Speculations

From http://chronicle.com/free/v49/i21/21b02001.htm Something is probably bull if: 1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media. The integrity of science rests on the willingness of scientists to expose new ideas and findings to the scrutiny of other scientists. Thus, scientists expect their colleagues to reveal new findings to them initially. An attempt to bypass peer review by taking a new result directly to the media, and thence to the public, suggests that the work is unlikely to stand up to close examination by other scientists. One notorious example is the claim made in 1989 by two chemists from the University of Utah, B. Stanley Pons and M…

(A collection of some thoughts brought on by recent posts and posters. Some of these are touched upon in the FAQ and Pseudoscience section, and these sentiments can be found on other science fora) If you think you've toppled relativity, quantum mechanics, evolution or some other theory with your post, think again. Theories that have been around for a while have lots of evidence to back them up. It is far more likely that you have missed something. Here are some things to consider: You have to back your statements up with evidence. Anecdotes are not evidence. Being challenged to present evidence is not a personal attack. Calling the people in who challenge…

Welcome, creationists, to Science Forums and Debate ======================================================== Please refrain from 'drive-by heathen-preaching', which is where you make one post scorning us for our 'belief' in evolution and then bugger off. This is a discussion forum, not a statement forum. We therefore ask that you stick around to discuss your points with us. Drive-by heathen-preaching tends to merely occupy the moderators' time deleting them, and paints creationists in a bad light. Purpose of this thread This thread was written due to the number of creationists who visit this site to argue against evolution. Whilst this is perfect…

It seems that pseudoscience, while often colourful, sometimes stimulating and - on occasion - entertaining, suffers from shortcomings which are dependent on the wielder of the hypothesis under scrutiny. Unlike conventional scientific theory, which is based upon a continually progressing and narrowing identification of event-level observations that can be demonstrated and explained via the scientific method, there is no unilateral standard within pseudoscience that restricts any one individual or group of individuals to a single approach to any given problem. Without such control, it is only a matter of time before any pseudoscience hypothesis spins wildly out of…

The speculations forum draws a fair amount of lively discussion. Here are some guidelines for ALL participants. The official rules regarding the Speculations forum The Speculations forum is provided for those who like to hypothesize new ideas in science. To enrich our discussions above the level of Wild Ass Guesswork (WAG) and give as much meaning as possible to such speculations, we do have some special rules to follow: Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific …

Having posts moved to Pseudoscience & Speculations is not a punishment; it is meant to provide, for any casual reader, a clear divide between mainstream science and that which is still inadequately tested. By posting you have invited objective criticism, and if your post is moved, consider that one critique. Most posts moved here often fall under one or more of the following: No maths. Science requires specific predictions to be made so that a theory may be tested and falsified if it is wrong. Work that needs but lacks a legitimate mathematical framework is almost certain to be moved. Incomprehensible. Science uses well-defined terminology, so if you have made …

Well, on another forum dubblesoix had posted his Gravity model and I started to use Super-gravity equations on it, what is wrong with this, it turned into something strange which I am starting to call a "Wormhole metric" upon E transformation, this has to be wrong I still think what is your opinion on this, the equations that compose it are not wrong but this just seems odd. Dubblesoix's toy model taken way too far, I think. And Before Hand thanks, I know this is a long post to read, just to tell me how wrong the three of us are I blame myself and Polymath for not just dropping it at dubblesoix's solution.

it does seem that there is a faster than light signalling with quantum entanglement issues, but that it cannot transfer any signal other than the basics used to determine a static outcome. Is this because no information can be "added on" to the basic mathematics that determines what is only allowed to happen in normal nature? Could it be possible to artificially "add on" signalling by building unique entangled structures that have a greater bandwidth?

In response to the thread " Something from nothing " I would like to pose a Theory which I have found covers the whole Shebang, namely " the LoT " It is not stated in mathematical form. It is not some fundamental particle , force , etc. It is a lingual or language based statement: It can be built on with other principles and Mathematics as and if required. Quote I have found this works well. Covers Big Bang and before. The whole Shebang, namely " the LoT , ( including Scientific Principles that can be verified)" TRY IT OUT . It works . Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos, 11 March 2011 - 09:41 PM. . originally submitted in "Do you have a n…

Dear moderator @Phi for All, Thanks to the valuable feedback of the members of this forum (especially thanks to @swansont, @joigus and @Ghideon) I realized where I was wrong (use of wrong definitions and unclear arguments) and I am asking for a third and final round (revised work) regarding the same discussion about the possibility of triggering motion in an isolated system through internal forces (Euler Inertial Forces). Again, I would be thankful to show me where I could possibly be wrong. The revised paper (abstract, first two pages and References. Check the new paper in my profile) is now named "Circumventing Newton's third law through Euler Inertial Forces". M…

I'm sure everyone is familiar with the popularized model of gravity and general relativity that features a "latex grid" with a round object "sitting" on it, presumably being pulled down by gravity, stretching the latex and changing the geometry of the grid. The first question that pops into mind is, if this effect is creating gravity, what effect is pulling the ball down into the latex sheet? It would take gravity to make gravity. The second question would be, What is the latex representing? Or, if you are bending something, what is being bent in space-time? The statement "you cannot bend something without it being some thing" does seem to make sense. So we have a mo…

I think I hit onto a really nice fit for plate tectonics. The Earth's core is an electro - magnetic field generator. I could not imagine that it wouldn't have variability in it's cycling of current and field. Nothing is going to be constant, especially magnitohydrodynamic generation as it cycles current and field. I thought the Sun's magnetic field could be imposing variation over longer time periods giving the Earth a historic variable thermal cycle to move the tectonic plates. So I started with a simple model, just a divergent plate boundary, a plate and a convergent boundary (trench). The cycle begins with a small thermal increase in the molten iron core from increased…

Posted today 31st March 2015 Through the General theory of Relativity ,produced by Einstein , we have learned that MASS produces a distortion in space in a proportion to that amount of mass involved. As other fundamental forces have opposites . Eg Electrical positive charge has negative charge as an opposite . Magnetic fields appear to have North and South poles as opposites. If Gravity is a fundamental attraction towards , caused by a certain type of distortion in space as Einstein indicated. ( A ). What is a possible opposite force or repulsion ? ( B ). How can these counter distortions be achieved ? ( C) . Can Centrifugal forces be utilised…

Hi, I have made what is called a "psi wheel" and am able to make it spin using my mind, and without any physical contact. I have done this many times and am 100% sure that this is telekinesis. I am not lying. I am wondering what kind of impacts this has on science. For example what are the mediums being used in telekinesis ? I also experience telepathy, since years ago, and believe it "warps" around the universe, as in two individuals can be on different sides of the universe and contact each other with telepathy instantly. I think telekinesis and telepathy can introduce new concepts into science and help it evolve.

Hello, this is my first time posting on any science related forum, recently i have come across the idea that our entire basis of understanding in the universe may be ....lets say off lol. I am 33 years old, i didnt graduate high school (got my GED) and dropped out of college, i am not an idiot but i am not too good about putting my ideas down on paper, also not very good at punctuation i dont even know that comma was necessary! So please try not to criticize my typing or the way i put words together, im gonna try my best to put forth my thoughts. So i have always been curious about how the world works, how we got here, and why are we here which i think is pretty commo…

Hi all, The above is the title of Chapter 1/20 regarding my very basic but complex idea. In it's very basic form, I see an edge of one item meeting the edge of another item and inbetween these 2 edges is a resonation flux formed from SQEP kinetic energy. I see SQEP's as the very very smallest anything can be before it tries to become 'nothing'. Item 1 & item 2 Breaking down item 1 SQEP's at it's edge and also doing the same to the item 2, this might create a merger between the 2 items where both item 1 and item 2 SQEP's become entwined. Not 50% item 1 and not 50% item 2 but instead graduating from both items and going in both (and all?) d…

I've done nearly everything possible I can think of to block the "flow" of heat out of a Stirling engine, with the idea that if the "heat rejection" could be blocked, the engine would quickly overheat and stop running, or be unable to start running in the first place. To that end, I recently sent away for a silica Aerogel blanket, which is supposed to be very good at blocking heat. I was able to apply a propane torch to one side and not feel heat through the blanket with my hand on the other side. I also used a glass globe from a Coleman lantern to block drafts. As in previous experiments just using styrofoam or house insulation, the engine started and cont…

I have an idea that explains Galaxy Rotation rates without requiring Dark Matter. The URL of my short paper explaining the idea is here: http://vixra.org/pdf/1606.0218v2.pdf

Evolution has never been observed. Saying species evolved over millions of years is a faith statement and is not the scientific method. Science is knowledge from observation. If you believe you have empirical evidence that evolution has been observed. Please put it up. I am not talking about words i am talking about video footage or a photo. I am willing to pay £10 to anyone that has a photo or video evidence of macroevolution taking place.

Recent comments by an Astronomy orientated Researcher Dr Paul J Abel (Patrick Moore Sky at Night Fame ) (see ajb blogg), has posed questions as to whether maths should be leading the resolution of the ( Quantum Gravity issue), which it is, in string theory and other maths orientated research., Yet ( he indicates ) what is really required is a New Einstein ! Observers, Thinkers , and Hypothesis, to lead the field and then the mathematicians can follow and tidy up the details. ! Post script. P.S. . hypothesis : " a suggested explanation for a group of facts, accepted either as a basis for further verification or . …

Why 01:15 and not 01:25? ! Moderator Note (this is referencing https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/105185-time-dilation-dependence-on-direction/) This thread is now the only place where michel123456 may discuss topics related to time and relativity

Swansont wrote: "Clocks "tick" at different rates in different inertial circumstances, as proven by many experiments. does not specifically address the issue of whether it's a mechanical issue of the clock. But this issue has not been ignored — different types of clocks have been tested, and they all show the time dilation effect. So we conclude that the timing changes are due to the effects of relativity. " I'm trying to get at the ontolology of "time," like, what is "it" besides event duration between designated instants? I know that our most sophistcated clocks show what has come to be known as "time dilation," but how is that different than, as above, the fact t…

Abstract In this speculative paper, we show that electromagnetic (EM) mass and general relativistic time dilation are sufficient to predict gravitational attraction. Time Dilation as Refraction First, we consider light moving slowly through a local medium with a large refractive index; we then observe a remote light ray moving slowly in a large gravitational field due to relativistic time dilation, such that their respective apparent velocities are equal, and recognize the opportunity for a potential equivalence. Exploring this, we create a spherical refractive medium whose index varies with the distance from its center by the following: where r i…

I have posted a new paper on viXra that derives the Hubble shift as a relativistic Illusionary effect. This would disprove the accelerating expanding universe theory and eliminate the need for "dark energy". The paper also derives the mass/energy of the dark matter of M31, Andromeda, eliminating the need for "dark matter". As we cannot post links here, if you would like to read this paper and begin a discussion here on its merits, please search for the following paper: "Relativistic Derivations of Gravity, Dark Matter, the Hubble Shift and Foundational Particle Physics."

I watched "The Phenomenon" last night, I have to say it was the best UFO documentary I've seen. It blowed my former fav out of the water and then some. It had lots of footage of people who ere involved back in the day and other footage I had never seen. I thought I'd pretty much seen them all but this one resets the bar. It really too bad it's not on youtube so we could go through it by timestamp, lots of interesting things to discuss! I would ask anything here who wants to discuss the UFO subject to watch this video, really great stuff and relatively unbiased, "just the Facts ma'am" (vague TV reference, Dragnet"