comode wrote:Oh ... I'm sorry for Witten and Hawking so ...
What shouldn't you hear ... Is it because they never published a video on youtube that you say that?
if you don't link to your quotes, we may not understand everything.
I had to understand for my part: the bigger ones are already behind (Tesla, etc ...), I mean it was fundamental research NOT oriented towards industry, I don't know if you see what I mean. . brief.
moreover you did not respond to my advancements: let's go together rather than each on his own ... and to reassure you: your pendulum works perfectly!
that's not the problem, but frankly reductive to place it anywhere anytime ("what's wrong with my pendulum? I'm inconsistent?
) ...
take a little logic if you like:
if meyer = crook then comode = obscurantist
why crook? he didn't make any money and died assassinated, was working on cold fusion ... not logical what you say ;-)
youtube is great for quickly viewing and sharing something, it's a revolution for showing others, video is better than pictures / diagrams etc most of the time.
besides I think that you are kidding us by telling us about the discourse of the method ... we did it to you! -)
you speak of a reasoning which includes as acquired unchecked errors ("accepted notions"): it is a way of doing, not THE way of doing. proof (as you like): how was penicilin discovered? by chance, by mixing it all up, and a good deal of observation!
your way of doing things is dogmatic and above all VERY VERY slow .............. we risk limiting ourselves to pencil sharpening if you know what I mean!
you may have to go through this, but not everyone is like you, it must be admitted, even if their results do not relate to the same field.
chemistry has its rules based on the same admitted observations, which is why it has its limits! in addition it is also based on the physics of molecules ...
ditto when you quote "Einstein himself said god does not play dice ...": it's a quote, not your way of explaining it. Besides, Einstein has been criticized for HIS way of explaining things.
comode wrote:If a guy shows up and says "I invented a cold fusion engine", throw stones at him, because he's an idiot ... He may have invented something superunitary, but he has no right to say it's cold fusion!
completely agree with you we are, not so naive all the same on the other hand I will add: you admit that the superunity is "maybe" possible therefore, but in what way?
to finish I take your other quote: "Knowledge is the conclusions that can be reached thanks to this method. (science)" to which I instead place my quote: knowledge is what is acquired from experience.
one can speak of experimental protocol in science and of experiment, but it is a particular notion which encompasses just a part of the "real" experiment: it is a little reductive.
those that you say you deserve by patents and videos are not there to do the work you have to do, to seek, but they are there to "bring the good word": it is a natural way of doing things, which takes over. I agree that there are some bogus sources of information in this area, and there is indeed someone or something working on it ...
we are not here to revolutionize but to share; what do you want to revolutionize?
Comode asks himself questions, doesn't know how to answer them, he wants information but is not very polite ... I would say: you have to let him continue in his process, but it's a little political ...