Garret Moddel | Experts Aren’t, or Are They?

Experts Aren’t, or Are They?

Garret Moddel

University of Colorado, Boulder

Maverick science has a long history of being shunned by the mainstream. Some maverick findings have turned out to be valid, and some not. How can we know when to trust the experts or when to take the maverick assertions seriously? For years, as a maverick scientist, I have planned to make a presentation called “Experts Aren’t.” With increasingly authoritative sounding but unsupported conclusions on the internet and from artificial intelligence (AI) systems, I have reevaluated this plan. No matter your perspective, you are likely to disagree with at least some of my observations about this perpetually controversial issue.

What follows are a smattering of maverick science findings, including valid and invalid claims (three were presented by the mavericks at SSE conferences):

·       The notion that X-rays are longitudinal waves (extended to the notion of scalar waves) by Nikola Tesla (1896) was and still is rejected by the mainstream electromagnetics community.

·       Positive results of control studies showing the existence of extrasensory perception (ESP) by J. B. Rhine (1931) have not been replicated according to the mainstream scientific community (which neglects to cite the vast psi literature providing many replications).

·       Perpetual motion in John Bedini’s free energy motor powered by a battery charged by charge spikes (1984) is supported by an extensive free energy movement but ignored by the mainstream.

·       Cold fusion, now termed low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR), as reported by Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann (1989), is still being dismissed by a skeptical mainstream scientific community.

·       Findings that cosmic redshift is not the result of an expanding universe, which is consistent with the Big Bang, was found by Halton Arp (1998) but discarded by mainstream cosmologists.

·       The assertion that gravity propagates much faster than light by Tom Van Flandern (1998), with current support by the Electric Universe community, has been rejected by mainstream cosmologists.

·       An innovative scale-expanding theory explaining the apparent age of the Universe and other observations by Johan Masreliez (2004) has been completely ignored by mainstream cosmologists.

·       Halting Alzheimer’s disease with lithium microdoses reported by Marielza Nunes et al. (2013) is reported much less than drug cures that are not nearly as effective.

·       A clear violation of the second law of thermodynamics using epicatalysis demonstrated by Daniel Sheehan (2014) is ignored by the mainstream thermodynamics community.

Examining these maverick findings, how can we distinguish authoritative-sounding but baseless claims from valid ones? Is the use of quantitative/mathematically-based modeling and predictions just a way for experts to show off their skills and suppress dissent? (No.) Can common sense be our guide? (Unfortunately, not.) Is “debunking” and mocking opposing views appropriate? (Of course not.) And has the shunning of maverick science suppressed scientific advancement, or are a lot of amateur researchers and inventors fooling themselves? (Yep, and yep.) I present a set of protocols for evaluating maverick science to resolve these questions.

Garret Moddel is a professor of Electrical, Computer, and Energy Engineering at the University of Colorado. Along with developing new energy conversion technologies, including quantum vacuum fluctuations, his research group investigates other maverick science phenomena. Currently, he is serving as SSE Vice President, and was the organization’s previous president and prior to that, president & CEO of Phiar Corporation, a high-tech start-up company. Garret earned a BSEE degree from Stanford and MS and Ph.D. degrees in Applied Physics from Harvard.

Join this channel to get access to perks:

Support the Society’s commitment to maintain an open professional forum for researchers at the edge of conventional science:

The SSE provides a forum for original research into cutting edge and unconventional areas. Views and opinions belong only to the speakers, and are not necessarily endorsed by the SSE.

Published on December 21, 2023