5 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

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.

Simple, follow site rules

For the millionth time, that’s all you have to do

Just now, MJ kihara said:

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.

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.

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.

I am quite dismayed by your response to my offer.

If you have read it at all, you don't seem to have understood it, as your response bears almost no relation to my words.

And yet I note in your posting a great and significant ability in the english language, when expressing yourself as set against what seems to be a very limited ability to understand the expression of others.

My offer was designed to help overcome this dichotomy.

3 hours ago, studiot said:

I am quite dismayed by your response to my offer.

If you have read it at all, you don't seem to have understood it, as your response bears almost no relation to my words.

And yet I note in your posting a great and significant ability in the english language, when expressing yourself as set against what seems to be a very limited ability to understand the expression of others.

My offer was designed to help overcome this dichotomy.

I don't get it.

15 hours 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.

Open a thread on the theory?. "...It's own thread..." How?

6 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

Open a thread on the theory?. "...It's own thread..." How?

Oh come on.

How did you open this one ?

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Oh come on.

How did you open this one?

Once bitten twice shy.

I can assure you, there is no need,esp after all those red flags.

Modred used to steer things around when it comes to my ideas...I asked about understanding of saying ''metric emerging '' I never gotten any replies..am sure if he was present in the forum there could have been a rich discussion pertaining that issue.

Some people are stuck with my former perception, I now understand GR mathematics better,therefore, scaring me with terms won't work,like Christoffel symbols....just use change in basis vector... connection...use the conditions of doing parallel transporting operation....curvature...use deviation from uniformity. in short am aware of these mathematics and how it relates to my ideas...am not filling my lack of knowing gaps...what am saying;am also working hard to study as more physics aspects as possible and you know what's amazing sometimes i get stuck, when I get referencing from the 'theory' I get by rather quickly... a good example entanglement and violation of bell inequalities....it's more about synchronization...source information and gaussian distribution... what's a wonderful thing 👍.

Thanks for the offer, however,the condition around is clear...forum is not ready for that.

15 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

I can assure you, there is no need,esp after all those red flags.

The red flags have nothing to do with me, so why are you raising the subject in our discussion ?

16 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

Modred used to steer things around when it comes to my ideas...I asked about understanding of saying ''metric emerging '' I never gotten any replies..am sure if he was present in the forum there could have been a rich discussion pertaining that issue.

Some people are stuck with my former perception, I now understand GR mathematics better,therefore, scaring me with terms won't work,like Christoffel symbols....just use change in basis vector... connection...use the conditions of doing parallel transporting operation....curvature...use deviation from uniformity. in short am aware of these mathematics and how it relates to my ideas...am not filling my lack of knowing gaps...what am saying;am also working hard to study as more physics aspects as possible and you know what's amazing sometimes i get stuck, when I get referencing from the 'theory' I get by rather quickly... a good example entanglement and violation of bell inequalities....it's more about synchronization...source information and gaussian distribution... what's a wonderful thing

Again none of this has anything to do with either me or the subject I offered to discuss, which was your original question.

17 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

Once bitten twice shy.

So you asked a good question and there were some antis.

That happenns to most people on most threads.

Yet when someone wants to discuss your proper question in mature fashion your response is thanks but no thanks.

Even after you have had some reasonable comments from others.

So why did you ask the question in the first place ?

11 minutes ago, studiot said:

The red flags have nothing to do with me, so why are you raising the subject in our discussion ?

Again none of this has anything to do with either me or the subject I offered to discuss, which was your original question.

So you asked a good question and there were some antis.

That happenns to most people on most threads.

Yet when someone wants to discuss your proper question in mature fashion your response is thanks but no thanks.

Even after you have had some reasonable comments from others.

So why did you ask the question in the first place ?

I now get it...I been obsessed by my former thread...I saw it as an opening for me to lay out my thinking.

Sorry for misunderstanding

22 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

Can someone tell us how does discovery comes about?

It was a form of irony... however I was satisfied by;

21 hours ago, swansont said:

There’s no one path or formula for discovery.

21 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

scaring me with terms won't work,

Insisting on some personal vendetta isn't helping anyone. Why would you think anybody is trying to scare you away? Do you think we want you to be wrong? Most ideas in science ARE wrong, but finding one that passes all the tests is exciting.

We just want to discuss science. Mainstream offers us a hoard of accumulated knowledge that actually works, so we hold all ideas to that level of rigor. How else can we assess your ideas? Do you expect us to just take your word, or lower the bar just because you haven't studied formally?

Even Mordred told you when your ideas went against concepts we already know and use. I know you don't want your ideas to be based on poor foundations, but you object when we use the only criteria we can. Please remember that we're attacking your idea like the wind attacks a stalk of corn, to make it stronger and better able to grow. Nobody is attacking you, or trying to scare you, or do anything to you personally.

🙏

...even me I wonder the purpose of all these...it always take me back to mainstream concept,however,for me, with high form of controversial interpretation like for instance all have been doing is interpreting e^iπ +1=0 in unconventional way....the weird thing I never started there but I ended up there.

9 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Insisting on some personal vendetta isn't helping anyone. Why would you think anybody is trying to scare you away? Do you think we want you to be wrong? Most ideas in science ARE wrong, but finding one that passes all the tests is exciting.

We just want to discuss science. Mainstream offers us a hoard of accumulated knowledge that actually works, so we hold all ideas to that level of rigor. How else can we assess your ideas? Do you expect us to just take your word, or lower the bar just because you haven't studied formally?

Even Mordred told you when your ideas went against concepts we already know and use. I know you don't want your ideas to be based on poor foundations, but you object when we use the only criteria we can. Please remember that we're attacking your idea like the wind attacks a stalk of corn, to make it stronger and better able to grow. Nobody is attacking you, or trying to scare you, or do anything to you personally.

The latest part,is when I talked about 'metric emerging ' it was becoming clearer to me,I may also be dealing with Holography...talking about confusion....this makes me EVEN MORE CONFUSED....it's knocking on the gates of believe...what to be believe or not...you can imagine projection giving rise to physical distance...I need a break...

Holography is a mainstream science.

On 8/6/2025 at 9:54 AM, MJ kihara said:

I don't get it.

That is evident to quite a few except yourself, it seems.

On 8/8/2025 at 5:42 AM, MigL said:

That is evident to quite a few except yourself, it seems.

In what context? That sentence was part of a statement.

or rather, a reply to request for further clarification/explanations following a conversation.

6 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

In what context? That sentence was part of a statement.

or rather, a reply to request for further clarification/explanations following a conversation.

In the context of 'your' topic, the fact that you don't get it, shows a lack of understanding the subject you chose to introduce (for some reason)... 🤔

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

In the context of 'your' topic, the fact that you don't get it, shows a lack of understanding the subject you chose to introduce (for some reason)... 🤔

That's not the point of discussion; you don't get it.

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

In the context of 'your' topic, the fact that you don't get it, shows a lack of understanding the subject you chose to introduce (for some reason)... 🤔

15 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

That's not the point of discussion; you don't get it.

Moderator Note

Since nobody "gets it" and nobody has the patience to explain it well enough, I see no reason to keep this open.