.com

.

Relevant Pages