This specific part is bogus. Almost all new theories face stiff resistance from the old school. I agree with the part about companies buying up patents to suppress inventions like "water-powered" cars, etc.
7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation. A new law of nature, invoked to explain some extraordinary result, must not conflict with what is already known. If we must change existing laws of nature or propose new laws to account for an observation, it is almost certainly wrong.
Well, this would rule out all breakthrough physical theories. For example, quantum mechanics certainly required new laws and significant changes to existing laws.
Of course, I'm a junk scientist! I believe that QM is the worst physics theories in history. Ask a QM proponent about the size and shape of a "photon". Ask them to describe how a photon and electron physically interact. For a theory that's purportedly so accurate that it can describe nature to 12 places, these should be easy questions to answer. Instead, all you'll get a sophisticated version of "sh-t happens".
If you want a hard and fast rule to determine whether a new theory is junk science or not, see if that theory requires or predicts instantaneous-action-at-a-distance (IAAAD). If it does, then the theory is completely junk science. QM predicts IAAAD and people are actually claiming to see it in action in recent experiments. Junk!
No. QM predicts no such thing, nor has it been seen.
2. Well, this would rule out all breakthrough physical theories. For example, quantum mechanics certainly required new laws and significant changes to existing laws.
3. If you want a hard and fast rule to determine whether a new theory is junk science or not, see if that theory requires or predicts instantaneous-action-at-a-distance (IAAAD). If it does, then the theory is completely junk science.
4. I agree with the part about companies buying up patents to suppress inventions like "water-powered" cars, etc.
Point one pretty much contradicts point two. QM was accepted in a matter of years, despite it's weirdness. I guess you have Einstein on your side in point three, but then he is the one who gave us EIR to test the hypothesis, and QM passed the test. You would be correct to say that "action-at-a-distance" does not allow information to travel faster than light. That would be junk science. As for point four, classic quackery.
I’m not sure where to look for a resource on this. Could you point me to some reference on it?
Thanks
So, Mike, what color is an electron?
This specific part is bogus. Almost all new theories face stiff resistance from the old school.
That's apples and oranges. "Resistance" is not "suppression".
Yes, radical new ideas will face initial "show me" skepticism -- which is as it should be.
That's not at all the same thing as the crank's eternal cry that his work is being rejected/ignored because the "establishment" is working as a conspiracy to "suppress the truth" -- as opposed to the more likely explanation that it's being rejected/ignored because it's nonsense and almost everyone can see that but the crank who has too much time/emotion/ego invested in it.