You're right, saying that you were whining was out of line and I apologize for it. It is what I would say to my real-life friends to challenge them, but it is not appropriate with someone I don't know well and in any event it is not appropriate on Hacker News.
However, I hope you understand why I had that reaction. It is because you complained about how hard it is to get ideas like yours heard (and certainly "complaint" is a fair word for what you have written) rather than taking it as your responsibility to find a solution. I do take some offense at that, because I have some close friends that have worked very hard to become academically established so that they can find collaborators and get their ideas disseminated. You don't seem to value this work, or you consider it not worth your time. Rather than do it you are content to leave your work to "internet archaeologists" of a "more scientific" era.
Actually I agree with you that it's difficult to get revolutionary ideas heard (let alone funded), and that members of the scientific establishment sometimes go out of their way to stifle ideas that could threaten the theories on which they have built their careers. And today I think many professional academics would agree with you also. It's always been this way. What I admire is people who take this difficult terrain as a given and find a way to get to their destination anyway. These are the people that have driven human understanding forward. Of course it's hard, but it's an acknowledged part of the job description.
> What I admire is people who take this difficult terrain as a given and find a way to get to their destination anyway.
Same here. Alas, I'm not one of them. I'm not both a scientist and politician. Like a lot of folk on HN I have a software development background. I'm used to working in a field where ideas flow freely. I was shocked (in my naivete) to discover it's largely the opposite in science. If I had it to do over again, I wouldn't have bothered to write down my thoughts. I don't see much point in pushing something on an unreceptive community.
> Of course it's hard, but it's an acknowledged part of the job description.
"Complaint" was accurate, but "lament" is more so. It didn't used to be this way, not as hard as it is today. Scientists of yesteryear were more like hobbyists, like HNers. Now it's a cutthroat industry, with grant money and careers fiercely protected. I see that the advance of science, or physics at least, is slowed to a crawl as a result, even moving backwards in some cases.
As far as sharing ideas goes, I've redirected my energies to web development. It's way more rewarding!
However, I hope you understand why I had that reaction. It is because you complained about how hard it is to get ideas like yours heard (and certainly "complaint" is a fair word for what you have written) rather than taking it as your responsibility to find a solution. I do take some offense at that, because I have some close friends that have worked very hard to become academically established so that they can find collaborators and get their ideas disseminated. You don't seem to value this work, or you consider it not worth your time. Rather than do it you are content to leave your work to "internet archaeologists" of a "more scientific" era.
Actually I agree with you that it's difficult to get revolutionary ideas heard (let alone funded), and that members of the scientific establishment sometimes go out of their way to stifle ideas that could threaten the theories on which they have built their careers. And today I think many professional academics would agree with you also. It's always been this way. What I admire is people who take this difficult terrain as a given and find a way to get to their destination anyway. These are the people that have driven human understanding forward. Of course it's hard, but it's an acknowledged part of the job description.