Freedom of Speech, Banned for starting a conversation

I apologise this is not a direct physics question but it is at the heart of current physics thinking.

Can someone please tell me why I have been banned for a year, possibly a life sentence for someone in my position, for continuing a conversation I started with Sir Roger Penrose and Steven Hawkings on the 7 and 8th September 2006, at the Isaac Newton Institute in Cambridge.

Why have I been labled a "crackpot" for agreeing with Sir Roger Penrose, but with a slightly different approach.

How can you have an open debate if you are banned for expressing your own option?

I have been banned, blacklisted from working for the past 5 years and it would appear now I have been banned for another year from simply trying to find the truth and for expressing my own options, along the way.

What has happened to Freedom of Speech and Open Debate, when all of the audiences are carefully selected?

Its good to talk.

The Futures bridge.

Regards

Terry Giblin

PS How to you add attachments, documents or photo's etc???????? To support your arguements.

Fortunately the freedom on the Internet doesn't depend on some agreement. I don't expect, it will be permanent state, though.

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with scientific discussion.
Scientific discussions have (normally) a precise aim and defined methods to ensure the coherence needed to get results.

I don't know about your case and I don't want to become a judge.
But keep in mind that even if there is some freedom of speech, there will never be any obligation to listen.
Seeing the anarchy here and elsewhere on the web, this is really the freedom I appreciate the most.



This post has been edited by Lalbatros on Sep 28 2006, 02:04 PM

For a start it's HAWKING, there is no 's' on the end of his name.

What did you say and what was the topic of discussion? If you stood up in the room and said outloud "You're ****ing crazy, Einstein was wrong!!" then it'd be no suprised they asked you to leave and not return.

If you stood up and touted a non-mainstream theory with little or no experimental evidence or mathematical structure as an alternative to things like general relativity, then that is not the place for it. Discussion of new theories is allowed, but if you're going to just attempt to dis well known (and experimentally verified) theories and advertise fringe ones, it's just rude.

What were you doing in the Institute anyway? Were you invited there to give a talk or to listen to others talk because you're in that area of research (in which case it would be odd they asked you to leave if they invited you) or were you there because you'd heard about a conference with those speakers in and wanted to 'voice your opinion' to them? Security at the Institute isn't exactly major so it'd be easy for someone to wander in, particularly if they look like a grad student. OFten people from my year would go to talks if it interested them because they were open to anyone.

This post has been edited by AlphaNumeric on Sep 28 2006, 02:12 PM

Why it should be? The mainstream science needs concurrence for its healthy evolution like every subject...

This post has been edited by Zephir on Sep 28 2006, 02:22 PM

Dear AlphaNumeric,

I don't understand myself, why I have been blacklisted, my personal options have been known since 2004, when I first started publishing my ideas on Physics Forum.

Simply google Terry Giblin, followed by
"returning into physics",
"Double Split Experiment",
"Big Bang",
"QM GR",
"What is an electron",
"diamond shock waves"

and not forgetting

"Kaluza" the final proof I was looking for.

In Oct 2005, I was invited and attended Loops 05, at the Albert Einstein Institute in Potsdam, Berlin, to finalize my research and obtained a copy of the original paper by Kaluza and Einstein.

http://loops05.aei.mpg.de/index_files/Participants.html

In Sept 2006, I was invited and attended The Isaac Newton Institute in Cambridge.

http://www.newton.cam.ac.uk/programmes/NCG/ncgw02l.html

I only became a crackpot, when a respected Physicist like Sir Roger Pensore started to discuss a similar idea to my own.

Eccept my idea is not a hypothesis, it is a result of a well known experiment, on the fundermental question at the heart of Quantum Mechanics and therefore also General Relativity, "What is a quantum electron" - The Double Slit Experiment.

Mine is an experiment, not a hypothesis, there is a huge difference.

With amazing predictions - if we can learn to harness what Benjamin Franklin, first discovered 300 years earlier.

What does not break you, makes you.

Regards

Terry Giblin

A year to a person in my position, could mean the same as a life sentence, but you cannot kill an idea.

People should not be afraid of their goverments, goverments should be afraid of their people.

This post has been edited by Terry Giblin on Oct 4 2006, 04:30 PM

Just being on the list of people who attended doesn't prove you were invited. Googling for " Terry Giblin, Physics" returns physorg as the first bunch of replies and then a bunch of unrelated pages. If you were published in a reputable journal or were even vaguely known in the physics community, your name would appear for something other than posts here and one or two other places. Hell, I can get just as many results for my name in relation to physics (well, those actually referring to me, I happen to share my name with a geophysicist!) and I've not published any papers (yet) nor spoken at conferences.

Were you actually invited or do you go because you wanted to attend something related to the posts you've made here on Physorg? Since you haven't published any papers, I doubt you would be invited, Hawking probably doesn't spend his time on Physorg.

Hi Terry,
All I could find searching your name and terms given were forum discussions. Do you have any peer reviewed work? I'm not a particle physicist but I've read quite a bit of mainstream theory and I either didn't understand alot of what you were getting at or I understood some of it to be against standard thinking. For example you quote at one point

"Two electrons cannot occupy the space therefore neither can two photons."

I understand that fermions (electrons) must adhere to the Pauli Exclusion Principle and Fermi-Dirac statistics , but I thought that photons, being Bosons, were not exclusive and followed Bose-Einstein statistics.

So could you at least answer those two questions:
Do you have anything peer-reviewed and published?
What does that quote mean? (here's the link to the whole text.

http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-16479.html

Thanks,
Ron

It's the "Young's Double Slit Experiment" not Double Split Experiment.

I have certain sympathies, Terry. Many people in physics have been in it so long they don't think about it any more. And they don't seem to like other people thinking about it either. IMHO there's a readiness to dismiss any questioning of axioms or status quo as either philosophy or downright crackpottery.

Well spotted Confused2, your the first to mention my first delibrate mistake.

It had a lot of people confused for a long time.

Young invited the first DSE my experiment is almost identical and you get the same result, but I have managed to split the electron and photon with an infinite number of quantum electron, from zero to infinity, from a photon into an electron.

But you get the idea.

Regards

Terry Giblin

Dear AlphaNumeric,

I was invited, with only the publications I have made on the web, on Physics Forums, if you do not believe or their own web site, you can always call them up.

If you still do not believe my theory works, try flying a kite in a thunder storm.

Image what Benjamin Franklin is thinking, if we do not learn to harness what he proved was directly above our heads nearly 300 years ago.

The futures bright.

Regards

Terry Giblin

Hi Terry Giblin,

Stephen Hawking happens to be one of the most famous people of our time. You spell his name as Steven Hawkings .. clearly you are not someone who pays attention to details. Young's Split Experiment: possibly the third most famous experiment of all time (the first two involved apples) and you don't seem able to spell it properly. Deliberate .. who can tell?

If you were invited to a discussion with Sir Roger Penrose and 'Steven Hawkings' would it have been the result of an act of generousity and faith on the part of the people you now accuse of trying to suppress your 'Freedom of Speech'?

Would it be a fair to suggest that many of the people assembled at the meeting had waited a long time (perhaps years) for a chance to hear the opinion of one or both of the guests of honour at the meeting?

Would it be reasonable to suppose that Terry Giblin used the opportunity to tell the honoured guests about some part of the Terry Giblin Theory?

Of course I could well be wrong, it's just a guess.

-C2.

Where are your publications online other than on forums? I think Penrose and Hawking have better things to do with their time than browse internet forums like this and to invite people to give talks about unpublished material, then tell you to shut up and leave when you speak about such material.

I don't really care about your theory, because I'm not really in the habit of trying to familiarise myself with totally unpublished (in reputable journals) material.

I don't doubt the Institutes website for those who attended, what I do doubt is that you were invited, not there because you booked to go (as anyone whose willing to pay can do).

I don't know Hawking directly, but I have spoken to people who do (I was a student at DAMTP till last June) and cruising internet sites for unpublished theories is not mentioned as one of his passtimes, since you could spend 24 hours a day doing that and only find crap.

Dear AlphaNumeric,

We appear to be going around in circles,

Here is me talking to Sir Roger Penrose, at Cambridge in September.

http://www.newton.cam.ac.uk/webseminars/pg...penrose/030.mp3

I also attended the public lecture given on the 7th Sept, when I asked everyone present, "Which came first the Quantum Mechanics or General Relativity".

The way I see it, on one side you have me - no big bang just a cloud, in the middle you Roger Penrose, where the cloud is created from the big bang, and on the other side you have Steven Hawking and his big bang theory.

But if both QM and GR are both subsets of electro-magnetism in 5D, and we consider Roger Penrose proposal as the point where QM and GR meet, it still requires a quantum tunnel.

As you would naturally expect, since the physics are identical only the scale or number of electrons involved is different, each process involves quantum tunnel electrons, wheather we are talking about an empty cloud or a blackhole, the are both still only collections of electrons quantum tunnelling.

Both sides of the arguements are correct the question is which came first, if they both are created from the same source.

Regards

Terry Giblin