2 minutes ago, Dhillon1724X said:

Does it have maths?

Very little and basic math...you don't use heavy math on laymen...after getting the essence,math follows.

3 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

Very little and basic math...you don't use heavy math on laymen...after getting the essence,math follows.

The one i just posted is yours?

4 minutes ago, Dhillon1724X said:

Is this yours?

FASTER AND FURTHER THAN SPEED OF LIGHT-BASIC UNIVERSE THEORY.

by MJ KIHARA | 2 March 2023

Yes it is...let me stop...you people in the forum have a good time.

Just now, MJ kihara said:

Yes it is...let me stop...you people in the forum have a good time.

I will recommend not to leave.
Refine your work,prove yourself.

1 minute ago, MJ kihara said:

Yes it is...let me stop...you people in the forum have a good time.

Well its very expensive,Its 3,938 in Indian Rupees.
In dollars its just 45.43.

4 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

Very little and basic math...you don't use heavy math on laymen...after getting the essence,math follows.

This site isn't for everyone. Other places have different rules. Our are designed to facilitate meaningful science discussion using mainstream knowledge, and the word "meaningful" is important here. It's very important in science that you explain your idea in a way that allows others to understand it and test it.

We don't like wasting much time on houses built of cards. Meaningful conversations are built on strong foundations. Why should anyone continue to talk to you until you explain what you mean by an assertion that isn't mainstream knowledge?

And now we see that you were probably trying to sell a book on Amazon to "laymen" (aka, people who don't know better). We gave you many, many pages and almost a year of attention, and you couldn't help us "get the essence" so we could see the math that follows.

You were told many times where you were going wrong. Since you ignored all that, I have to assume you weren't interested in learning at all. Soapboxing and bad faith arguments are also against our rules.

21 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

I have already developed the theory...and published a book using simple layman language that even if another less developed civilization come about they would update themselves to the current level rather quickly.I was patiently outlining critical issue before all the picture come out...for instance if I tell you those virtual particles have a connection to the rotation curve of Galaxy what will you say...just laugh and say am hallucinating.

I was barely scratching the surface...I was laying the ground work...I came to these place coz it is a community of mostly scientist...I never thought personal issues will be put upfront...like someone has pride... what's that? Am from humble background....where I am, getting time to chat all the day is not a cup of tea.

Philosophically speaking, you do fit a well known stereotype; typically, not long lived 'in these here part's'... 😉

On 7/29/2025 at 2:23 PM, dimreepr said:

Philosophically speaking, you do fit a well known stereotype; typically, not long lived 'in these here part's'... 😉

Rotation curve of galaxies stays flat for millions of light years with no end in sight.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/06/240617173533.htm

Someone coming up with something that can provide understanding for such issue and do it in a manner that can even be intuitive to a layman.

Does that person fit in your explanation of a stereotype; typically, not long lived 'in these here part's'... 😉 ????

1 hour ago, MJ kihara said:

Someone coming up with something that can provide understanding for such issue and do it in a manner that can even be intuitive to a layman.

How? You cannot explain MOND or DM models properly without Mathematics.

Can you explain GR or QT without Mathematics?

What would be the point? It would be like explaining music without actually playing music?

It would give a hint at best, misdirection at worst which is what a lot of pop science does.

It so happens that I am a moderator on a completely different forum not to do with science. Assuming the arrangement here is much the same perhaps members should realise that moderators are carefully chosen for their knowledge and the benefit that they can give to their forum. They do not receive any reward for their time spent helping the forum to flow as harmoniously as possible except the occasional word of thanks. In short: it can sometimes be a thankless job. Just saying........

4 hours ago, OldTony said:

They do not receive any reward for their time spent helping the forum to flow as harmoniously as possible except the occasional word of thanks. I

I totally get that

8 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

Rotation curve of galaxies stays flat for millions of light years with no end in sight.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/06/240617173533.htm

Someone coming up with something that can provide understanding for such issue and do it in a manner that can even be intuitive to a layman.

Does that person fit in your explanation of a stereotype; typically, not long lived 'in these here part's'... 😉 ????

Teachers do it every day, they've been trained to do exactly that; a stereotypical teacher is a pedantic bar steward... 😉

5 hours ago, OldTony said:

It so happens that I am a moderator on a completely different forum not to do with science. Assuming the arrangement here is much the same perhaps members should realise that moderators are carefully chosen for their knowledge and the benefit that they can give to their forum. They do not receive any reward for their time spent helping the forum to flow as harmoniously as possible except the occasional word of thanks. In short: it can sometimes be a thankless job. Just saying........

Indeed, I literally couldn't do their job, they are so much more than me...

Just now, dimreepr said:

Indeed, I literally couldn't do their job, they are so much more than me...

Man Know thyself

Socrates

+1

6 hours ago, OldTony said:

It so happens that I am a moderator on a completely different forum not to do with science. Assuming the arrangement here is much the same perhaps members should realise that moderators are carefully chosen for their knowledge and the benefit that they can give to their forum. They do not receive any reward for their time spent helping the forum to flow as harmoniously as possible except the occasional word of thanks. In short: it can sometimes be a thankless job. Just saying.......

The Moderators do hardwork for us,To make our experience better and they help us.
Without them this forum will fall apart.
They deserve respect.

Edited August 4Aug 4 by Dhillon1724X

21 hours ago, Dhillon1724X said:

The Moderators do hardwork for us,To make our experience better and they help us.
Without them this forum will fall apart.
They deserve respect.

Don't we all?

If plebs like me didn't provide some entertainment/controversy, we'd all be hearing the echoes of our souls... 😉

6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Don't we all?

If plebs like me didn't provide some entertainment/controversy, we'd all be hearing the echoes of our souls... 😉

Well you are right but they help us to get right entertainment.

6 minutes ago, Dhillon1724X said:

Well you are right but they help us to get right entertainment.

Hmm, smells like bias to me...

23 hours ago, studiot said:

Socrates

+1

Thx, but I'm thinking Nietsche, as in the ubermench/superteacher who can explain it in our language...

Can someone tell us how does discovery comes about?

8 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

Can someone tell us how does discovery comes about?

You are not discovering anything; you are attempting to build a model that describes the workings of what has already been discovered by experiment and observation.
And you are not doing it very well, as you don't constrain your model by the experimental and observational discoveries, nor building a self-consistent mathematical model which can make quantitative predictions.
And furthermore, when called out on these failing aspects of your 'model' ( very loose term ), you whine about it and blame others for pointing out your deficiencies.

If you don't like the criticism you've gotten on this forum, you can always direct your web browser to another site.

9 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

Can someone tell us how does discovery comes about?

I presume you mean in science, given the context. I would say by considering observations of nature and learning the theories that account for them, and then by either making new classes of observation that go beyond what these theories account for, or by forming hypotheses, testable by observation, that account for observations that the theories do not cover adequately.

P.S. Written before seeing the post from @MigL , but can be read in conjunction with that.

Edited August 5Aug 5 by exchemist

33 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

Can someone tell us how does discovery comes about?

Build on what we already observe and have studied extensively, using theories that have mountains of evidence to support them. Take advantage of accumulated human knowledge. If you don't know these theories, you should study them academically.

Discovery happens when someone who understands enough is able to add a new piece to the jigsaw puzzle. Science is like that, new knowledge stemming from a connection to the old knowledge.

Sorry if I've said this to you before, but no matter what you attempt to do, if you only know a small part of how to do it, you have to make up the rest. You have to guess what the next step is, and like any guess, it's only as good as your understanding of the subject. We shouldn't fill large gaps in our knowledge with things we've made up; this makes us believe the explanation is "intuitive", since it makes perfect sense to us.

Also, popular science articles are NOT a science education. Often, like the last link you provided, the authors propose mysterious sources or unknown forces at work in the universe. It's sensationalism, but it catches the eye. Every theory is limited in scope, and can't be used to explain every aspect of a phenomenon, so pop-sci writers can always find something "unexplained" about science.

53 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

Can someone tell us how does discovery comes about?

There’s no one path or formula for discovery.

But in the context of this thread, one response is: not here. The kind of wild, unsupported conjecture you started putting forth a few weeks back is not within the scope of our rules. You are not the first, nor likely the last, to get vocal about not liking that the rules apply to you.

We aren’t compelled to accommodate you. There are sites that don’t tolerate any against-the-mainstream discussion at all. Here were permit it as long as it’s at a point where one can (at least in principle) compare it to experiment and/or existing models. As the mods often tell people who start soapboxing: this isn’t your blog.

We’re not set up for more chaotic discussion, or a firehose of crackpot ramblings, and we want to be able to exert leverage on people to get them to respond to inquiry with a handful of volunteer moderators. So we have a line, and your posts were on the wrong side of it.

@MJ kihara you do owe @swansont an apology if you didn’t give one already

1 hour ago, MJ kihara said:

Can someone tell us how does discovery comes about?

Here is an open and honest offer to take this question as a serious attempt to improve your performance / knowledge, rather than criticising or arguing with it.

If you are serious about this question, and I tell you that educated people take it seriously, I suggest it would be a good idea to place it in its own thread away from all this playground name calling.

History is rich in great examples of different ways to discover something.

How about it ?

Over to you.

2 hours ago, MigL said:

you whine about it and blame others for pointing out your deficiencies.

It seems it gets worse whenever I try...you know MigL i can just start playing to the rhythm by posting what's already established what I need to do is just paraphrase it ..and I won't quarrel with anyone around...I think I have a not so bad understanding....my ranking by now could be shining in forum...which one is easier?

3 hours ago, MigL said:

If you don't like the criticism you've gotten on this forum,

A criticism is not issued to be liked...anyway, I analyse it carefully..I go through my threads to try figure out any useful thing I get from criticism.

3 hours ago, MigL said:

you can always direct your web browser to another site.

I get you.

Have always asked my self why do I keep pushing...I think self censorship should be given as a condition,coz that is what getting in my mind...esp when someone start deleting and rewriting sentences.

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Discovery happens when someone who understands enough is able to add a new piece to the jigsaw puzzle.

Jigsaw puzzle when added at rate beyond comprehension can lead to catastrophy....that I think it's my case..when I was new in the forum I talked about neutrinos but in a language that was more poetic, it's part of jigsaw.I talked about jumping out of black hole also more poetic and more of an irony...is it possible for me to convince these people( scientific community entrenched in established science)?...I engaged in talks about consciousness it lead me to highjacking label..e.t.c..e.t.c then finally in the parameter of TOE...I atleast outlined the condition necessary, waited to see anyone able to challenge the conditions,no one forthcoming...I went for it.

All this are part of jigsaw...so huge with a lot of implications I expected what is happening...

My problem according to me is dealing with a lot of jigsaws...I feel time doesn't wait for even kings....the feeling got worse when someone posted in these forum how a Chinese AI, Deepseek,answered about consciousness,after reading the conversations,it was like I was in an echo chamber.

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Also, popular science articles are NOT a science education. Often, like the last link you provided, the authors propose mysterious sources or unknown forces at work in the universe. It's sensationalism, but it catches the eye. Every theory is limited in scope, and can't be used to explain every aspect of a phenomenon, so pop-sci writers can always find something "unexplained" about science.

The issue with me is that the jigsaw already has been filled in my head and already the mind has settled with that,therefore,it's like a library has formed,where I just rush to look for answers....when they talk about rotation curve being flat and extending with no limit in sight..it gets me back to why I fundamentally stated further than speed of light... anyway before that fact,there are complicated arguments in between that I am now becoming a ware it's beyond the scope of this forum.

3 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Every theory is limited in scope,

The limit that am facing is why is it like this.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

There’s no one path or formula for discovery.

Correct... sometimes I get my self agreeing with you unconditionally.

3 hours ago, swansont said:

is not within the scope of our rules.

..Are this rules made of diamond pillars...why can't you consider the challenge of our time that new intelligence is emerging faster than we can handle...and make amendments so that this rules are made of rubber pillars...I.e they can bend or be reviewed after a while?

3 hours ago, swansont said:

soapboxing

I don't intent to preach around but when somebody start declaring my lack of physics knowledge is deep like mariana trench..those declaration are magnified soapboxing...anyway I get the need of protecting one of your own ... I appreciate the time spend contributing to the forum...I can't provide such man hour in the forum...

My intention was not and has not been to change Planck's constant...it's a constant it will always remain to be a constant...My discovery relates to it's importance as a constant and how it relates to the Virtual particles (related to space time) I was talking about, and to the conventional virtual particles,off shell particles(related to quantum fluctuations)...within... ℏ →0....ℏ →1... Cycle.

3 hours ago, swansont said:

We’re not set up for more chaotic discussion, or a firehose of crackpot ramblings,

When the pot contains a lot of things then ...shut it up, I mean close it then put it on a lot of heat....its given, naturally, it while ramble if not explode.

3 hours ago, swansont said:

and we want to be able to exert leverage on people

2 hours ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

@MJ kihara you do owe @swansont an apology if you didn’t give one already

A lion is not a cow...I don't understand when lions started cowing.

Is there anything like negotiated science?

You let facts flow..if you tailor make your designed facts and fill the jigsaw it will be your jigsaw;your Universe,and of course it won't fit coz we know of this only universe..you let facts fit the natural universe where there already established facts ...am I going against GR ...my answer NO!...am going against QM my answer NO!...what am I doing ;Adding new perspective! is it comfortable NO! to established perspective...what should I do...you can propose a solution there.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

I suggest it would be a good idea to place it in its own thread away from all this playground name calling.

When was new in the forum I saw how people Ideas were shut without disdain...that scared me a lot,given the time have spend doing this(developing/comprehending the theory...I wonder the best term...coz it's not me developing it,I let it develop it's self...I should be forgiven for using me developing it... revealing it...waaa....I don't know how to say not to be contradictory)...all this discussions have been provocations to gauge the ground if it's mature to handle it, so far so good all signals are overwhelming negative...am afraid I might even be challenging a lot of entrenched believes.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

How about it ?

Over to you.

I have to wait...tho time doesn't wait,not even for kings.

Am not ready to go jumping a cross the internet looking for even more crack pots.Am trapped.

2 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

Are this rules made of diamond pillars...why can't you consider the challenge of our time that new intelligence is emerging faster than we can handle...and make amendments so that this rules are made of rubber pillars...I.e they can bend or be reviewed after a while?

Anyone can raise an issue of modifying the rules — we have a section for suggestions. What’s not proper is breaking the rules and then pleading that you shouldn’t be bound by them for the reason that your ramblings are some new revelatory truth. We get this a lot.

To quote the judge from “My Cousin Vinny” I'm not about to revamp the entire judicial process just because you find yourself in the unique position of defending clients who say they didn't do it.

Go develop your idea and you can present it when it’s compliant with the rules.