Jump to content

The Spirit Of Science


Recommended Posts

I have had some very interesting interactions on this site and I dont believe they are in the spirit of science.

I have a framework for a theory of everything however discussion of this is not allowed. The reason it is not allowed is because the admins are too busy judging me and not what I am presenting. For example, no one has ever said 'oh yes, that explains why reality is mathematical' or 'actually, that doesnt explain why reality is mathematical'. There is no discussion about what I am presenting it is rather dismissed because an admin simply doesnt believe there is a theory of everything or some other belief or opinion. Peoples beliefs and prejudices should not stop objective discussion of facts. The admins call it my 'pet theory', but that is just them attacking me, not critising my theory, its not my pet theory it is simply 'a theory' that can be evaulated independent of my own personal beliefs.

The admins ask for evidence, so well lets look at the evidence, the facts. Contempary physics does not explain the following:

- The origin of the laws of the universe.

- The ubiquity of the laws of the universe.

- Why reality is mathematical, or rather how reality is imbued with laws.

 

These are facts, to the best of my knowledge, and if these have been explained I would love to know.

Otherwise, I think it is worthy discussing such matters because I have a rather novel idea that explains this things.

Consequently, unlike string theory and other theories of everything, this one actually explains 'why' reality is mathematical. Is that not worthy of discussion?

I mean, if I cant share my understanding of why reality is mathematical and discuss its merits and flaws so I can grow, can I at least hear other peoples explanations for 'why' reality is mathematical?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

I have had some very interesting interactions on this site and I dont believe they are in the spirit of science.

 

Interesting interactions maybe, but were you selective in your replies ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, studiot said:

Interesting interactions maybe, but were you selective in your replies ?

Maybe you feel that way, I do think people are judging me and not the ideas I am putting forward. Do you want to dicuss this privately so we can we use this thread to talk about science?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear @PrimalMinister,

I'll tell you of the cautionary tale of Enrico Fermi. In the mid 1930s he submitted a paper to Nature. It was flatly rejected. Today we know it contains the essence of beta decay at first order. Of course, it miserably fails at every other order you may wish to push the theory through. Today we know why: Essentially because he missed the need for massive Z's and W's in weak interactions.

He didn't get discouraged though. He pushed forward because he thought he had had a good idea. And he managed to get it published somewhere else.*

Mind you,

1) He didn't try to explain everything

2) He wasn't discouraged

3) He didn't spend a moment of his valuable time in criticising Nature's editors and referees --to the best of my knowledge

Why aren't you a bit more like Fermi?

* E Fermi, Attempt at a Theory of \( \beta \)-rays, Il Nuovo Cimento, Vol.11, p.1, 1934;

Zeitschrift fur Physik, Vol.88, p.161, 1934.

(My red emphasis.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

I do think people are judging me and not the ideas I am putting forward.

I have to disagree, I see people judging the merits of your ideas, not you.  No one here knows you, how could we possibly judge you.  We can judge your ideas because these are presented here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PrimalMinister said:

Maybe you feel that way, I do think people are judging me and not the ideas I am putting forward.

Don't just make the claim! Dig back through some of your threads and show where people are judging YOU and not your idea. This is what we mean by supportive evidence, and likely why your ideas don't merit discussion per our rules. People are taking their time to assess the science in your posts, so you need to do more than wave your hands. More rigor, please!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

I have had some very interesting interactions on this site and I dont believe they are in the spirit of science.

I have a framework for a theory of everything however discussion of this is not allowed. The reason it is not allowed is because the admins are too busy judging me and not what I am presenting.

People practically begged you to present evidence, and you didn’t

Quote

For example, no one has ever said 'oh yes, that explains why reality is mathematical' or 'actually, that doesnt explain why reality is mathematical'. There is no discussion about what I am presenting it is rather dismissed because an admin simply doesnt believe there is a theory of everything or some other belief or opinion. Peoples beliefs and prejudices should not stop objective discussion of facts. The admins call it my 'pet theory', but that is just them attacking me, not critising my theory, its not my pet theory it is simply 'a theory' that can be evaulated independent of my own personal beliefs.

The admins ask for evidence, so well lets look at the evidence, the facts. Contempary physics does not explain the following:

- The origin of the laws of the universe.

- The ubiquity of the laws of the universe.

- Why reality is mathematical, or rather how reality is imbued with laws.

This isn’t evidence supporting a theory. This is a list of things you want science to explain.

Quote

 

These are facts, to the best of my knowledge, and if these have been explained I would love to know.

Which would be an acceptable discussion topic, but you claimed to have a theory, and did not present evidence to support that claim.

Quote

Otherwise, I think it is worthy discussing such matters because I have a rather novel idea that explains this things.

Consequently, unlike string theory and other theories of everything, this one actually explains 'why' reality is mathematical. Is that not worthy of discussion?

You had your chances. Every time you bring this up, you complain about how you’ve been mistreated, instead of presenting evidence - the one thing that would keep a thread open

Quote

I mean, if I cant share my understanding of why reality is mathematical and discuss its merits and flaws so I can grow, can I at least hear other peoples explanations for 'why' reality is mathematical?

Sure. Open up a thread and ask that question. But don’t discuss your theory because you’ve used up you chances to do that. At this point, bringing it up again probably gets you banned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 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.