haroonkhan87

With due respect, rejecting a hypothesis without debate or identifiable reasoning is not science — it’s dismissal. If those responding here identify as scientists, then proper scientific conduct requires explanation and reference, not opinion or ridicule. I have not seen a single counter supported by data, models, or falsifiable reasoning — only tone and authority. Standing for one’s own dignity against personal mockery is not “ego” or “threatening.” You may review the comment history yourself and judge the civility of replies before making that accusation. Science advances by critique, not contempt — and by reasoning, not rank. I appreciate your respectful and constructive tone — that’s the spirit of real scientific exchange. I’ll review the book you suggested (“Atmosphere and Ocean: Our Fluid Environment”) and would be glad to analyze a definite example together. The underlying concept I’m exploring — dimensional nodes and energetic gateways influencing airflow — remains central, but I’m open to discussing how these might interface with the established atmospheric dynamics described in your reference. I appreciate your wording, but bluntly calling a theory “nonsense” or “hocus-pocus” is neither constructive nor suitable for a science forum intended for debate. According to the forum rules, I presented my theory clearly and referenced supporting concepts. Instead of addressing the scientific points, the focus was repeatedly on metaphors, background, or personal commentary — without providing actual scientific references to counter the hypothesis.

That question is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I never implied any book is worth burning - there is none. Let’s focus on the scientific topic rather than sidetracking into unrelated hypotheticals.

Official Warning to All Members: Over the past five days, instead of debating ideas, I have faced personal attacks, mockery, and discrimination. Let this be clear: I will no longer tolerate such behavior. Any future instances will be reported immediately through all available channels, including the forum’s reporting system, public records, and relevant authorities. Discussion must remain focused on ideas, evidence, and reasoning. Attempts to demean or harass me personally will have consequences. Civility is mandatory. This is your final notice.

@exchemist I will respond clearly: dismissing a documented hypothesis as “nonsense” without addressing the content, evidence, or reasoning is disrespectful and unscientific. My work is publicly verified via ORCID and Authorea, and I have engaged every critique with logic and references. If you wish to challenge the theory, focus on the reasoning, calculations, or evidence — not personal insults. Calling something “nonsense” is not argumentation; it is deliberate belittling. I am happy to continue discussion on conceptual or experimental points, but personal attacks will not be entertained.

@swansont , let’s address this carefully. You repeatedly assert that I must present finalized, fully-tested science, but the ScienceForums.net guidelines themselves contradict your position. Section 1 and 2 of the official guidelines clearly state: “ScienceForums.net is dedicated to providing a forum for the discussion of all things scientific with the highest degree of integrity and respectability. We aim to provide all individuals, regardless of their education level, a forum to express their ideas and love of science… You have an opportunity to present mathematical models of how nature might behave, and present ideas for experiments that would test the model.” Nowhere does it require that ideas be finalized with complete experimental validation. Conceptual frameworks, early-stage hypotheses, and thought experiments are explicitly welcomed, provided they are logically constructed and open to discussion — which my posts clearly are. Regarding your claim that I ignored fundamental atmospheric physics: my opening abstract and introduction outline the conceptual premise — it is intentionally presented as a theoretical framework. Once the framework is understood, the theory expands into specific mechanisms, including the dimensional kinetic energy approach. Abstracts and introductions always start with highlighting questions and reasoning before presenting detailed theory points, which is standard scientific practice. As for the ORCID point, you wrote: “As @TheVat points out, you can ‘publish’ any old rubbish on them. They tell you nothing at all about the credibility of the material.” Have you personally investigated ORCID’s credibility, or is this objection motivated by offense at a reference I included? ORCID provides persistent, globally recognized identifiers linking researchers to verifiable works. Authorea and Figshare are legitimate platforms used worldwide for drafting, collaboration, and preprint publication — my work is public, traceable, and associated with my name. This is verifiable for anyone who takes a moment to check. Finally, your repeated insistence that my background or “offense” invalidates the theory is irrelevant. The issue is not my religion, nationality, or use of metaphor — the issue is the logic, consistency, and testable predictions of the framework, which I have laid out systematically. Historical precedent shows all authentic scientific ideas start as conceptual frameworks: Thales, Aristotle, Newton, Tesla, Einstein — none were immediately finalized or universally accepted, yet their ideas reshaped science. If, after this, the argument still focuses on my credentials, religion, or adherence to textbook norms, the problem is not with the theory but with your bias. My posts follow forum rules: they present a model, include evidence, and invite constructive discussion — which is exactly what ScienceForums.net allows.

I’d like to clarify the structure and intent of my paper, which might help resolve this apparent contradiction. The statement you quoted appears in the Abstract and Introduction, which are meant to highlight observed inconsistencies and open questions, rather than to present finalized conclusions. At that stage, the goal is to frame the problem and motivate the exploration. The subsequent sections - Observations, Logical Points, and Theoretical Framework - explicitly recognize atmospheric physics, including pressure decrease with altitude, while proposing additional dynamics (Kinetic-Dimensional Energy and dimensional nodes) that might supplement current explanations where they appear incomplete or inconsistent. So the initial phrasing was not a denial of fundamental atmospheric science, but a starting point for inquiry -the “what is unexplained” that motivates the theory. The formal theory respects known physics and builds on it. I hope this clarifies the context of those statements and shows that the argument is intentionally layered, rather than contradictory.

To clarify, my earlier statement regarding air thinning with altitude was not meant to dispute standard atmospheric physics. I fully recognize that air pressure decreases with height due to gravity and the weight of the air column above. The point I am raising is about gaps in explaining localized wind behavior: Certain deserts, seas, or high-altitude regions display highly variable or unique wind patterns despite similar pressure and temperature gradients. Micro-regional wind signatures often repeat over decades, but conventional models cannot fully predict or explain them. The Dimensional Airflow Hypothesis does not reject the known physics of pressure, temperature, or atmospheric dynamics. Instead, it supplements them with the idea of Kinetic-Dimensional Energy entering through energetic nodes, which could account for the irregularities and unexplained variations in airflow. Put simply: the classical models explain some of what we observe, but not all. My framework aims to explore the aspects that remain unaccounted for. This approach is in line with how major scientific ideas historically began — with conceptual reasoning and observation, before formal modeling and experimentation. The goal here is discussion and exploration, not denial of fundamentals. If we focus only on established explanations, we risk ignoring phenomena that may point toward a broader understanding.

I am fully aware of standard atmospheric physics, including thinning air with altitude. My work does not reject pressure or temperature effects — it explores whether these alone explain observed wind anomalies, like regional inconsistencies and altitude behavior. These are phenomena that standard models describe statistically, but not mechanistically, which my hypothesis addresses. Ockham’s Razor favors simplicity, but science expands when reasoning or evidence demands it. Concepts like gravity, electromagnetism, and Higgs fields were “unnecessary” before discovery. Extra dimensions and portals are considered in modern theoretical physics (String Theory, M-Theory). Extending this framework to airflow is a valid conceptual hypothesis. As @TheVat points out, you can "publish" anything on open repositories, but did you check ORCID’s credibility? My paper, The Dimensional Airflow Hypothesis, is on Authorea with a DOI via ORCID (doi: 10.22541/au.176063115.57976735/v1). ORCID is a globally recognized nonprofit that provides persistent, verifiable researcher IDs. Anyone can verify authorship and timestamp. Publication there is not casual blogging, it is transparent and trackable. All major scientific ideas begin conceptually. Newton observed the apple, Tesla proposed wireless electricity, Einstein built on experimental confirmations. Immediate formal proof is not required to present a valid hypothesis, as history consistently shows. Acknowledging metaphors like the “veil” is not imposing religion. It illustrates limits of perception in understanding unseen phenomena. Using a Quranic reference does not replace logical reasoning — the hypothesis is based on observable, physical consequences. Yes, I used AI to refine my writing, but it did not generate the theory itself — the ideas, reasoning, and observations are fully mine. In conclusion: dismissing this hypothesis because it is unconventional, or because of my background, ignores history, reasoning, and verifiable publication. If after reviewing this you still reject it, the issue is not with the theory — it is with the unwillingness to engage with non-textbook approaches.

As the scienceforum.net itself states: “You have an opportunity to present mathematical models of how nature might behave, and present ideas for experiments that would test the model.” Nowhere does it say that ideas must be presented only at a fully finalized stage — conceptual frameworks and early-stage theories are welcome for discussion. Let me clarify a few points for anyone still questioning the credibility or relevance of this work. 1. Authorea and ORCID Verification My paper, The Dimensional Airflow Hypothesis, has been publicly published on Authorea and assigned a DOI via ORCID. Authorea is a legitimate platform for drafting, collaboration, and preprint publication within the scientific community, and ORCID is a globally recognized nonprofit providing persistent identifiers for researchers. The DOI ensures authorship and establishes traceable contribution - this is verifiable by anyone. If there is doubt, you can check the record yourself; it is fully transparent. 2. Conceptual Stage vs. Finalized Science Science always begins with ideas. No major discovery was presented fully formed with equations, experiments, and proofs on day one. Newton observed an apple drop and formulated the theory of gravity - he was mocked for it. Tesla proposed wireless electricity concepts long before devices could implement them. Einstein’s 1905 work built on earlier experimental confirmations, and even then his insights were debated before acceptance. To dismiss a conceptual framework at the idea stage ignores how every authentic scientific progression begins. 3. Historical Precedent The first genuine theorists, from Thales of Miletus to Aristotle, worked in ways that parallel this process: • Thales (c. 624–545 BCE) proposed that water is the fundamental element of the cosmos - a rational, non-mythological explanation. He lacked formal experimentation as we define it today. • Aristotle (384–322 BCE) systematically observed nature, classified animals, and developed physics and metaphysics. His approach was logical and structured, even without modern experimentation or quantification. The lesson is clear: major theories always start with observation and reasoning, then evolve through testing and formalization. 4. The Theory in Context My work proposes that air and wind may not be fully explained by conventional atmospheric physics alone. Instead, I introduce the concept of Kinetic-Dimensional Energy entering our observable dimension through energetic nodes. Variations in wind behavior, altitude inconsistencies, and unique environmental patterns may reflect interactions with this underlying dimensional lattice. 5. Relation to Modern Theoretical Physics Extra dimensions and interactions beyond our perception are already part of theoretical physics discussions: • String Theory/M-Theory suggests additional spatial dimensions that are compactified or warped. • Concepts like “portals” in these models describe points where fields or particles from hidden dimensions might interact with ours. • The idea of energy leakage or dimensional influence is not rejected outright by theoretical frameworks; it simply lacks experimental confirmation, as do many frontier physics hypotheses. My theory extends these ideas into observable phenomena (wind patterns, airflow inconsistencies) in a way that can be explored further experimentally. If theories like M-Theory or relativity can start from conceptual reasoning and mathematical inference, why is it invalid to explore an idea in atmospheric behavior using a similar approach? 6. The Core Argument The focus should be on evaluating the logical consistency and potential of the hypothesis, rather than dismissing it for not yet having fully measurable proofs or textbook familiarity. Open discussion, critique, and experimentation are what allow new ideas to evolve into established science - exactly as history has repeatedly shown. In conclusion: the paper is publicly documented, verifiable, and intended as a framework for discussion. Critique is welcome, but dismissal based on procedural technicalities rather than reasoning does not advance understanding. If after all this detailed explanation you still reject it, then the issue is not with the theory - it’s with me, because I don’t come from your textbook culture. But let me give an example: some read textbooks to gain knowledge, while others create knowledge that later gets printed in textbooks. The choice is always yours which side you want to stand on.

The Dimensional Airflow Hypothesis The Dimensional Overlap Hypothesis: For those still doubting credibility — even the so-called “chatbot” has its work verified and published on Authorea. Evidence is stronger than assumptions.

I understand that new ideas can be challenging, especially when they step outside familiar frameworks. However, for clarity - this isn’t an unverified post; it’s a documented paper. It has been publicly published and assigned a DOI via Figshare and ORCID under my name (DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.30373507). If the concept were irrelevant or without merit, it would not have passed that stage of publication. I welcome constructive debate on the idea itself — not personal opinions or attempts to silence discussion. If anyone wishes to discuss the framework, I’m open to thoughtful analysis and counterpoints — that’s how theories evolve.

I get it, though I hope the idea itself can still be part of the discussion. That’s how new perspectives grow. Thanks for pointing that out - and I understand your concern about keeping things within forum guidelines. My intention wasn’t to reintroduce the earlier thread inappropriately, but to clarify and refine parts that were misunderstood before. Regarding Einstein’s 1905 work - you’re absolutely right that it built on experimental results already available, like the Michelson–Morley findings and Maxwell’s equations. My point was simply that his interpretation - the leap to special relativity - was theoretical at its core and only later validated more directly. In that sense, I was drawing a parallel between how new theoretical thinking often emerges before formal confirmation. I genuinely appreciate the corrections and discussion. I’ll make sure to respond more directly to technical points and stay aligned with forum standards. I’m not here to challenge the rules - just to exchange ideas and learn through open dialogue.

I appreciate the feedback from everyone here. I want to clarify something - I’m not presenting this theory as a finalized or proven model, but as an early conceptual framework to discuss and refine, exactly as every major scientific idea began. It seems I’m being pushed toward the edge simply because this doesn’t fit into existing textbook categories. But the foundations of science were built by those who began before formal proof existed. Early scientists weren’t degree-holders following a structure - they were observers, thinkers, and risk-takers. They noticed something different, proposed it, and only then developed measurable models over time. If we look back, many great theories started as conceptual - Tesla’s wireless electricity, Einstein’s early formulation of relativity and even E=mc² - these took years of refinement and critique before experimental confirmation. Dismissing a developing concept as “speculation” without exploring its logical base risks discouraging inquiry itself. All I’m asking for is engagement with the idea - to question the logic, the gaps, or possible directions for testing - not to silence it for being new. That’s how science actually grows: by challenging what seems settled and allowing new interpretations a space to breathe.

I appreciate your comments. I understand the importance of falsifiability and measurement - those are indeed the core of scientific development. But we can’t reach that stage until a conceptual framework exists to guide what’s worth measuring. Every experiment begins with a structured thought, not a formula. My focus here is to establish that missing conceptual step - a structured hypothesis that could inspire measurable paths forward. If this is what you define as a “framework,” I’ll gladly accept that title - because every theory began as one.

I understand your point, and I completely respect that everyone approaches such ideas through their own framework. My mention of the divine reference isn’t meant to impose belief, but simply to recognize that throughout history, many scientific explorations began as intuitive or philosophical observations before they became formally measurable. However, I wouldn’t describe this as speculation - it’s a theory derived from consistent reasoning and observation. Every scientific principle we now consider “mainstream” once began as a challenge to existing interpretation. My approach doesn’t reject measurable physics like pressure or temperature; it simply questions whether these factors tell the whole story, or if there’s an overlooked dynamic at play. I’m open to discussion and critique - that’s how theories evolve. But labeling new ideas as “speculation” before examining their logic only repeats the same cycle that once delayed progress for earlier thinkers.