Thursday, October 13, 2011

Access denied in Science2.0 blogs

It seems that censorship in blogs is real or that Science2.0 blogs are functioning in very weird manner. I tell about the strange course events knowing that I should not do this since the very purpose of the activity might be to give me a label of paranoid. In the recent situation when neutrino superluminality might turn to give an extremely simple experimental proof for TGD based view about space-time this would be very convenient excuse for the powerholders of science who have silenced me for 33 years now.

  • Yesterday I tried to add a comment to Tommaso Dorigo's blog. To each trial I got the answer "Access denied". I added to my blog a posting comment about the situation.
  • After two hours I found to my great surprise that my comment had mysteriously appeared in the blog of Tommaso. I removed my blog posting thinking that this was just one of those mysterious errors which happen sometimes.
  • I checked the situation today again: the my earlier published comment had disappeared! My question to Tommaso about what might be happening did not appear in the comment section. Something very strange is clearly happening.
  • Today I also tried to answer to a comment in Sascha Vongehr's blog after I had received a notification about comment which was a comment to what I had said. Here is the email notification

    "You have asked to receive notification of comments on the article,"Neutrinos CAN Go Faster Than Light Without Violating Relativity". You can view the comment at the following url"

    My attempt failed. Later I found that even the comment which I tried to answer had disappeared! This begins to look really surreal.

It seems that something very strange is happening in Science2.0 blogs. It would be sad if censorship so familiar to me has been extended to blogging. I do not believe that either Sascha Vongehr or Tommaso have anything to do with the censorship. Science2.0 just functions improperly. The silliest thing for those behind Science2.0 to do would be "Access denied" type censorship but one must take into account this possibility in the recent heated situation in theoretical particle physics. I would not be surprised if some third party has managed to somehow to interfere with the functioning of Science2.0 blogs. After the intense virus attacks that I have suffered during years I would not be surprised at all if there were individuals ready to perform also this kind of terror.

I add my blog posting which I removed first since these strange events suggest strongly that censorship is at work.


It seems that the attempts to silence me are getting more intensive. I tried to send the message below to Tommaso Dorigo's blog three times but the only response was "Access denied".

I have experiencing all kinds of silencing activities during this year. I of course perfectly well understand the motivations of the hegemony: the situation in the theoretial particle physics is scandalous. There exists a highly-developed successful theory, which year after year has been brutally censored from journals and arXiv, and too many scientists and layman have begun to realize what has happened. Despite these strange "Access denied" messages I sincerely hope that Tommaso's Blog is not participating these activities. On the other hand, I am afraid that the particle physics empire might be beating back by trying to minimize information about the existence of me and TGD from web.

In any case, I glue below the message that I repeatedly tried to send to Tommaso's blog.


Also my experience from reading Sascha's posting was that there was critical attitude both towards the OPERA result and the easy arguments claiming that the result is a result of an error. What has happened during this year should have taught to us that Big Science suffers from real problems which are to high extent ethical: too much hype, arrogant attitudes preventing real communication, and complete silencing of those who are able to represent something original,....

To my view the job of theoretical physicist is to imagine various possibilities rather than passively wait that LHC tells the truth. It is nice that theoreticians try to demonstrate that OPERA result contains an error but most of the claims I have seen do not have much weight. It is so easy to forget the whole damned thing by using some easy pet argument.

Why not to pretend for a moment that OPERA result is real and look for the consequences from various points of view? Could tachyons be real? If not, does the very notion of maximal signal velocity need an updating? Is it possible to imagine a generalization of the framework provided by special and general relativities consistent with Principle of Relativity (Poincare invariance), General Coordinate Invariance, and Equivalence Principle?

I have been wondering all these years as theoreticians have talked about LHC as a savior of theoretical physics and at the same time put under the rug various anomalies, which should be pure gold for a good theoretician.


At 10:54 AM, Blogger donkerheid said...

Somehow the entire crew of spaceship Earth is going absolutely bonkers these days. The symptoms keep popping up just everywhere.

At 8:37 PM, Anonymous said...

Spaceship Earth can suffer a wreckage unless something dramatic happens. As an optimist I believe that we are approaching a phase transition.

The old system is failing both in politics, economy, and science. We actually have feudal system in all these areas: economy is in the hands of few speculators playing their insane games with the economy of entire nations. Computers have robotized criminal activities (automatized speculation with shares).

In politics the model of democracy based on few representatives fails since it is possible to become a representative only with the help of a massive funding making possible media visibility.

In science there are few big names are at the top and others serve as working ants.

Openness and active participation of all of us is the only way out from the situation. Tools we already have: web gives Mother Gaia a nervous system and makes possible real time democracy. I am optimistic.

At 3:18 AM, Anonymous Satama said...

There is an art called 'holding interpretation', named so in the field of magic, but it has a well established place also in the subfield of magic called science. It's very good that you talk openly about wierd computer problems and paranoia and I'm glad you do instead of trying to cope alone. Sometimes when encountering profound wierdness what has helped me most is stopping to try to understand, to seek explanation and to just accept.

And no, I don't really expect theoretical physicist and problem solver like you go give up your intellectual explanation seeking faculty and just accept. So here's one "wierd" hypothesis for occational network access problems. You have compared Internet to new neural network of Mother Earth, so that analogy could also imply synaptic changes and neuroplasticity from inclusive whole to parts on level of Internet (etc.), quantum jumps that take some inert confusion time to rewrite a coherent explanatory history in psychological time causal metaphysics.

What does TGD state about relation between holding to explanatory models and intentions and potential of large scale quantum jumps?

At 6:54 AM, Anonymous said...

To Santeri:

If the hierarchy of consciousness is real then it would be very strange if collective good and bad intentions would not be present and also realized at all levels of the hierarchy of consciousness. Transpersonal evil would be quite real.

I have many times wondered whether these weird things sometimes making my work impossible are a result of human intervention or is their some collective transpersonal evil due to malevolent thoughts of so many people. In some cases there is no doubt that the evil deed is done by human but not always.

In christianity and many forms of spirituality malevolent thoughts are believed to have real negative effect. Official science does not of course admit this.

So called "new age" people (and business consultants!) produce a lot of loose talk about positive and negative thinking. Here I would be very cautious: this is a clever manner to tell to the victim that all is his own fault, he did not think positively.


Post a Comment

<< Home