29 minutes ago, haroonkhan87 said:

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.

Except that you did, explicitly, deny the fundamentals in the passage in your opening post that I quoted.

If you, as you now say, "fully recognize that air pressure decreases with height due to gravity and the weight of the air column above.", why did you say "Logically, if atmospheric pressure were the source of air movement, it should accumulate above, not diminish."?

These two statements of yours contradict each other directly.

How can we take you seriously?

8 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Except that you did, explicitly, deny the fundamentals in the passage in your opening post that I quoted.

If you, as you now say, "fully recognize that air pressure decreases with height due to gravity and the weight of the air column above.", why did you say "Logically, if atmospheric pressure were the source of air movement, it should accumulate above, not diminish."?

These two statements of yours contradict each other directly.

How can we take you seriously?

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.

4 hours ago, haroonkhan87 said:

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.

Nowhere?

https://scienceforums.net/guidelines/

Rule 2.10 says “Keep alternative science and your own personal conjecture to the appropriate forum (Speculations)” and Phi afforded you the opportunity to show this wasn’t a non-mainstream idea/pet theory, which you haven’t been able to do.

Speculations has additional rules, the first of which is “Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure.”

There’s also an explainer that expands on this

https://scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/

16 minutes ago, swansont said:

Nowhere?

https://scienceforums.net/guidelines/

Rule 2.10 says “Keep alternative science and your own personal conjecture to the appropriate forum (Speculations)” and Phi afforded you the opportunity to show this wasn’t a non-mainstream idea/pet theory, which you haven’t been able to do.

Speculations has additional rules, the first of which is “Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure.”

There’s also an explainer that expands on this

https://scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/

@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.

1 hour ago, haroonkhan87 said:

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.

But it is not unexplained, as yourself have later acknowledged.

It’s no good trying to dress up this nonsense with fancy language. Nonsense it remains.

7 minutes ago, exchemist said:

But it is not unexplained, as yourself have later acknowledged.

It’s no good trying to dress up this nonsense with fancy language. Nonsense it remains.

@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.

Just now, haroonkhan87 said:

@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.

I have addressed the content, in response to which you have contradicted yourself, something you now refuse to admit. Further discussion with you would therefore seem to be a waste of time.

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.

4 hours ago, haroonkhan87 said:

ORCID is a globally recognized nonprofit that provides persistent, verifiable researcher IDs. Anyone can verify authorship and timestamp...

Verifying authorship is not vetting content. This was explained to you already.

4 hours ago, haroonkhan87 said:

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.

Scientists reject an hypothesis because it's not testable or falsifiable. They reject theories for lack of evidence. Your ego is blocking your learning here, so you seem unable to absorb the feedback and learn why your hypothesis is weak. Now you're making people repeat themselves and, in one post, issuing threats to anyone who questions your knowledge or ability to formulate hypotheses. Pfft.

5 hours ago, haroonkhan87 said:

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.

Don't be silly, of course they alone don't explain it.

If you are fully aware you would know both that they don't and also know what other factors are involved.

Let us start with a definite example of a regional inconsistency or a wind anomaly and try to look for an explanation.

If you are genuinely interested this book is a very good start.

Can we return to actually discussing the subject now please ?

1 hour ago, haroonkhan87 said:

Civility is mandatory. This is your final notice.

Civility is desirable, it's not mandatory. What happens if someone does offend you or disagrees in a way you don't like? Are you going to smite the unbeliever? If you ever do study science and become an atmospheric scientist you will need a thicker skin. Peer review is brutal. What will you do when someone says something like, "Your hypothesis is premised on a misunderstanding of Bernoulli's principle..." Get all butthurt because someone pointed out your ignorance and threaten to "notify the authorities?"

2 hours ago, haroonkhan87 said:

@swansont , let’s address this carefully. You repeatedly assert that I must present finalized, fully-tested science,

I have not.

2 hours ago, haroonkhan87 said:

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.”

That last sentence, after the ellipsis, doesn’t appear on that page, but no matter, because

1. You can’t ignore the other things written there* and in the speculations forum guidelines, and

2. You haven’t presented a model. A physics model would have math and give testable predictions.

*including the very first statement, that says we reserve the right to enforce this policy as we see fit so that people may not use the letter of the rule to defeat the spirit of the rule.

2 hours ago, haroonkhan87 said:

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.

As I showed earlier, it’s in the rules that specifically apply to the speculations forum

2 hours ago, haroonkhan87 said:

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.

I never claimed anything about you ignoring fundamental atmospheric physics.

2 hours ago, haroonkhan87 said:

As for the ORCID point, you wrote:

I wrote this? I think not.

2 hours ago, haroonkhan87 said:

“As @TheVat points out, you can ‘publish’ any old rubbish on them. They tell you nothing at all about the credibility of the material.”

That quote is from exchemist.

19 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Verifying authorship is not vetting content. This was explained to you already.

Scientists reject an hypothesis because it's not testable or falsifiable. They reject theories for lack of evidence. Your ego is blocking your learning here, so you seem unable to absorb the feedback and learn why your hypothesis is weak. Now you're making people repeat themselves and, in one post, issuing threats to anyone who questions your knowledge or ability to formulate hypotheses. Pfft.

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.

16 minutes ago, studiot said:

Don't be silly, of course they alone don't explain it.

If you are fully aware you would know both that they don't and also know what other factors are involved.

Let us start with a definite example of a regional inconsistency or a wind anomaly and try to look for an explanation.

If you are genuinely interested this book is a very good start.

Can we return to actually discussing the subject now please ?

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.

8 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Civility is desirable, it's not mandatory. What happens if someone does offend you or disagrees in a way you don't like? Are you going to smite the unbeliever? If you ever do study science and become an atmospheric scientist you will need a thicker skin. Peer review is brutal. What will you do when someone says something like, "Your hypothesis is premised on a misunderstanding of Bernoulli's principle..." Get all butthurt because someone pointed out your ignorance and threaten to "notify the authorities?"

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.

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

That quote is from exchemist.

I actually posted about this, in which I created a paper on Figshare, in order to demonstrate that such open repositories do not vet or review preprint content. (That's our newest family member, Eliza, in the pic)

https://figshare.com/articles/preprint/Feline_use_of_telepathy_in_urban_hunting/30411034

1 hour ago, haroonkhan87 said:

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.

Oh, please.

Criticizing what you’ve posted does not constitute a personal attack, and you have been held to the same standard as everyone else who posts here. Whether you feel demeaned by being told your conjecture fails to measure up is something you need to cope with. It’s not anyone else’s problem. People are not required to treat you with kid gloves to protect your fragile ego.

And, perhaps more importantly: you do not dictate how the site is moderated.