TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

The Science Reporter: Who is ultimately responsible for reporting significant findings to the public?

Are science reporters like other reporters? Reporters are suppose to be objective and independently investigate stories that are of public interest. They are generally proactive and go after the story rather than having the story come to them. They are also knowledgable enough to present the dynamics and content of a story to the public. Who is ultimately responsible for reporting significant scientific findings to the public when science reporters are unable to act as other reporters?


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Feb 12 2013: This is an impressive research paper. You should be understandably pleased by what you've accompished with it. I might ask "Why did it take you so long to disclose it?" I see that others have asked about your research. This certainly frames this whole conversation in a different light. Long ago I was reminded by an artist that art is never created for the purpose of becoming famous or rich. Van Gogh paintings comes to mind. So, don't worry about what others think, continue to do what interests you.
    Be Wishes.

    A classical wave function is presented as an interface between a gravitational and an electromagnetic field. Binary star precessions are calculated as a best test for the most important interface in physics. Among the ten most difficult systems tested are DI Herculis, V541 Cygni and AS Camelopardalis. These systems have observed precessions which are not consistent with theoretical predictions. The precession results based on the classical wave function prove there is a fundamental relationship between Newtonian mechanics, general relativity and quantum mechanics.

    • Feb 12 2013: Disclosing my research makes little or no difference with respect to TED. My research was fully disclosed to the public overseas by Anne Astronomy News.


      The link you posted is a publication that was extend from the original because at least two papers were published after my research appeared. These publications were confirming my research conclusions. Both were high profile topics published in Nature. Nature rejected my paper based on topic interest but published those papers. Once you get beyond the money and fame, it is about ethics and honesty. The Fundamental Physics Prize was given to individuals for trying to do what I did. So, I will enter that competition as a form of documentation. I am confident I will lose but winning is not the point. My research has fundamental applications for new technologies. The engineering community is going to put that paper to through other test. I am confident it will pass and then we will talk about the reality of the Fundamental Physics Prize, and what it means to be a winner and a loser.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.