Jump to content

My Ideas for New Scientific Theories-What do YOU Think?


Salik Imran
 Share

Recommended Posts

Introduction:
I have been recently been having ideas about the physics that occur in our bodies, and I have come up with a few theories. I have spoken to my science teacher, and she advised me to write to the naked scientists. I have had no reply from them yet, so I will post my theories on this forum.

At the moment, I am 13. I would like to develop my ideas into a scientific paper by the middle of next year when I will turn 14. I have written to many people asking them if they could help me, in terms of supplying me with chances the validate my theory with research. (No one has replied properly yet). I want to add more value to the scientific community so if anyone can get in touch with someone who can help me, please let me know.
Yours sincerely,
Salik Imran, 13.
(The theories are in the attachment below, and it is free to download if you are a guest).

*There is a mistake in my pdf. Where I say "faster that light", it it not. Look at it as a number line. The actual start event can be at the 0 seconds mark, while the light emitted can be t 0.0001 seconds. Hope that helps.

**First posted at thenakedscientists.com on the 27/10/2020 16:05:21.

My Ideas on New Scientific Concepts and Theories(edited)-converted (1).pdf

Edited by Salik Imran
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In collaboration with my form tutor and careers teacher, I have presented my presentation to my form class this week! It explains my ideas in a more reader-friendly and less compact way. All went well, and it as a good experience, even if half of them weren't listening. Unfortunately, I could not video it, but I will attach a copy of the PowerPoint below. Now, I will try to write about my ideas in more detail, listing factors that affect the ideas, experiments (if I can devise them), and other stuff.

Also, I have reached out to the Royal society's grants and fellowship department in London, requesting my ideas to be shared with the appropriate fellows of the society. I have also contacted the Department of Psychology at Cambridge University, and Dr CJ Moore from the same department. Dr Moore is an emeritus professor of auditory perception and a world-famous researcher/expert in his field! I await responses from all of them.

I hope that within a few years, I will be able to submit my ideas for research, and then hopefully develop them into theories. Don't forget to criticise/compliment on my presentation. Lastly can I ask that if anyone sees a bit of research, papers, topics, questions and any other things related to my ideas, please can you share them with me, as this would help me?

Yours sincerely,
Salik Imran, 13.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uGOKWbtjPwE8TVxQnS86c_iCdk1uEb74/view?usp=sharing
(Too big to attach. Full explanations have been done in school. For full explanations, please contact me, post on the forum, or see the limited explanations in my word document explaining my ideas briefly. Thanks).

*Is this better?

 

Edited by Salik Imran
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that you are saying that light travels faster than sound or nerve signals in the body. From that you jump to "I think that the point when the action is created is ‘ground zero’ and might be faster than light as it takes up no time. It’s hard to explain but I think you get the idea". Well, ... I do not get the idea. I even had to look up the term "ground zero". But it did not help to know that it means a point on the surface that a bomb explodes over.

 

I do not understand what you are trying to say, so it is hard to give constructive advise here. I think it could make sense to think if "the point where the action is created" really has a speed, and what that would be. If it has no speed, then you cannot compare it to the speed of light. Note that "speed" in this context means distance traveled per unit of time, not "time it takes for something to happen".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did say...

1 hour ago, Salik Imran said:

*There is a mistake in my pdf. Where I say "faster that light", it it not. Look at it as a number line. The actual start event can be at the 0 seconds mark, while the light emitted can be t 0.0001 seconds.

When I was talking about how the action was quicker than light, I was trying to say that the action that starts the action is instantaneous, thus taking no or very little time compared to how long it takes for the light to travel through the air, into our eyes and to our brain by nerve impulses.
Ground zero is just a phrase that I used to say that the start of that event is 0 in terms of seconds/time. Look at it like this: When lightening flashes, you hear the boom afterwards. Why? Because light is faster that sound, or, the light "happened" before the sound. If you do this, but substituting light for sound, and the start of the event for light, you get what I want to try and prove. Get it? 

Lastly, when you hear a sound, you do not her the sound in both ears at once. For example, you will hear a sound from the left in your left ear 0.25 Nano seconds after I clap, and hear it at 0.5 Nano seconds in the right ear. What will the brain do? It will delay the signals so you can work out where in the sound came from in the 3 dimensions. S when you see the clap and hear it, you will think it happens at the same time, because the brain likes to do that. So stake this logic and apply t to what I am saying about light and the action. The action and the light happen at different times in space-time and the brain makes up for that 'time'. This is what I wan to prove.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Salik, in your pdf you open with these sentences: "The speed of light is 299 792 458 m/s. When we move our hand, we see the movement straight away because of the close distance that the light has to travel between the hand and our eyes. We also feel the movement straight away as the speed of the nerve impulses are very quick: they are not that quick compared to light."

Based upon other remarks later in your pdf I don't think you actually mean what you say here. But I'm going to assume, for the moment, that you do think these statements are accurate and I am going to correct them.

We don't see the movement of our hand straight away. The distance is small and the speed of light is large, as you say, but it still takes a finite time for the light to reach our eyes. It then takes time for the signal to be converted, sent down the optic nerve and interpreted by the brain. So, what you may have meant was "for all most practical purposes we see the movement straight away"

Equally we don't feel the movement straight away, though you say we do. (And there are multiple possibilities as to what you might mean by "feel".)

Before we proceed further with your ideas would you comment on these contradictions between what you wrote and reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Area54,

Thank you for the feedback! I intentionally did this to introduce the topic, first, you have to start small, and then take small steps until you explain in detail. Some teachers do this. For example, if you are learning French. You will find out about the present tense and simple rules. Yu will learn phrases but will not know why they are like that. Later n, you will learn all the rules in-depth and understand the tricks of the trade, if you get what I am saying. 

I do not think that the opening statements are true,  but what I did is what I explained above. Introduce, build, dive in.

Finally, you are right to say that 'feel' can be interpreted in different ways. In this context, it is just you feeling the skin rubbing on something, the motion, air resistance. Etc.

I hope this clears it up,

Yours sincerely

Salik Imran, 13.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Humans are not good measurement systems. There are many layers of processing that are done which are complicated and not well understood. Even what seem like simple things are complicated when you investigate further. 

Mirror therapy is a good example of how the human mind can be trivially tricked, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_therapy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Klaynos said:

Humans are not good measurement systems. There are many layers of processing that are done which are complicated and not well understood. Even what seem like simple things are complicated when you investigate further. 

 

Thanks, but can you explain how this relates to my ideas?

 

8 hours ago, Klaynos said:

Mirror therapy is a good example of how the human mind can be trivially tricked, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_therapy.

Yes, a good example. I heard about it via a BBC documentary. Yet again, I do not understand the connection, so can you explain please? This would be appreciated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.