Notices
Results 1 to 65 of 65

Thread: the crackpot forum

  1. #1 the crackpot forum 
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    despite its title of the science forum, we're seeing more and more loonies posting here, making the forum groan under the weight of assertions that are at best tangential to science

    have the moderators lost interest and given up moderating ?


    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: the crackpot forum 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    despite its title of the science forum, we're seeing more and more loonies posting here, making the forum groan under the weight of assertions that are at best tangential to science

    have the moderators lost interest and given up moderating ?
    I believe so, but I don't believe it is my fault.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    here's the last time each of the mods has made an on-line contribution :

    HomoUniversalis : 22/08/2007
    Coffee : 23/9/2005
    Jacques.X : 5/1/2007
    Megabrain : 23/8/2007
    Ophiolite : 22/8/2007
    Pendragon : 8/7/2007
    SkinWalker : 20/8/2007

    does that mean this forum has gone unmoderated for nearly 2 weeks ?
    sigh ... surprising that the loonies haven't completely run away with it
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman Amaya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    32
    I hope there are lots of them, and they start posting more and more until it's okay to have a weird thought and not be insulted about it by some holier than thou science major who only believes in things s/he can stick in his/her beaker. This shouldn't be the Science forum, it should be the Scientist forum, because if your interested in science and come here without a formal education in science, you just get ripped to shreds anyway. Adios Scientist forum.
    Gravity isn't MY fault--I voted for velcro!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Sometimes I think this way too, but on the other hand the amount of traffic on this site is not overwhelming. It is quite possible to pick and choose which threads to open or not. Science discussions may be held in parallel with the insanity, if you are able to ignore it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    I just started new course load and a new position at my job, so I've been a little distracted lately. I'll try to take a look at what's going on this week.

    In the mean time, if you have a few threads that need specific attention, post their links or titles here and I'll give them priority. It'll make it easier to locate the main problems.

    Also, if you PM me, I get an instant email and can focus directly on the problem you see. Going through each active thread can take time and I invariably end up skimming them and missing something anyway.

    Sorry for the inattention, guys...

    Skin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    nothing really to highlight as especially outrageous, just a general impression i got that the ratio of crackpot vs. sound threads is tipping in the wrong direction - as a result i find that fewer and fewer threads are even worth taking part in

    Amaya, if you have an issue with the way weird thoughts are treated i'd suggest you bring it to the attention of the moderators - after all, they're supposed to set the tone of the forum
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,812
    Quote Originally Posted by Amaya
    if your interested in science and come here without a formal education in science, you just get ripped to shreds anyway. Adios Scientist forum.
    Why let it bother you? Nobody knows who you are. That science major could be as phoney as a search for Bin Laden. I try not to let criticism upset me, Lord knows I've authored more than one dumb thread or post. If I've learned anything in life is that there are 2 kinds of smarts.

    The first one is strict memorization and those endowed with this particular gift can't wait to tell you what they've remembered, occasionally acting a might smug about it.

    The second one continuously learns and applies knowledge by hard work, determination and a willingness to ask questions without fear of being embarassed. For the most part they exhibit a willingness to share information. Is there a better way to learn than by making a mistake?

    If you don't like being insulted then fire back harshly. If you prefer to be subtle then sarcasm works great. You can always ignore, not that I favor that approach. There's no evidence or proof that any one of the so called science experts are who they say they are. Anonymity can make anybody great. Lighten up or get lit up.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    I've been a bit lapse around here as well. Trying to balance family life with work and sidelines is proving rather a time consumer. It feels so often like I just get up go to work and get up and go to work again. I know I'm sure not alone in that feeling. I just really appreciate that there are those that do find spare moments to help out the forum.

    Thanks everything.
    Pleased to meet you. Hope you guess my name
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Guest
    I think the forum is doing okay on it's own so far. Moderation hasn't really been required as much as usual. Although there are a few problems I've both brought to moderation attention and noticed myself.

    Nothing severe, however. I believe we're okay until people begin spamming senseless topics and threads.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Just make this forum a log on another page and renew this forum with the same idea. Have the cake and eat it so to speak.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    I am without a home computer at present, overloaded with work and so rarely able to log on in the office and therefore absent for the last couple of weeks (and not much the couple of weeks before then when I was isolated somewhere south of Moscow!) None of that by way of an excuse, just a statement of the facts.
    Frankly I think the forum does pretty well with limited moderation. Remember the golden rule - "Don't Feed the Trolls". In the absence of reaction they will wither up and be blown away.
    All that said when I'm here I'll do what I can and I appreciate the several of you who have drawn my attention, by pm. to concering behaviour. That really helps - for one thing its lets me know what annoys you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    You'd be surprised how many problems you can solve with a PM and a deleted post. If there is a lack of moderators power-playing out there, all the better methinks.

    Anyway, if you ever have a problem, feel free to contact the M-team, or me - and I'll take a look at the problem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Guest
    *stabs the moderation back into hiding*

    There will be anarchy!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    People putting cryptic and meaningless titles to get people to click on their woo-wooism, bugs me. Also when people dont post a summary, but just links or a full page spread that doesnt tell you the whacked out point until you've wasted 10 minutes of your life( particularly annoying when posted after your post, as an argument to your point).
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    There are standard posts, students looking for teacher "interaction", and there, as I have witnessed, people who have gone off on a tangential theory.

    The most recent tangential theories have ben relevant to "time", and the use of new dimensions.

    The idea seems crack-pot, namely proposing new dimensions for time, and not space, however maybe a scientific forum should allow a certain sense of "endeavor" into new theories, especially the ones that can actually cite equations that have passed the test of time.

    It is interesting to watch those gladiators of new ideas stand up to the impressionable moderator thumb.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman looking4recruits's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    93
    I would think that the moderators need to look at your own scientific pioneers and the rubbish they throw out to the general public care of their retirement autobiographies.........making a mockery of the real need to be brutally serious about judging a new idea.

    Their new ideas, your lauded scientific pioneers, are flatulent rights of a career in science that they believe owes them for their service to disciplined and humble research.

    If someone out there has a new idea that is beyond the usual souffle that fails to rise to an inquisition such as what a forum like this should allow, if not promote, let that person speak. Your scientific industry is in a state of anarchy anyway...........even your greatest dispute one another's pet theories.

    In fact, the only way a scientist can be known in the current arena of science is if someone presents a new idea, one that takes them out of the ordered cage they reproduce the same results in. Should not a forum like this aim to make a decent "find"?
    if ever there was a time for opportunity, it is when opportunity has yet to define THIS "time"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    Quote Originally Posted by looking4recruits
    I would think that the moderators need to look at your own scientific pioneers and the rubbish they throw out to the general public care of their retirement autobiographies.........making a mockery of the real need to be brutally serious about judging a new idea.

    Their new ideas, your lauded scientific pioneers, are flatulent rights of a career in science that they believe owes them for their service to disciplined and humble research.

    If someone out there has a new idea that is beyond the usual souffle that fails to rise to an inquisition such as what a forum like this should allow, if not promote, let that person speak. Your scientific industry is in a state of anarchy anyway...........even your greatest dispute one another's pet theories.

    In fact, the only way a scientist can be known in the current arena of science is if someone presents a new idea, one that takes them out of the ordered cage they reproduce the same results in. Should not a forum like this aim to make a decent "find"?
    .....Carry on!

    I mean all the greats obviously magiced the next world beater out of thin air! and didnt have the first clue about the science of their predecessors.....Einstein, Darwin, Newton.....


    Crack on!



    Timesawating.....you could have broken 2 new laws during that soapboxer...tut!! tut!!
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman looking4recruits's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    93
    My statements are based on feedback I have received from real-life professors.

    In addition, crack-pots presume to use their third eye more than a looking glass on presented new ideas.........they jump to fantasy conclusions based on a 5 second imagination they string togther with other 5 second imaginations without any real theme of how they present an idea........let alone a judgment of that fictious character in their mind's eye.

    A real-life Professor, just to clarify this, is someone who is based at a University, who teaches students, who is aware of the crack-pot theories pop-scientists carry on with lucently with their latest pop-science installment, with the hope of getting some type of recognition, like a Knighthood from a sovereign who places scientific pursuit more in the hands of a Government than the ideals that made a soverign line what it is today.

    And I apologise for editing this, but if anyone is going to add that science should not regularly allow in forums for expansive ideas into the unknown based on quality research, or at least quality equations strung together in a legible fashion, then someone is spitting the dummy in this forum for not being heard the way they use to be in this new presence of what could be quality debate on sifting through what is gold and what is not.

    And now in responding to what you actually wrote and not just your emoticons, I fail to see how you, in your crack-pot fashion, jumped completely to the conclusion that I was "presumably" making a statement about the invalidity of any new idea of professional science based on the premise all new ideas obviously are completely refashioned testaments of the greats being treated like dishevelled drifters.
    if ever there was a time for opportunity, it is when opportunity has yet to define THIS "time"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    Quote Originally Posted by looking4recruits
    My statements are based on feedback I have received from real-life professors.

    In addition, crack-pots presume to use their third eye more than a looking glass on presented new ideas.........they jump to fantasy conclusions based on a 5 second imagination they string togther with other 5 second imaginations without any real theme of how they present an idea........let alone a judgment of that fictious character in their mind's eye.

    A real-life Professor, just to clarify this, is someone who is based at a University, who teaches students, who is aware of the crack-pot theories pop-scientists carry on with lucently with their latest pop-science installment, with the hope of getting some type of recognition, like a Knighthood from a sovereign who places scientific pursuit more in the hands of a Government than the ideals that made a soverign line what it is today.

    And I apologise for editing this, but if anyone is going to add that science should not regularly allow in forums for expansive ideas into the unknown based on quality research, or at least quality equations strung together in a legible fashion, then someone is spitting the dummy in this forum for not being heard the way they use to be in this new presence of what could be quality debate on sifting through what is gold and what is not.

    And now in responding to what you actually wrote and not just your emoticons, I fail to see how you, in your crack-pot fashion, jumped completely to the conclusion that I was "presumably" making a statement about the invalidity of any new idea of professional science based on the premise all new ideas obviously are completely refashioned testaments of he greats being treated like dishevelled drifters.
    Dont call me a crackpot you cryptic imbecile. I am at university(no professors any more!)

    You obviously have no idea how the scientific process works. Scientist are usually at odds, thats how innovations get realized. Crackpots like you (who claim to have overturned a theory every breakfast time, without a proper understanding in the first place) are entirely different.
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman looking4recruits's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    93
    You are doing well.

    Clearly you are a student.

    You may also seek to find some type of reassurance among what you right now would call administrative control?
    if ever there was a time for opportunity, it is when opportunity has yet to define THIS "time"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    I just understood ever word you wrote.

    No! I find my reassurance in replicating the works of giants, in some small way. None of my administrators are so egotistical to demand I take reassurance solely from their word.
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Freshman looking4recruits's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    93
    Your ignorance.........can I use as "bliss"?
    if ever there was a time for opportunity, it is when opportunity has yet to define THIS "time"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    Usually the bliss only works if you take your own ignorance.
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Freshman looking4recruits's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell
    Usually the bliss only works if you take your own ignorance.
    That sounds very "crack pot" to me.............right?

    Why (the) f...don't you ask me, or anyone else in this forum, a "serious question".
    if ever there was a time for opportunity, it is when opportunity has yet to define THIS "time"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    Normalcy sounds crackpot to a crackpot, right?
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Freshman looking4recruits's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    93
    ........continue............

    give me something more to work with...........as I obviously have done for you...............
    if ever there was a time for opportunity, it is when opportunity has yet to define THIS "time"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    I dont always see the benefit in asking crackpots serious questions.
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    My mum told me never to work with children and animals.
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Freshman looking4recruits's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    93
    You obviously want me to agree with you..........for once.

    ...........or, I missed something?
    if ever there was a time for opportunity, it is when opportunity has yet to define THIS "time"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    No one has every agreed with me before.... I need some love. :-D
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Freshman looking4recruits's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    93
    if you are serious about your "meanderings"..........maybe you can "post" whatever it is you are trying to define.........?
    if ever there was a time for opportunity, it is when opportunity has yet to define THIS "time"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    you 2 gentlemen (and i use the word loosely) have just given a prime example of why every forum needs moderators - you have just added a lot of hot air and bad feeling instead of enlightenment
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Guest
    Nay, not moderators. A moderator is not supposed to act like a parent. I know where you two kids live!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    Jerry will you be my nanny 911?
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    Quote Originally Posted by looking4recruits
    if you are serious about your "meanderings"..........maybe you can "post" whatever it is you are trying to define.........?
    I have already defined what I mean by crackpots versus real scientists.

    ......So here is an interlude from Cartman:


    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Freshman looking4recruits's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    93
    At least we are all in agreement regarding people who are trying to push overt and self-promotional ideas.........that they mistake this forum for "utube" or "myspace".

    This is a forum, where many scientific minds have the chance to come together and piece together what they have thus far failed to as a scientific intelligence base. That chance is lost when new ideas that are presented are automatically rubbished as crack-pot by spoilt youths. If someone has a new idea, and has the equations to match, they should be heard........otherwise their plans of ruining the nature of this forum should be dealt with appropriately.
    if ever there was a time for opportunity, it is when opportunity has yet to define THIS "time"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    Quote Originally Posted by looking4recruits
    At least we are all in agreement regarding people who are trying to push overt and self-promotional ideas.........that they mistake this forum for "utube" or "myspace".

    This is a forum, where many scientific minds have the chance to come together and piece together what they have thus far failed to as a scientific intelligence base. That chance is lost when new ideas that are presented are automatically rubbished as crack-pot by spoilt youths. If someone has a new idea, and has the equations to match, they should be heard........otherwise their plans of ruining the nature of this forum should be dealt with appropriately.
    ..............Not if the new idea breaks the laws of Physics, with no discernible explanation as to why and how................

    ..............Not if the equations are meaningless abuse of mathematics............
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Freshman looking4recruits's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell
    Quote Originally Posted by looking4recruits
    At least we are all in agreement regarding people who are trying to push overt and self-promotional ideas.........that they mistake this forum for "utube" or "myspace".

    This is a forum, where many scientific minds have the chance to come together and piece together what they have thus far failed to as a scientific intelligence base. That chance is lost when new ideas that are presented are automatically rubbished as crack-pot by spoilt youths. If someone has a new idea, and has the equations to match, they should be heard........otherwise their plans of ruining the nature of this forum should be dealt with appropriately.
    ..............Not if the new idea breaks the laws of Physics, with no discernible explanation as to why and how................

    ..............Not if the equations are meaningless abuse of mathematics............

    A very reasonable observation. You refer to the "perpetual motion" ideas and associated circular equations?
    if ever there was a time for opportunity, it is when opportunity has yet to define THIS "time"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    I was thinking of a "time" hypothesis someone posted, actually.

    To be quite frank, if you haven't got a first class degree and years of lab time, you haven't got a snow ball in hells chance of coming up with an innovation in Physics. The same prescholars suggesting they have broken the laws of thermodynamics or relativity are just insane...........

    .............Actually the numbers of the latter are in the millions, so there cant be that many insane people? They are just out to profit from most the world not being qualified enough to see there technically sounding claims are garbage?
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Ph.D. streamSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    911
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell
    I was thinking of a "time" hypothesis someone posted, actually.

    To be quite frank, if you haven't got a first class degree and years of lab time, you haven't got a snow ball in hells chance of coming up with an innovation in Physics. The same prescholars suggesting they have broken the laws of thermodynamics or relativity are just insane.
    How about a degree in medicine, following which a maverick theory of perception was explored using mathematical algorithms relevant to human anatomy?

    Not something you would learn in physics, obviously......but in studying medicine with the aim of uncovereing a type of mathematical code to our perception, mathematics and psychology, is it possible (with the permission of physicists, obviously) to arrive at how we logically "perceive" time, to then suggest, if not propose, an "upgrade" to our scientific understanding of time?

    Maybe?

    Your excellency?
    Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?

    the www feature below can explain it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell
    I was thinking of a "time" hypothesis someone posted, actually.

    To be quite frank, if you haven't got a first class degree and years of lab time, you haven't got a snow ball in hells chance of coming up with an innovation in Physics. The same prescholars suggesting they have broken the laws of thermodynamics or relativity are just insane.
    How about a degree in medicine, following which a maverick theory of perception was explored using mathematical algorithms relevant to human anatomy?

    Not something you would learn in physics, obviously......but in studying medicine with the aim of uncovereing a type of mathematical code to our perception, mathematics and psychology, is it possible (with the permission of physicists, obviously) to arrive at how we logically "perceive" time, to then suggest, if not propose, an "upgrade" to our scientific understanding of time?

    Maybe?

    Your excellency?
    You dont need the permission of Physicists. Why are you so convinced that Physicists are your barrier instead of Physics itself?

    If your idea works, it will out! No Physicist can stand in your way!
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Ph.D. streamSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    911
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell
    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell
    I was thinking of a "time" hypothesis someone posted, actually.

    To be quite frank, if you haven't got a first class degree and years of lab time, you haven't got a snow ball in hells chance of coming up with an innovation in Physics. The same prescholars suggesting they have broken the laws of thermodynamics or relativity are just insane.
    How about a degree in medicine, following which a maverick theory of perception was explored using mathematical algorithms relevant to human anatomy?

    Not something you would learn in physics, obviously......but in studying medicine with the aim of uncovereing a type of mathematical code to our perception, mathematics and psychology, is it possible (with the permission of physicists, obviously) to arrive at how we logically "perceive" time, to then suggest, if not propose, an "upgrade" to our scientific understanding of time?

    Maybe?

    Your excellency?
    You dont need the permission of Physicists. Why are you so convinced that Physicists are your barrier instead of Physics itself?

    If your idea works, it will out! No Physicist can stand in your way!

    Permission? I was being sarcastic.

    I made my comment based on your statement: To be quite frank, if you haven't got a first class degree and years of lab time, you haven't got a snow ball in hells chance of coming up with an innovation in Physics

    I assumed you referred to a first class degree in "physics". I was wrong. I apologise.

    To further correct myself, it wasn't until 5th year medicine, final term, that I realised I could get into deep shit for being completely red-green colorblind........so I had to leave medicine, give it away, for legal reasons. I couldn't see a bruise basically, or a hot flush......let alone a red-stained microscope slide. It was suggested to me that medicine was not my course......that it would be unwise to continue. So, I branched off with mathematics and all I knew of medicine and arrived at the schtuff available on my www link. Believe me, it's not crack-pot......it is YEARS of research from someone who has the benefit of a classical degree tuition without any foul play.
    Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?

    the www feature below can explain it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell
    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell
    I was thinking of a "time" hypothesis someone posted, actually.

    To be quite frank, if you haven't got a first class degree and years of lab time, you haven't got a snow ball in hells chance of coming up with an innovation in Physics. The same prescholars suggesting they have broken the laws of thermodynamics or relativity are just insane.
    How about a degree in medicine, following which a maverick theory of perception was explored using mathematical algorithms relevant to human anatomy?

    Not something you would learn in physics, obviously......but in studying medicine with the aim of uncovereing a type of mathematical code to our perception, mathematics and psychology, is it possible (with the permission of physicists, obviously) to arrive at how we logically "perceive" time, to then suggest, if not propose, an "upgrade" to our scientific understanding of time?

    Maybe?

    Your excellency?
    You dont need the permission of Physicists. Why are you so convinced that Physicists are your barrier instead of Physics itself?

    If your idea works, it will out! No Physicist can stand in your way!

    Permission? I was being sarcastic.

    I made my comment based on your statement: To be quite frank, if you haven't got a first class degree and years of lab time, you haven't got a snow ball in hells chance of coming up with an innovation in Physics

    I assumed you referred to a first class degree in "physics". I was wrong. I apologise.
    Yes of course. A first class degree in cakemaking wont help much now would it?
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Ph.D. streamSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    911
    So, what do you think. Would a physics "establishment" consider a new theory for time based on a theory of perception sprung from a classical education in Medicine?

    By the way, the theory doesn't break any laws of physics, none: it only adds two extra dimensions to "time".
    Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?

    the www feature below can explain it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    No, they dont have the time to intimately critique every claim, sorry.

    If you can prove that you understand the concepts you are challenging fully, by gaining atleast a degree( a postgrad involving relativity will be even better), and you still think your idea challenges Physics as it stands, that will change.
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Ph.D. streamSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    911
    I understand that.

    You are absolutely correct.

    I was warned about such a precedent years ago.

    Quite frankly, I think that's fair.

    I also believe that an independent research agency into new theories of space-time will be the first official port of call of this theory.......not the physics establishment.

    You see, I am posting my work in this forum while being as relevant as possible to the posts of others in order to establish the type of feedback I would expect when ultimately the theory has to be explained......you know, the common questions, the common myths, and how best to answer those issues. Basically, adding two dimensions of time to standard physics-syntax has actually change the language of physics, like from old english to new english. It hasn't changed the laws of physics, only the way those same laws are explained.

    Still, your feedback, like that of others, I take great interest in.
    Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?

    the www feature below can explain it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    I sincerely wish you luck
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Ph.D. streamSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    911
    Believe me, a lottery win would help, because then I could use that money to employ a physicist to read the work. Currently, I am offering around $5000USD to any legitimate theoretical physicist to give the theory a proper and full review. Luck could help.
    Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?

    the www feature below can explain it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    Check out their credentials thoroughly! Chances are you will just get a money grabber.

    If its any good a real Physicist will see that at first glance, then check the experiments you have carried out to support your model etc etc.....

    I honestly cant see how money is going to buy your idea in(so to speak).
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Ph.D. streamSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    911
    It will.

    Time is money.

    The theory is well over 300 pages long.

    The number of revisions it has had over the past 8 years is substantial.

    It could be longer, but it is compacted to 300 or so pages.

    For a physicst to read it, it would take a month. I am not aware of any physicist willing to read such a substantial work without thinking, "I am not paid for this".

    I am not saying that physics is money-run.......but in being realistic, it will cost. Still, it would be good if someone could read it for the sheer interest in it, in a theory that proposes two new dimensions for time while constructing a virtual space-time landscape with geometrical equations that check out for those new proposed time dimensions. Yet.....

    I mean, for the past 7 or so years, I held off promoting it, because I knew it lacked "proof", something equations could offer. Then while going through a revision process, the equations became apparent, so I decided to make it available on a webpage.....this year, only just recently.

    I will be checking out their credentials if it comes to that. I'm holding off currently.
    Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?

    the www feature below can explain it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    How do these 2 dimensions of time manifest themselves to us. I mean! "all we see time as: is linear", would not two dimensions make times progression, a parabola or even sinusoidal?
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Ph.D. streamSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    911
    This is the thing that takes so long to explain.

    I install into our contemporary view of time two added "perceived" dimensions of time, time "before" and time "after". I then am able, after a few hundred pages, present that "before" time and "after" time are geometrically linked as substantiated by the equations of a circle and sphere that represents the geometry of time "before" and "after" linking.

    But, basically, I develop a mathematical algorithm relevant to our "awareness" of time, and then construct "logically" how our mathematical perception would perceive the "limits" (zero and infinity) of space and time, with of course the two installed new dimensions of time, which, as we know, are not real, only "apparent" owing to our "perception" of space-time.

    You asked an excellent question regarding the geometrical mechanics of "before" and "after" time.

    Time progression, to be more exact, is like a caduceus.......the straight sword as the NOW time paradigm, and the two virtual time paradigms as the snakes coiled around that sword.

    Spot on.

    BUT, there is no physics agency that researches any such ideas.

    You have an instinct for this theory, it seems, with your sinusoidal suggestion.
    Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?

    the www feature below can explain it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    Ah! but its not just our perception that observes the progression of time, the progression along space adheres to it also. That said: wouldn't progression in space change (its velocity) proportionally to your times circular progression?
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Ph.D. streamSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    911
    Spot on again.

    The theory basically presents that there are 4 points of space relevant to time for any context of space-time being observed. Ultimately, those 4 points describe the basic building-block structure of an atom..........

    ....it takes about 200 pages to construct that space-time envelope and fold it properly so the space-points are tuned properly to the two new time dimensions. It was a LOT of work.

    (edit continuation): each of those 4 points are unique, and the way they interact, as the mathematics suggests, defines the forces in an atom, strong nuclear, weak nuclear, electromagnetism, even describes "what" a proton is, "what" an electron is, and so on, and even, and this even had me startled, even presented the mechanics of the sub-atomic particles.......which the theory basically proposes as particles that are involved in those two added dimensions of time (like footprints).

    The mechanics of an atom basically is directly related to the geometry of "before" and "after" time-point arrangement.

    After constructing the atom, say around page 200 and something, I then go about constructing a virtual reality while staying within the logic-parameters........and the virtual reality prescribed explains how atoms relate with other atoms, on the "zero" scale, and then on the "infinite" scale. The virtual reality prescribed explains quanta, relativity.......but clearly according to this new science regarding the added dimensions of time.

    The exciting thing about the theory is what it propses in regard to "unfolded" dimensions of space, dimensions of space that "want" to complete their final "fold", and thus a dimension, quite literally, of pure energy.

    I am quietly confident with the theory, because it explains and proposes things more relevant to this space-time reality than some other one..........and does so not by chance. I also understand that it would be a new frontier of research and wealth opportunity.
    Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?

    the www feature below can explain it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    I think you are in need of a specialist to look over this. How did you gain your knowledge of Physics? you dont have a Physics qualification?
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Ph.D. streamSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    911
    That's what I said. A theoretical physicist who I would be willing to imburse $5000USD or thereabouts, for a proper thorough review.

    My understanding of physics, well, A grade through high school, top 1% nationally leaving school, medical physics (nothing too remarkable), the ability to read and analyze all new contemporary scientific works on offer (penrose etc etc etc) without gettig lost.

    As I specified, my classical qualification is in medicine (5 years, or thereabouts before deciding to withdraw from my studies owing to the legal issue of being completely red-green colorblind (no red pigment)).

    I entered medical school based on my physics and mathematics subjects.

    I left medical school with this theory as my task of achievement, which took about three or so years to finalise as the general theory in 1999.

    The past 8 years have been spent exploring the validity of it.

    My knowledge of physics basically, it is easy with this new theory of space-time.......it's like a magic-eye (those magic eye pictures)........in knowing the structure of time, physics is sooooo much easier to understand.

    Now, in terms of finding that right "specialist".......believe me, I have "tried soooooo hard".
    Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?

    the www feature below can explain it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    This sounds like the holy grail of unifying all particles and interactions into "one universal template does all" kind of thing'. Like theres a particle that can dance one way to form an up quark, does a different dance to form a down quark, fandangos another way to form an electron, etc etc................
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Ph.D. streamSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    911
    Yes, I know.

    It is (a universal template, of sorts).

    It explains all that stuff.

    ....up quark, down quark, electron spin, nuclear forces (strong and weak).......and ultimately, "gravity".

    By the hyperspace/unfolded space dimension has my eye, in terms of research.

    It's mind boggling......the possibilities.

    I never say once in the book it is the holy grail of physics.........that's an invitation to ridicule.

    I was first introduced to quarks, leptons, mesons, and bosons, in the late 80's while attending a national science summer school: I had no idea 20 years down the track I would be explaining their more precise nature.

    I need "quite the professor" to look at this one.

    But, the thing is, the more expert they are, the less they want to talk to anyone who presents ideas like this.

    After already going through a medical degree, well, almost, there is no going back to University for me............it was largely depressing not being able to complete the degree.

    If you though know of anyone, could you make a suggestion?
    Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?

    the www feature below can explain it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    This work is posted on your website?

    I dont think I have the time to read 500 pages though.
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Ph.D. streamSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    911
    The work is available for download as a pdf from a 1-page website.

    370 pages, 7MB.

    I understand you don't have time to read it (like everyone else), but if you have any trouble with your understanding of physics, or relativity, the book makes it easier to understand.

    Still, I would gladly take any suggestion of who may have the time to read it.

    It's remarkable, you know, that it is more likely to be correct than not, that it was no fluke, and the opportunities it offers technology........the moneeeeeyyyyyy.........eventually......for those early prospectors.........remarkable that no one is.........
    Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?

    the www feature below can explain it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Since 30% is ZERO AND INFINITE You have practically only 70% left.

    Best thread ever this one, I sence of humour. "I want to become a fireman" hehe. Sticky this one please!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Ph.D. streamSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    911
    Quote Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly
    Since 30% is ZERO AND INFINITE You have practically only 70% left.

    Best thread ever this one, I sence of humour. "I want to become a fireman" hehe. Sticky this one please!

    you mean ?
    Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?

    the www feature below can explain it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    I'm sure your theory is correct streamsystems. But i don't see how this is going to fusion the higgs bosons. I want some fusion here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Ph.D. streamSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    911
    OK.

    From john Gribben:

    Higgs Particle, elementary particle postulated by theorists to explain why certain other particles have mass. Its existence was predicted by the British physicist Peter Higgs of the University of Edinburgh. According to quantum theory, each of the four fundamental forces operating between particles is carried by other particles, called bosons. (Bosons have zero or whole-number values of spin.) The electromagnetic force, for example, is carried by photons. Quantum electrodynamics predicts that photons have zero mass, just as is observed. Early attempts to construct a theory of the weak nuclear force suggested that it should also be carried by massless bosons. Such bosons would be as easy to detect as photons are, but they are not seen. In 1964 Higgs and two Belgian researchers, Robert Brout and François Englert, independently suggested the existence of further particles, the ones now known as Higgs particles. These too would have zero spin, but would have mass and no electric charge. They could be “swallowed up” by the photon-like carriers of the weak force, giving them mass. This Higgs mechanism is a cornerstone of the successful electroweak theory, which provides a unified description of electromagnetism and the weak force, and it underpins most attempts to find a unified field theory. All Higgs bosons in the universe are thought to be hidden inside other particles, but experiments are now under way, using particle accelerators at high energies, to knock Higgs particles out of other bosons and measure their properties. The mass of the Higgs particle is very uncertain, but is likely to be much greater than that of the proton, so very high energies will be needed to produce it. Accelerators involved in the search include the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) and LEP (Large Electron-Positron Collider), which are both at CERN (European Laboratory for Particle Physics). Some supersymmetry theories (see Superstring Theory) predict the existence of more than one type of Higgs boson. There is already indirect evidence from accelerator experiments for the reality of Higgs particles, and it is possible that all massive particles (including protons, neutrons, and electrons) get their mass through the Higgs mechanism.


    Now, my point is, "what's to say that Higgs particles and their associated hidden clan of particles aren't in fact the space-points I outline in my theory relevant to the time dimensions of "before" and "after"".

    I have calculated in the theory the number of potential subatomic particles, and interestingly it is the same amount some are suggesting through their multi-billion dollar research ventures.

    Basically, the theory suggests there are 12 potential before-after cycles and in each cycle 4 potential "subatomic" points/particles.....leading to potentially 48 different subatomic particle types, each with, as explained in the theory, their unique feature relevant to their sub (before or after) atomic characterisation.

    To be more precise though, there would (and one would have to read the theory to know what I am talking about) be 50 potential subatomic particles, the two extra subatomic particles as the two particles not expressed in an individual atomic "now" step.

    Now, discovering in theory 50 or so subatomic particles was no fluke.

    Just quickly, the theory proposes an atom of general 4 basic points-features, 3 real observable points (proton, neutron, electron), one unapparent point (magnetic), and 50 or so subatomic points-particles. It explains the strong and weak nuclear forces, electromganetism, and gravity. The only thing it doesn't offer is a free set of steak knives, but I'm working on it, right?

    Now, is someone going to tell me that they study physics, are a physicist, for the purpose of doing as they are told by their textbooks without considering new approaches to the concept of actually "understanding" space-time in theory?

    Oh, does anyone know the annual budget of CERN?

    Anyway (I am sure they know what they are looking for)......the theory presents parameters that define how points of space can be labelled in a variety of different ways in regard, of course, to time. How that labelling unfolded left little doubt in my mind as to what was being described, namely the atomic and subatomic points. I am sure a theory like this could be of benefit to research agencies investigating the possibility of artificial gravity propulsion systems. To be honest, I never intended to arrive at a theory of space-time with such absolute precision. I was just constructing a virtual mathematical geometrical awareness based on my understanding of Medicine. It's a good thing I knew enough about physics to realize more was afoot.

    Are any of you guys "physicists?".......you know, real physicists, or are you all still at school?
    Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?

    the www feature below can explain it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •