|
Then I'm lost as to what your argument is. Part of it seems to be a simple rant against the brainwashing of the masses (implicitly at the behest of some shadowy ruling elite), which I won't dignify with a response. The other part seems to be a complaint that people believe what they're told without thinking to question it. What exactly do you want to do about it?
You have to remember that 99.99% of 'out there' theories (by which I assume you mean hypotheses) are crackpot rubbish. You complain that a paper is not published because it doesn't meet the approval of the peers. But that is one of the fundamental bases of science. Peer review is not a cabal against new ideas. It is a necessary safeguard aimed at simultaneously encouraging and hoping for new concepts, and also ensuring that these new concepts are at least consistent with what is already known. Contrary to the common beliefs of non-scientists and those scientists with an axe to grind, real science is agog for the presentation of new ideas. We know that there is much that is unknown. Please, please, show us how to understand better. But at the same time, don't waste our time with perpetual motion machines. |
|