Yes. If you just want to buy a bottle of milk, please do that job. But: if we want to research beyond the known canon, we have to take the risk of being wrong. Never be boring, try it, but do not harm others. Trying is better than studying , too much. We have to walk the extra-mile to arrive at solid foundations.

I prefer possible goal. It is more reliable and could be achieved.

Dear Yogesh, I do not think that setting an impossible goal is the best strategy. And even if it is, then only for a subset of researchers with certain psychology and topics. To my mind, it is better to set realistic goals, and to move science slowly, between those realistic points. Then you can reach seemingly unrealistic goal, but in several steps. And you can be recognized after each step.

If we are in mathematics, then "impossible" may mean "false". There should not be an overthrow of basic philosophical and logical principles in such goal, like inventing "eternal engine".

But the status of scientific theory in some fields can indeed be out of date, and I would welcome research that tries to overcome those canons.

Yes. If you just want to buy a bottle of milk, please do that job. But: if we want to research beyond the known canon, we have to take the risk of being wrong. Never be boring, try it, but do not harm others. Trying is better than studying , too much. We have to walk the extra-mile to arrive at solid foundations.

Ideas and scientific models is what drives Science progress. The “goals” is a social coding system that does not coincide necessary with innovation and scientific discoveries. “Setting impossible or realistic goals” has no one sense in the absence of ideas and innovative skills. You create because you feel it and not because you fix a goal. I could say that scientists that are engaged to “goals” happen to function more as administrators than free and creative minds. Many examples.

In multi-national profit-oriented corporations or target bodies the proportion of achieving the impossible time and budget needed to achieve is not equivalent to non-targeted innovations, so serious, persistent and continuous research may achieve objectives that were not targeted

I think not always, but sometimes depending on the situation and others factors.

If I have understood "research" or laying concepts in the name of science is a continual process . There are milestones , Plank's constant , Bohr-Rutherford theory , Heisenberg's uncertainty & Schrodinger (Cat) so on ...

It is evolution , not all of a sudden , Einstein did not come up with "photons" in photoelectric effect , well there ares stories too.

Having an unrealistic goal is not science but working towards knowledge contribution is science .

Well credit - discredit is another story ...

What about mechanical engineering?

Emad

Engineering is a realistic realm Emad , because we work for real stuff that needs to be working and not a theory . We make the world go ground with our inventions and usage !!!!

No. Human action is purposeful, in that it is directed by conscious goals. The source of motivation in research is the desire and intention to reach a goal. A goal is the aim of an action or task that a person consciously desires to achieve or obtain. One should believe that the goal can be reached and that other people believe in it.

Rather than defining your own limitations through long-term goals, perhaps just make a commitment to continual improvement. Successful people may not all set long-terms goals, but they do commit to growing as an individual. They look at what they can do each day to make a small improvement that, over time, adds up. In fact a 1% improvement, over 68 days means you will be 100% better than you were yesterday.  In Japanese this term, continuous improvement, is called kaizen.

From: Why Successful People Don't Set Goals And You Shouldn't Either by Graeme Turner

https://breakingmuscle.com/learn/why-successful-people-dont-set-goals-and-you-shouldnt-either

I think whatever a power we have we are limited as we are human being.

Anyway sometimes we are facing difficulties but nothing is impossible

Dear Yougesh,

Thank you for the question,

This question is similar to the zero goal in quality assurance. That is, to achieve the goal of zero failure, zero defect, zero paper, zero stock, zero reclamation is an unworkable goal. However, if all actors are convinced by the zero objective, they will do everything necessary to achieve it. As a result, quality will be improved enormously, but the zero goal is not achieved, so there is no satisfaction, and attempts to improve quality continue with new instruments, new strategies, and so on.

It is the same way in the improvement of science. An unattainable goal is set for achievements a scientific progress without being satisfied.

The subject is very large, we can say many things in this sense, but I prefer to stop here.

Best regards.

Dr. Adel OUESLATI

Thanks for sharing/asking. It is always a pleasure to answer questions pertinent and good like this one. Perseverance is extremely important and probably requires confidence and a great passion for what we are doing. I go with Thomas Edison when he says something like this: “If we could imagine what we are able to achieve; we would be astonished with ourselves”. However, the order of the factors cannot be inverted. As in any human activity, it is never advisable beginning to build a huge château starting from the roof.

Hi

I think, it is possible to think of a way for solving a problem that appears to be impossible. the problem is that all ones follow exactly the way selected by the others for solving a problem. if the others concluded that the solution is impossible, clearly the new comers finally reach the same answer. My long study in the last two decade led to the construction of a new philosophy "state based" which solved the problems of fracture mechanics in an as simple as possible manner, which previously appeared to be impossible. All researchers since the beginning of the last century followed a way that appeared to be impossible to solve the controversies in problems of fracture mechanics. I select a different way which solved the controversies and led to an exact solution to most of the problems that appeared to be impossible before. best regards

May be true to certain extent in science, however when we proceed "towards realizing a dream goal" that could bring in proliferation of pathway goals, that can be achieved en-route

HI

i think no. we can say that Human action is purposeful, in that it is directed by conscious goals. The source of motivation in research is the desire and intention to reach a goal. A goal is the aim of an action or task that a person consciously desires to achieve or obtain. One should believe that the goal can be reached and that other people believe in it.

Hello,

Setting difficult goals, though useful, is not the necessary condition for scientific breakthrough. I personally think that the angle of an individual's vision, his/her power of imagination and observation as well as level of ingenuity have a great bearing on the transitory nature of the scientific frontiers.

Best regards,

R. Biria

Hi,

Scientific research is a continual process. It contains several actions such as learning, trying, imagination, and son on.

We start by answering easy questions. Then, the questions are dealt with with increasing degrees of difficulty. At a given stage, the researcher is systematically asked to imagine questions to which he must seek answers. In this case, there are several examples in mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, and so on.

For example, in mathematics, some researchers involve their students in solving certain equations that are never solved in the past. The student's attempt is valuable to the researcher and he can exploit it to solve the equation.

Patents (I have 03 patents) start with identification of the problem to be solved, orginality, technical, economic, financial, ecological aspects, etc. Several hypotheses will be adopted and several even hundreds of trials to be able to start a new patented product.

Thank you very much.

Best regards.

Dr. Adel OUESLATI

Dear Dr. YOGESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI,

Doctors and scientists said that breaking the four-minute mile was impossible, that one would die in the attempt. Thus, when I got up from the track after collapsing at the finish line, I figured I was dead.

We should be careful with the word "impossible", because it has several meanings depending on context. While I am in favor of scientific revolutions, they do not come as a collective action of scientists who just "break all laws by setting impossible goals". There is an optimal balance between following scientific traditions and innovations. My rough opinion is that in some fields there are too many crazy innovations (like modern theory of field in physics), while others are too canonic and fight with any innovation (for example, neoclassical economic theory puts rationality above all, while neglects spatial phenomena).

In my opinion, goal setting is a direct function of personal stage of development. If you are inexperienced and young, you will need several small goals to build confidence, teach you about failure, how to respond graciously and humility in success and failure in order to move forward. On this foundation, you can seek larger than life goals so that your spirit can withstand setbacks or the crushing blows that life has a way of introducing into the best laid plans. Humility, Patience, Intelligence, Creativity and Persistence are required in the mix. Even so, many a brilliant man did not personally succeed. Look at Tesla: he spent all of his time trying to come up with earth-changing concepts. Meanwhile, the likes of Bell and Edison plucked away at immediate needs. They understood a fundamental concept of life that is at the cross-section of science and business. Address a need--succeed. You can finish the race. Of course this brings to mind the old but still relevant childhood story of the turtle and the hare. A rabbit is faster but can be overconfident--resting on laurels and taking frequent breaks since he is so far ahead of the race while the turtle maintains a consistent, albeit slow, forward pace to finish the race. In the story, the hare felt he was 'winning' all along the way but intermittent goals were not the objective--the objective was winning the race. So, I would add Perspective to Humility, Patience, Intelligence, Creativity and Persistence. It is equally important to be in the right vocation and develop personal relationships. Lastly, I would add an element of Luck/Fate, Faith and Self-Evaluation. We all have experienced 'doing all the right things' and coming up empty. Life is not simple and neither are the goals we set forth for ourselves while we are here this short time on earth.

A true artist (scientist) is someone who gives birth to a new reality.

Plato; Any new reality (any dimension) is not defined by precedent properties including the (any) 'goals' which are incorporated into the dimensional properties of the precedent reality. A new reality is future. Any goal is past. If time is an illusion, then a new reality is a new "space" which orchestrates a new world.

Continuous effort to achieve logically possible goal can lead a researcher to struggle continuously, but any target without any logic cannot inspire a researcher. Hypothesises must have some minimum level of logic behind them.

Dear, I think there are variations between persons ,so the goal is the aim of an action or task that a person consciously desires to achieve or obtain.

Is setting an apparently impossible goal the best way to make a real breakthrough in science?

Think no harm setting impossible goal to pursue - because if I can't achieve the breakthrough this time, I will try differently to achieve it next times. If I still can't achieve it, others might achieve it. If this generation can't achieve it, next generations might be achieving it. Personally I observe many breakthroughs in science are possible with passion & perseverance. Only possibility not achieving impossible goal is when we give up & not trying.

Yes, taking decisions oneself to reach/attain something is the best policy.

Sometimes suggestions by others, 'try for something that nobody has done this innovation', too work good.

Ratan Tata's quote is my favorite one.

Nobody can say "This is the final result. Now let us discuss the various details to initiate the research project to get that final result". Sorry, example of Mr.Tata is perhaps not fit in the present discussion.

It is better to set goals to make a real breakthrough in science, but not always necessarily. There are many ways of encouraging and motivating people to make a real breakthrough in science. Setting an apparently impossible goal is not the only or the best way to make a real breakthrough in science.

Gone through the thoughtful answers, some of which are excellent. Started reading more articles on the topic. It's really tough to say anything, as even psychologists have difference in opinion. Is it that the goal setting be specific - to person, task, time?? There may be more relevant literature around, I found the following links very useful:

https://blog.rjmetrics.com/2014/12/16/the-psychology-of-goal-setting/

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-success/201407/why-goal-setting-doesnt-work

Dr.Yogesh, You said, "the best way to make a real breakthrough in science? " . Since I am the THE CURRENT SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERER IN INDIA, would you mind to refer the readers to my 10 fundamental physics discoveries to know about hidden truths any scientist faces when breakthrough, discovery or Invention is done.

The real truth is discovery cannot be done by every scientist or every nation. It is a rarest of rare event in science.

Discoveries are often made by surprise finding as happened even in my case. So prior planning was not done in the case of some discoveries. (i) It takes years of efforts. (ii) Great patience is required for hit and trials in resolving the new issues faced at every stage of breakthrough research. (iii) The inferences would be entirely NEW PHYSICS. (iv) In such case, the current generation of scientists will not accept breakthroughs. Reputed generals reject the paper. My paper was rejected 13 times, when I claimed UV dominant optical emission from radioisotopes and XRF sources. (v) At the end of years of research someone else takes entire credit in countries like India, and discoverer would be suppressed.

The topic you raised could be very interesting and valuable to researchers who are in the middle of breakthrough research in researchgate. They may like to ask questions or allow me to illustrate the problems a discoverer faces in research and how issues are resolved.

The researcher must have the absolute confidence to be a catalyst for overcoming these difficulties. These are the steps of scientific research

Over and over again, when I worked for research and technology (R&D) firms, we would receive "Requests for Proposals" (RFPs) from the military which, at first inspection, seemed impossible. But given that our firm needed to survive through R&D contracts and given that our managers said we must write a proposal on a given RFP, we put our thinking caps on and considered new technologies and considered ways that we could help the sponsor meet its ultimate objectives (even if our approach was somewhat different from the one envisioned by the sponsor). And eventually we would come up with a new innovative solution, backed up with mathematical models/simulations! We usually won the contract!

I am also aware that back in the 1960s, the US Air Force Space and Missile Command would ask brand new officers to dream up space-based systems (ala Buck Rogers) for the Air Force, even though they knew virtually nothing about the requisite technologies. After initial vetting, these concepts were then given to scientists and engineers to see if they could find ways to develop these concepts.

Research can be categorized into applied research and theoretical or pure research. Applied research must find solutions that are immediately applicable in response to the problems of man's everyday life. While theoretical research must find the fundamental laws of nature, that is, it must find out how it is made and how nature works. Of course, it is not possible to do applied research without knowing how it is done and how the nature works. So, it is necessary to have completed a lot of theoretical research before to do applied research. Researchers are generally very flexible professionals and almost always do both theoretical research and applied research because the boundary between theoretical and applied research is very subtle and often imperceptible. Therefore, researchers, poets, artists (sensu lato) by definition must always look for the neverland (the island that is not there), ie an apparently impossible goal. All the other people (merchants, craftsmen, farmers, fishermen, masons, etc.) must look for the island that is there; ie possible goal.

I don't think one needs to set a seemingly impossible goal to make a scientific breakthrough. One could instead set a goal that one realizes is possible to make but that no one has previously seen. This happens when inventors make improvements to already existing products so that they're easier to use or when chemists make improvements to already existing drugs to prevent side effects.

Dear Kirk, "to set a goal that one realizes is possible to make but that no one has previously seen". Means that "it is possible" but "not is sure" that you find; ie means to search that island that is not there.

Excerpt from “Goal Setting That Leads to Greatness”

By definition, an attainable goal is one that seems within the bounds of reality. What you already believe about the world makes the goal seem easy to achieve. Shooting higher than you think is possible forces you to challenge your company, challenge your employees, and challenge your own assumptions

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20141117145824-3333980-goal-setting-that-leads-to-greatness

Congratulations again for your question. Making science is directly related with the contribution for the development of NEW knowledge, which is (may be) inherently challenging with respect to the status quo. In my understanding, it requires humility and never arrogance. It is not to impose our internal logic to the logic of nature or to the research problem, but the slow, humble, hard, and laborious understanding of the logic of nature or of the problem under consideration. Surely that competent scientific researchers do not see themselves as superior, are able to learn with everybody, including and mainly with simple people, do not live in hallucination and their scientific outcomes have internal logic and are not the result of any sort of illusionism.

Dear Yogesh Chandra,

Looking at past breakthroughs which happened before in science can help us to analyse the reasons which helped initiation and achievement of scientific breakthroughs.

I can suggest one example in the medical field which is CT scan invention, which was described as a scientific revolution. Antibiotics discovery was another revolution in medicine history. Other followers can suggest other examples in other scientific fields for analysis.

I do not think that setting high standards was an initiating or a helping factor. Scientific breakthroughs happened due to many other reasons. Current research is looking more as a monotonous job, and well directed for certain targets and benefits. This current situation should be discussed for a change. I am not denying the presence of a going on important discoveries, but the question is about scientific breakthroughs and revolutions. Stories would be interesting and revealing.

My best regards,

Dear Chandra,

I have not got any response yet !

If you are not be believing me that; there is some hidden human superpower trying to control politics, economics, as well as research all over the world, I am inviting you to listen to the following 10 minutes video (An interview with Aaron Russo describing the new world order) :

cid:3782BD94-3E40-4D9F-98BB-1391536AEF9A/BAE1409D-E431-4DD1-A368-354741095628

It is impossible that there are no more minds on earth who are able to make new scientific breakthroughs. This is unbelievable to me.

My best regards,

@ Omer Elsabbagh

Yes, chance discovery also happens. Serendipity has great significance in science. There have been several instances of such discoveries, starting from Archimedes realization of the law of buoyancy in his bath tub. But it doesn't diminish the credit to the researcher as it requires a trained and searching mind to grasp the significance of such occurrences. Apples must have fallen on countless heads before Newton without leading to the development of gravitational theory. Louis Pasteur once aptly stated that "chance discoveries happen only to those who are fit to profit by them". In past, serendipity favoured only those who were alert enough to grasp the significance of what they observed by chance and later delved into it deeply. Discovery of Penicillin by Alexander Fleming, the most effective medicine ever to mankind is an outstanding example of serendipity.

Thank you dear Yogesh for responding and discussion. Not only serendipity, but also needs, and a very strong researcher motive to solve some problem and to know truth and uncover relations. This was not done for a title, a position or money.

All the example you mentioned are great and I would like to add discovery of stone friction for a spark, and discovery of wheels. All these examples were scientific breakthroughs.

I agree with you that research has become much more complicated and needs training as well as institutional support. It looks that the genious minds who can make scientific revolutions are not supported or listened to their ideas carefully. Our complicated modern society has become lacking the sensitivity of perception of serious researchers, picking them and giving them facilities to do their research.

Did you watch the movie " Glory for all" - story of insulin discovery as an example. An unknown surgeon with a bachelor's degree in medicine, who was not an endocrinologist or a university staff, was given labs, dogs and colleagues which ended in the discovery of insulin. There was some resistance intially, but it was solved out soon.

The more complicated problems which I mentioned in my first note, is that institutions are moving research in certain directions for many reasons. I will give here one example which I heard from a top neurosurgeon. Much more funds are spent on rare brain diseases because of medical business, neglecting more common curable ones like hydrocephalus as profits are much much less. Economics has become much more important than our needs and humanity. Another well known example in my field is drug companies interests.

I agree with @Omar, on goal as a drive to solve some problem and to know truth and uncover relations, not to be done for a title, a position or money.

Sometimes you need to challenge existing conventions and the normalcy of situations to bring out a new dscovery in science...probably, an impossible goal！Yet, one must be cautious not to set unattainable, frustrating goals that often result in counter-productive attitudes to scientific advancement such as depression, redundancy, loss of self-confidence and sometimes suicide.

Remember: History tells us that the impossible of yesterday is the possible of today and the reality of tomorrow.

Hehe... then I got the thought that I should search on the internet to see if someone else had said something similar... and then I found this one: “It is difficult to say what is impossible, for the dream of yesterday is the hope of today and the reality of tomorrow.“ (Robert Hutchings Goddard, https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/about/history/dr_goddard.html)

Anything impossible is a matter of time and circumstances which may changes with time and situation. Things thought impossible today may become possible tomorrow.

If setting impossible goals is stimulating such a positive attitude, I can not disagree. B. Petter gave us a very good example of Dr. Robert Hutchings in 1882. I am strongly agreeing with the group and hoping to see more breakthroughs helping humanity in the near future.

Dear Yogesh, I have not found the time to read all the answers to your question.

Nevertheless, if your question emphasizes the word "apparently impossible goal", I have an answer and that is the Manhattan Project. When the US understood that Germany was busy of detecting the power of the element uranium by making it into an unstable state which could make a chain reaction to be converted into an enormous amount of energy--possibly to be used as a bomb in itself- the Manhattan team attracted all genius minds in the US and Europe to collaborate and stay a step ahead to what Germany was up to.

If you hear or read of the difficulties to harness uranium, I think it is a valid sample what mankind is able to accomplish when it comes to ingenuity, being under stress, hard work and looking ahead and all this in an collaborative endeavor.

YES!

Please have a look at my Project 'New World' (https://www.researchgate.net/project/New-World).

One need to think highly 'non-linear' in order to reach such goals... such 'non-linearities' in thinking are only possible when one sets goals which are considered 'impossible' by a huge majority!

Best Regards

Andreas

Hi

recently i was working on dynamic stability problems. I found a point which appears to be a break through in the sense that it removes the major controversy regarding the problem. Here is the story. The governing equation for the dynamic stability analysis of columns under non-conservative and conservative force is based on the conservative force assumption. in case of non-conservative (follower) force only the boundary conditions is managed for non-conservative condition. that is the governing equation and the boundary condition are not in comply with each other. this is actually the real cause of controversy in this problem.

we found that to determine the buckling load of a cantilever column under a follower force it is sufficient to replace the column by a propped cantilever. the the buckling load of the propped cantilever under axial force (which is determined without controversy) is exactly equal to that of the buckling load of a cantilever under follower force.

this detection removed the controversy which have been on the table for more that 100 years!

Dear Abdolrasoul Ranjbaran,

Though I have no idea about the area of your work, but it appears to be important and interesting as your research findings have omitted a long existed controversy on dynamic stability.

Well done. Congrats:)

I personally set myself a high goal, but for its complete fulfillment I divide the great goal into sub-goals to be able to make them more reachable and to see a result, which motivates me to go for the next one. regards

Dear Yogesh,

My congratulations. Your question has made you the father of great ideas and inventions. I am feeling jealous of others and willing also to talk with you about hydrocephalus and intracranial hypertension. You deserve this important position because of your very positive attitude.

Best regards and wishes,

Omer

Dear Yogesh,

I will set an impossible goal (mission) in hydrocephalus treatment immediately, hoping that discussion can help in achieving a breakthrough in current hydrocephalus treatment.

Be patient and listen to details outside your speciality. Other colleagues are of course invited to listen. I will try my best to be very clear as much as I can to explain the problem like a story.

1) Waters of the brain is one of th greats God's miracles. Brain produces in an adult 500 ml of waters daily. For balance, 500 ml should be absorbed. If not hydrocephalus occurs.

2) Diverting CSF from brain to abdomen is the treatment, but it should be accurate avoiding over drainage and under drainage. Over drainage can be serious. Under drainage leads to persistent symptoms and also shortens shunt survival as it is a condition of a partial obstruction.

3) So, successful treatment goal is to come to an optimal CSF pressure level safely. It is a very narrow window and many neurosurgeons are calling it a hairline.

4) CSF pressure is different from things like BP or blood sugar which are having a simple achievable range which can be easily targeted and monitored. CSF is having a wide range of normality, meaning that 5 CM may be the normal in one person and 25 CM is the normal in another human. The indicators and the measures are still inaccurate, invasive and not achieving our goal easily and safely in many cases. Neurosurgeons targets now is to achieve a recovery compromise. Others put the shunt and tell their patients leave it anyway. Many others, think that not putting a shunt is the best solution. I talked with many neurosurgeons and some of them declared to me that they hate dealing with hydrocephalus. Improvements and recoveries are going on.

5) Putting a valve in the middle of the shunt tube is the work of neurosurgeons, neurologists, electrophysiologists, engineers, physicists as well as others.

6) The impossible goal (mission) is to achieve optimal CSF pressure safely in a single shunt operation which survives lifelong. They have come to invent an electromagnetic valve to help.

Dear Yogesh,

I have set the goal above.

I am waiting for a breakthrough very patiently, and persistently for 100% recovery for all hydrocephalus patients over earth. Hydrocephalus is a common worldwide problem.

Your question and your followers answers are giving me very great hopes.

My best regards,

Dr. Omer Elsabbagh

Dear Yogesh,

Good morning,

It looks very clear to me that you did not accept my impossible research goal which I set up 10 days back. Your point of view would be clearly: it is a limited goal that have to chance to lead to even any minimal breakthrough.

My answer is very simple in the following four points:

1) It will lead to understand how our brain function. Ask any neuroscientist about this and he will tell you that we will not be able to understand how our brain function without understanding brain waters.

2) It will help to cure hydrocephalus worldwide wide by coming to optimal CSF pressure level safely. This gives 70-80% reversible cure. The remaining 20-30 % are also potentially curable. So sum is 100% cure.

3) It will put new vision and understanding of what is called psychosomatic diseases. This represents 60% of patients attending to see doctors in their clinics. Examples are: asthma. irritable bowel syndrome, anxiety, depression, hysteria, essential blood pressure, tension headaches and so on.

4) It may put lights on what is soul is?

You might also say that I googlized your goal and found many research papers going on. I agree, and my question here to you; is who is auditing our research institutes and the resources spent on research. And how these auditing committees are working. How effective research achieve its goals by supporting best strategies and best use of resources.

In my above two answers I have given one detailed example. Other followers gave you many others examples in short.

Waiting for your response,

My best regards and happy new year for all,

Omer

Dear Omer Elsabbagh,

I am sorry for delayed response. The noble intent to tackle the challenging problem of hydrocephalus and intracranial hypertension patients over earth is indeed praiseworthy. Though, I have no idea of the aspect; however, what I could gather out of your writing is that the challenging part of the mission is to achieve optimal CSF pressure safely in a single shunt operation which survives lifelong. Every Novel mission is at first seems impossible. But the entire history of science is about crystallizing possibility out of all odds and impossibilities. Things thought impossible in the past are now a reality and what seems impossible today may become possible tomorrow. Your ardent mission for a pious cause is truly admirable and I am sure, you will certainly accomplish it. Best Wishes & Regards:)

Have a happy, healthy, prosperous, successful and an overall great new year 2018!!!

Thanks Yogesh and my best wishes for the new year for you and all researchers.

The ability to understand mental toughness, resilience, sustained support

and stretch are important enabler of future success.

Source - https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/academi-live-storage/c0/b7/fd/92/b9e34507836d28afd8750ad9/Academi%20Wales%20-%2030906_Sowing%20seeds_mental%20toughness_eng%20low%20WEB%20-%20use%20this%20one.pdf

It is always good to challenge oneself and this pushes you extra hard to work to come out with breakthroughs, unheard discoveries and real-sounding findings that solves perplexing problems in societies. Yet, 'impossible' goals to my understanding may be unattainable goals which would only be frustrating. It has lead to many feeling worthless and thus ending their lives because of the emptiness they felt within for not reaching their set targets which was not SMART. Therefore, I recommend the word 'challenging' instead of 'impossible' when setting goals. Thanks and best regards

Dickson

I end many of my presentations with a sentence

“Not knowing it was impossible, we completed the mission”. Actually, this phrase was authored or created by me a few years ago to motivated my own lab, but from History’s observation. How many people completed missions labeled impossible? We constantly witness barriers broken and the previous limit surpassed and something that was considered impossible being realized. Going to the moon was impossible. Nuclear fusion was impossible. 3D BioPrinting was impossible. Now just imagine the day when we as species have evolved out of these fruitless wars and conflicts and together use our powers for good and discovery and progress believing that nothing is real impossible!

You are right Dear Marco,.Anything thought impossible today may become possible tomorrow. This is Science !!!

Conformity pressure sometimes makes me feel frustrated; however, pursuing something that does not exist before is like ecstasy and make me feel thrilled. Firm belief in oneself and distintive resilience-driven perseverance are essential to pioneers. Article Thinking 'Outside the Box'

Hi

From the beginning of the 21 century, by chance, I started thinking outside of the box of the conventional method of analysis, i.e. the process= assumptions+governing equation+solution. Fortunately the efforts of my research team led to a unified fit curve equation, called Persian curve, which fits to the behavior of a system. The fit is exactly carried out by calibration of four control parameters via four key points. A typical result is attached in which the Persian curve result is fitted on the LRFD column design curve .

This shows that, always one may find better ways than those known to this end.

best regard

YES. MANY QUESTIONS TO RAISE, BUT NO ANSWER. Breakthrough in science is also were done by surprise findings, while some were achieved by planned experiments. Fusion experiments has been attempted by many scientists in the world on proper planning to see whether it provides the answer for Sunlight. They succeeded in generating very high temperatures but for short period. Fusion remained 'an apparently impossible goal' for 'the best way to make a real breakthrough in science'.

REAL PROBLEM: Despite making breakthrough is science , an impossible goal, fellow scientists hardly recognize. For example, for the Ten Fundamental Physics Discoveries that I did, please let me know which scientist or an institution in India recognized my merit?

Well said by Dear Claire SU-Yeon Park "Firm belief in oneself and distinctive resilience-driven perseverance are essential to pioneers."

Dear Abdolrasoul Ranjbaran, your findings are indeed interesting, though it's beyond my subject and expertise.

Dear Prof. Padmanabha Rao, It's very unfortunate that your Fundamental Physics Discoveries have not received the well deserved recognition from Indian Physicists. You may spread your breakthrough discoveries through global fora and bring them to the knowledge of leading researchers of your field. I hope you will definitely get due attention and recognition.

Maybe yes if the impossibility is an opinion of others, but not your self.

A key to making a breakthrough is to form a group of forward looking researchers who feel that potential is there for discovery. There is always another peer group faction that lacks incentive and vision.

Finding a sponsor in management is another key to success. Much can be accomplished because there are always more possibilities that resourced to develop them. Much research potential is not accomplished when commodity style management promotes commodity style research.

A third key to success is to take ownership in a scope of work that can be done, while discarding unhelpful and conflicting constraints that always get attached to a program.

Thanks Dr Jerry Deckor for pointing out three key factors for success of a S&T venture.

Effort squeeze in Productivity Chain

Impressive illustration Prof. Krishnan depicting improvement efforts for enhancing productivity.

Dear Dr YOGESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI

I say yes,

We all have goals in life. Each one of us wants to achieve something, whether great or small, at some point in our lives. We have deep-seated hopes and dreams for the future and a burning desire to accomplish some great feats. It's stitched into the very fabric of our society, woven into the core of who we are, deep down inside. It's emblazoned in our DNA, genetically pre-dispositioned, not just for mere survival, but also with a yearning passion to thrive. 

In fact, it's part of what's made us as a culture into who we are. Our species has more than just survived; we've quite literally thrived, achieving outlandish results thanks to the wild-eyed innovations that have sparked the possibility to make the seemingly impossible a reality in our lives. Not only have we wished for the moon, but we've also shot for the stars.