You would probably appreciate the physics work of Miles Mathis: http://milesmathis.com/

I like his paper on rainbows.

Yes! It's brilliant. Here's a link to it if anybody wants to read. Very accessible to non-technical audiences. I was even able to explain it to my 11-year old son.

For those interested in learning more about anti-institutional perspectives in academic mathematics, I would highly suggest Doron Zeilberger's opinions page. Professor Zeilberger provides a very fresh perspective on what mathematics ought to be, rather than what it is. He also gave me feedback on a paper I wrote, despite being an amateur and an outsider.

Many aspects of science should relegated to philosophical theorizing anyway. Take the following example:

'This sentence is false.'

The above statement is both false and true simultaneously, however the rigid confines of materialist science which requires some repeatable, observable, and taking only 1 position (true or false but not both) is the 'only' way in can be.

The limits of scientific method are also self evident in that the end result has to be proven to be objectively true, and yet this 'true objectivity' is always 100% experienced by everyone through the lens of subjectivity, and if you want to claim, say a subjective experience of something, its always thrown out the window as anecdotal and unimportant because science can't really enter into subjectivity, even just 25 years ago the study of 'consciousness' was seen as woo, lol

Then the method requires 'repeatability', however look at reality itself, the present moment can never ever be repeated again in terms of this split second right now, by the time you try to measure it, its gone, and yet measuring the present moment, the way all the atoms/stars/winds/dust/light have all their specific locations in that present moment, by the next moment everything has already moved quite a bit so your 'repeatability' is moot.

Regardless, the method of mathematics to predict possibilities is actually very critical, genuine, and awesome in its ability to do so. However it can all easily breakdown in situation of additional dimensions or other Universes on the other side of blackholes that may not operate the way our universe does.

Your critique reminds me of my own problems with sociology. Despite the importance of recognizing subjectivity in our methods and developing an empirical basis for arguments, most of my fellow students never got past the core ideas of functionalism and conflict theory.

What you said anout repeatability is very similar to Einstein's critique of early applications of quantum systems in physics - essentially the best we can do is analyze it over and over through as many perspectives and experiments as we can until we have enough information to conclude what the behavior of systems as a whole are like.

I know what you mean about sociology, and I share your reservations. But since this is r/conspiracy, I'll play devil's advocate. The powerful, especially those charged with manipulation of the public, are avid students of sociology and other behavioral sciences. The findings in these disciplines are indispensable to them, and they use them to every advantage. ;-)

if he knew we'd move on to replace math and any semblance of science with profit. I wonder if he'd given us so much.

...substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.

Interestingly enough, this is the exact same position held by the Electric Universe people.

Read "The Electric Sky" by Donald Scott or "The Electric Universe" by Talbot for an example of how mainstream science doesn't always bring us to the best explanations. Aside from this, the discoveries in Quantum Mechanics has turned science on its head as it proves that the materialistic worldview is just plain wrong. Though the sciences still avoid and ignore these implications, as much as it can. The next revolution in our understanding of the universe is being hampered by stubborn academics who can't handle the truth. (Conspiratorial view: new discoveries may be suppressed by certain megacorporations like the petroleum industry who don't want anything to change.) Consciousness may be the key.

You mean quantum mechanics has turned the deterministic world view on its head?

That too. But mechanistic physics will never fully explain the universe because the material world is most likely an illusion, if a persistent one in our eyes. But scientists just can't seem to give it up. I also recommend " The Holographic Universe" by Talbot for a take on this.

Some years ago, I realized that physicists could be making up all these particles, and we'd be none the wiser. "The math says there should be a particle here. Let's go into the lab and observe it. Ah yes, there it is. See? The one with tiny spectacles and a top hat."

Then did you realize nothing in the modern world would work unless those particles were real?

I realize it's hard to tell when someone's joking on reddit, so: I was joking.

At the same time, there's some truth in jokes. The sciences are so rarefied and specialized these days, the lay person is hardly in any position to evaluate their claims and findings. Physics in particular models levels of reality not accessible to the human sensorium, whole worlds that are inhospitable to human cognition.

It all sounds a bit loony tunes. The physicists say, that's because the universe is fundamentally loony tunes, by human standards. Ok, I'll buy that.

Its r/conspiracy man, its hard to tell the difference between a real theory and a joke around here.

Yep, my thoughts exactly. :)

Woe to a beautiful theory shot down by an ugly fact

So this was back in I assume the 1940s or prior? His projection of the future was spot on. You can use physics to prove anything, regardless of it being real.

Ah, tesla...i often wonder if, in the years since his demise, there have been other great minds whose discoveries will never become known because of head-in-the-sand mainstream scientists/mathematicians who are resistant to change.

they always say you need the old scientists to die off, for new ideas to flourish. the old resists the new.

decades long careers hate being told they wasted their time.

it took 50 years for plate tectonics to be recognized as fact.

I'm happy the ancient astronaut theory has gone some what mainstream

True, i like the show ancient aliens, even though they take it a little too far at times. The answers they have to offer may not always be plausible, but the questions they raise by showing the viewer the many megalithic structures around the world are valid and deserve more attention.

I know the feeling but it seems an unfair judgment of Tesla's day.

Everything Tesla did can be expressed with math. One needs both. You can focus your experimentation by doing the math first and explain your experiments afterwards with math.

Its r/conspiracy man, its hard to tell the difference between a real theory and a joke around here.