Join me @ IBOtoolbox for free.
Delbert Larson
Member Since: 5/4/2015
  
performance / stats
Country: United States
Likes Received: 767
Featured Member: 3 times
Associates: 555
Wall Posts: 1377
Comments Made: 1481
Press Releases: 291
Videos: 0
Phone:
Skype:    
profile visitor stats
TODAY: 45
THIS MONTH: 2807
TOTAL: 122000
are we ibo associates?
business links
recent videos
active associates
James Lockett     
Last logged on: 4/27/2017


George Galvin    
Last logged on: 4/27/2017


John Kespert    
Last logged on: 4/27/2017


Bill Bateman     
Last logged on: 4/27/2017


Jason Smith     
Last logged on: 4/27/2017


Terri Pattio     
Last logged on: 4/27/2017


Doc James Bass      
Last logged on: 4/27/2017


cory tangye    
Last logged on: 4/27/2017


Phil Successful    
Last logged on: 4/27/2017


Katarina Hofbaur    
Last logged on: 4/27/2017


Bruno Duarte    
Last logged on: 4/27/2017


Karri Dalton-Hull     
Last logged on: 4/27/2017


Brian Redding    
Last logged on: 4/27/2017


Athena Gay    
Last logged on: 4/27/2017


Michael Kieser    
Last logged on: 4/27/2017


other ibo platforms
Delbert Larson   My Press Releases

Elementary Particles, Part J-2 - The Preonic Wars: Posting to Wikipedia

Published on 3/28/2017
For additional information  Click Here

Elementary Particles, Part J-2 - The Preonic Wars: Posting to Wikipedia

In this series of PRs I am focusing on a question that has intrigued mankind for millennia, and that question is "What is the World Made Of?" In Parts A and B we looked at the history of proposed answers to this question, eventually arriving at the present theory of quarks, leptons and force carriers, which combined is known as "The Standard Model". In Parts C and D we saw how a new particle model - the ABC Preon Model - can model nature's particles in a way that is different from the Standard Model. In part E we looked at neutrinos, quarks and weak interactions in the ABC Preon Model, in part F we looked at preonic masses, and in Part G we investigated additional high energy physics (HEP) experiments. In part H we compared the ABC Preon Model to its competition, and in part I we summarized and put a perspective on the previous parts. In part J we'll take a look at some of the difficulties I have had with getting the word out concerning the ABC Preon Model.

With all the trouble I had trying to get a serious review of my ABC Preon model (discussed in my previous PR), I thought it might be a good idea to post it on Wikipedia. I worked for a couple of months to get my work in a form where it could be posted there. Since it was my first time on Wikipedia, and since I know from experience how my work typically gets treated, I went through proper channels and requested approval by a reviewer prior to posting it. To my surprise, the editor assigned to me approved publication of the ABC Preon Model, and it was put online there on March 8, 2014. The editor even told me that the work was so good that in the future I should go ahead and post anything else I might have without bothering with a review.

And then the fun began! I predicted to my son, Nate Larson, with near absolute certainty, that it was only a matter of time before someone one would come to censor it. I was expecting that it would only last online for a couple of weeks. And indeed, the censors appeared quickly and began to do their best to ensure that the world would be safe from my ideas.

Getting a posting on Wikipedia was the most publicity I'd ever gotten for any of my important works. Within days after it appeared there, a question appeared on Quora, which is a question and answer site. The question was "How serious a contender is the 'ABC Preon Model'?" Very quickly a researcher in high energy physics responded that "This article is completely and utterly wrong and could not have been a viable theory in at least 50 years (mid 1960s at the very latest) and many elements would never have been viable. The article should be deleted. The problem with the article is that it appears to an untrained eye to be a serious theory. Even graduate students in physics might have trouble identifying the numerous counterfactual elements of the theory." I quote the comment here because it is typical of what passes for a "scientific review" these days. Instead of any careful thought, any outside-the-box work is just impugned and ridiculed, and the "reviewer" simply issues a summary call for rejection. One or a few assertions are made, with no actual details or content (since actual content might be rebutted). The reviewer simply assumes the role of a judge and jury, setting himself up as "the expert", and then simply regurgitates the status quo. In this way, the reviewer exposes himself to no risk of being wrong. That's kind of how it goes now. And the fun was just getting started!

---

Do you want to help bring fusion to the world? Join BookWormBiz and make money growing your business! When you make money, the corporate BookWormBiz makes money too! And BookWormBiz is devoted to using a significant portion if its money to bring fusion to the world! Click here for details on BookWormBiz!

Member Note: To comment on this PR, simply click reply on the owners main post below.
-  Copyright 2016 IBOsocial  -            Part of the IBOtoolbox family of sites.