Counter-Responses, Section 6 (End of Part 5)

Merlin Wrote:
Kurt, you see me as so many others have in the past. You make the
(incorrect) assumption that I am a part of the establishment that
strives to keep new ideas out of the mainstream. I personally get
rather tired of that, but hey - it seems to come with the territory.
For the record, I did apologize (a couple of times) for being rude,
however, I do stick to my commentary as offered in refutation of the
facts you offered. That is how the scientific method works. Vetting
is supposed to occur so that errors do not creep into the science.
Like you, I would take it personally if someone were to find flaws in
my theories, however, I would not launch into a personal assination
attempt as you did. Instead, I would have "papered me to death" with
proof; that's how the process works. Just because you consider
yourself to be an outsider with radical views does not make you
immune to 100% of the scientific method. By avoiding the real
scientists (and the methods), you only isolate yourself further.
If you really are interested in finding out whether or not I
am "orthodox" in my study of the sciences, I suggest that you visit
here: Reality of our understanding.
<http://merlinsscience.0catch.com/Realitycheck.html> This is the site
where I "express myself" without having to worry about anything other
than speaking my piece; it's a work in progress.
By the way, Kurt, I am not a "One man show" either. I too have more
than just a handful of other experts in the fields relevant to my
areas of research working with (or for) me. I love to collaborate;
islands remain islands forever - even if bridges are built.

My Response:
I am reminded of a politician who engages in spin; such as when a
decades-long veteran of Washington politics claims to be
an "outsider". Merlin likes to say that he does not promote
establishmentarian science, but, with the credentials he spouts, how
could he not?
He wrote: "As a member of AIP ... I myself am a Fellow with honors
(in good standing) of the affiliates: APS (15 years), AAPT (17
years), AGU (8 years), AVS (9 years) & AAS (12 years). I also happen
to know that this lends absolutely nothing to your credentials;
unless you too are a Fellow w/honors. You see, I do fall into most of
the categories that you listed: Government researcher (former),
University Professor (currently) and Physicist (last 20 years), ..."
[Note: AIP is the American Institute of Physics. APS is the
American Physical Society. AAPT is the American Association of
Physics Teachers. AGU is the American Geophysical Union. AVS is the
American Vacuum Society. And AAS is the American Astronomical
Society. Complete descriptions of these (among other) AIP affiliates
can be found by visiting www.aip.org.]
And yet, despite all of this, clearly showing that he has stature in,
and is "in good standing" with, the physics community, Merlin would
have us believe that he is not "part of the establishment that
strives to keep new ideas out of the mainstream".
Notice that he said "the" establishment instead of "an"
establishment. This is a subtle hint that the establishment to which
he belongs is quite thoroughly populated by physicists who do, in
fact, tend to hinder the widespread acceptance of ideas that do not
fit well with their own ideas; most notably by keeping unwelcomed
unorthodox ideas out of mainstream physics publications (either with
the willing acquiessence of editors, or by applying coercive pressure
on them).
Fortunately, some in the physics community are coming to grips with
this sort of systemic foible, having been alarmed by the significant
numer of ethics scandals that did much to tarnish the image of
science in general, and desiring to mitigate such disrepute touching
their arena of the sciences. Consequently, to their credit, Physics
Today magazine, for instance, has established itself among the few
publications keeping such issues in the minds of "real" physicists.
Allow me to quote one of Merlin's peers, from a commentary in the
Letters section of Physics Today of January 2006 (page 13). W.W.
Carter writes: "Editors of the principal journals reject manuscripts
that challenge prevailing theories or fall outside mainstream
research. This practice eliminates new ideas in fundamental physics
and encourages routine articles in established fields. The editors
protect themselves from many crackpot submissions, but also from the
few potentially great concepts. An organization or journal that
screens original articles specifically to identify great ideas would
be a valuable asset." Implying that no such organization or journal
presently exists!
Where Merlin and I part company, then, is that he is calling me
a "crackpot", while I am trying to suggest merely that my thesis is
a "potentially great" concept. Yet, by his own admission, he views
my thesis as nonsense, and has posted arguments in support of his
position. But, while decrying my ideas, he has made numerous
derogatory remarks against me personally.
I guess, however, if he is to be taken as a defender of the virtue of
mainstream thought in physics, that "vetting" and the "scientific
method" include insulting your opponent's intelligence.
On the other hand, readers who review the earlier messages in this
series of posts, and how all this got started, will be reminded that
it was Merlin who first launched an attack on me! [Note that the
response I gave to a post he first submitted on the original thread
(by barging-in on a discussion between myself and another
participant), was only a disagreement, not an attack. But Merlin
seems to have taken such offense that anyone would dare disagree with
him that he launched into a disrespectful and clearly vehement attack
on me as a person, with, it seems to me, my ideas as no more than a
platform upon which to stage the repeated firing-off of personal
insults.
I thus act in self-defense, against someone who obviously intends
harm to my reputation.
He is also accusing me of avoiding "real scientists". But that is a
an outright lie. I correspond with several real scientists by e-mail
on a regular basis, and often get encouragement from them, not
condemnation.
And I read copiously the work of many scientists from around the
globe.
I have visited Merlin's web-site too, but find there little in the
way of radical or even orginal ideas.
He reminds me likewise of string theorists, now working on M-Theory.
Once upon a time, their ideas were considered unorthodox. But today,
they constitute the heart of mainstream efforts in theoretical
physics. Yet, many still claim to promote unorthodox ideas! Go
figure.

On 12-4-06, another participant on the forum expressed sympathy for
me, and also said:
'Good science should open doors to new possibilities, not close
them!'
In a reply to this, speaking of me, Merlin wrote:
'... there is nothing "good" to place us on a "new possibility" in
what he has been lecturing upon.'

My Response:
Like many overly self-centered scientists, Merlin states his opinion
as if it were an absolute fact. Yet, I must admit that I too do
something similar, in my saying about gravity being a tachyonic
force. [Indeed, I am so convinced of the hypothesis that gravity is
tachyonic that I routinely state my opinion bluntly that way.]
However, I always state that saying in a context in which it is
fairly clear that it is my personal conclusion; an opinion; a
possibility. I have also always specifically made it clear that the
hypothesis and my thesis are mere science-fiction concepts, at this
time. There may come a day when experimental evidence either proves
or disproves the hypothesis in an indisputible way, but that remains
to be seen (although I stand by the predictions I gave earlier).
The problem with this negative statement about my ideas by Merlin is
that he could not possibly know whether or not my ideas are good
enough to lead to useful new possibilities in our understanding of
pysical processes at some point in the future.
I must therefore say that time will tell, and I am hopeful that the
evidence will be in my favor. In fact, I am quite confident that it
will be, because of the latest developments in detection technology,
and the growing interest in invetigating superluminal phenomenon in
physics - despite any objections Merlin may have of such efforts.
Let's give it a few months, and see what happens.


************


This ends my counter responses to Merlin's comments against me, as of
the date 12-13-06.
Stay tuned for more on the issues that have been raised in these
posts.