0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Appraising the proffered paradigm shifting, convention breaching, fractally engaged neoclassical approach to the immutable integration of pan-phenomena, ipso facto universal, into a cohesive conceptual entity without invoking inchoate verbiage and dissonant exploratory tendrils, leads me to this incontrovertible culmination:Exposition, analysis, synthesis and resolution, whether dialectically or pedagogically inclined, infer analogous identification of UVS with spherically expressed, macrobiotic composites, articulated as multi-layered organic constructs teleologically destined to entrain seminal manifestations.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 27/09/2010 19:45:34Does this "I have overlooked to clarify it with you that this may not be considered as a theory in the context of modern physics." mean that UVS isn't a scientific theory?Please define scientific theory; what do you specifically mean by scientific theory in your question?
Does this "I have overlooked to clarify it with you that this may not be considered as a theory in the context of modern physics." mean that UVS isn't a scientific theory?
However, I was not entirely sure with one of your definitions for the terminology on "pan-phenomena". In my country, there is a highway called Pan Island Expressway, this is the oldest and longest of Singapore's expressways that covers the widest range spanning across the country and links with all other major highways. I was more inclined to intrepret that you meant “integration of broad-based phenomena” for you text on “integration of pan-phenomena”.Please advise and thanks in advance.
Quote from: Vincent on 28/09/2010 15:39:50Quote from: Bored chemist on 27/09/2010 19:45:34Does this "I have overlooked to clarify it with you that this may not be considered as a theory in the context of modern physics." mean that UVS isn't a scientific theory?Please define scientific theory; what do you specifically mean by scientific theory in your question? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method"To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses."
For your UVS theory this means testing of your hypotheses against the current observable evidence.
No one is going to do this for you.
Vincent.Please define each and every word you use or you are guilty of the same logical fallacy that I was in failing to state what "scientific theory" means
Of course, most people would have realised I meant, if not quite exactly the definition given herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Pedagogical_definitionthen something very close to it.
Now you know what I mean by theory, perhaps you would be kind enough to answer the question.
Quote from: Vincent on 28/09/2010 15:56:05However, I was not entirely sure with one of your definitions for the terminology on "pan-phenomena". In my country, there is a highway called Pan Island Expressway, this is the oldest and longest of Singapore's expressways that covers the widest range spanning across the country and links with all other major highways. I was more inclined to intrepret that you meant “integration of broad-based phenomena” for you text on “integration of pan-phenomena”.Please advise and thanks in advance.Pan used in hyphenation (implicit or explicit) with another word connotes universality. Pan American Airways, Pan American Hghway, pantheist, etc. this was the intended meaning in my post. I am throughly familiar with the Pan Island Expressway. I recall when the only section that existed ran past the south side of Toa Payoh. Now, of course, I use it to come from the airport, or to visit our factories in Jurong. Its extension down past the end of Bukit Timah almost eliminated the house I had in Eng Kong Park, but by that time I had long since moved to Meyer Road.
You seem to be replying to my question on definition for scientific theory as you had quoted above, but this was a definition for scientific method; it would render your argument untenable.
QuoteFor your UVS theory this means testing of your hypotheses against the current observable evidence.This is a valid point.
QuoteNo one is going to do this for you.This is a self-defeating prophecy that in time to come could only be proven wrong.See MAXWELL AND FARADAY; the possibility could not be absolutely ruled out just because you guess so.
So you reside in Singapore! I am delighted.
Frankly Vincent it's difficult to understand what you mean.For example when you say "You seem to be replying to my question on definition for scientific theory as you had quoted above, but this was a definition for scientific method; it would render your argument untenable." what do you mean by the highlighted word "this"?Do you mean my reply,your question,the definition of scientific theory.Also, what do you men by "it"
Come to think of it, never mind. It can't possibly matter unless you can do what Peppercorn has asked.Firstly, describe an experiment that would scientifically test of your hypotheses against the current observable evidence.Secondly, use mathematics to predict what outcome the experiment should yield if it is to validate your theory.Because, if you can't do that, then your ideas are word salad or free-form poetry and,
since they are nothing to do with science, they shouldn't be on a science website
(a matter you seem not to have understood earlier).
Nope, it's down to Coriolis forces and heat from the Sun; perfectly well explained.
Quote from: Vincent on 30/09/2010 14:52:15You seem to be replying to my question on definition for scientific theory as you had quoted above, but this was a definition for scientific method; it would render your argument untenable.I state the definition of the scientific method, but this is not stated as a argument. Hence the validity of my statement is not in question.
I hoped you'd grasp that I was relating to it because having an understanding of the scientific method is a prerequisite to validating (or invalidating) a theory scientifically.
Quote from: Vincent on 30/09/2010 14:52:15QuoteFor your UVS theory this means testing of your hypotheses against the current observable evidence.This is a valid point.Good! At last! Does this mean you're going to take your own advice.
If so, please:Firstly, describe an experiment that would scientifically test of your hypotheses against the current observable evidence.Secondly, use mathematics to predict what outcome the experiment should yield if it is to validate your theory.I appreciate that you might not have the 'set-up' for the experiment personally, but a description will do for now.
Quote from: Vincent on 30/09/2010 14:52:15QuoteNo one is going to do this for you.This is a self-defeating prophecy that in time to come could only be proven wrong.See MAXWELL AND FARADAY; the possibility could not be absolutely ruled out just because you guess so.Seriously, ?
Quote from: Vincent on 30/09/2010 15:07:24So you reside in Singapore! I am delighted. sorry. I gave an inaccurate impression. I used to reside in Singapore many years ago, for several years. I now visit occassionally. I was last there in July last year.
We have the circumstantial evidence of what is happening at sunspots. This evidence indicates that SOMETHING makes the ionised particles emerge from sunspots. Whatever it is, it is extremely powerful. As the mean life of a sunspot is around six days, the source must be able to deliver the power consistently for a significant time.This may be because the sun's atmosphere acts as a shield or for some other reasn.
Quote from: peppercornIf so, please:Firstly, describe an experiment that would scientifically test of your hypotheses against the current observable evidence.Secondly, use mathematics to predict what outcome the experiment should yield if it is to validate your theory.Since you made the effort to get down to these details, have a look at this (scroll to the bottom section), and let me know what you think. Please understand that it is still very sketchy at this stage; many details were still not certain and some facts probably could never be found.
If so, please:Firstly, describe an experiment that would scientifically test of your hypotheses against the current observable evidence.Secondly, use mathematics to predict what outcome the experiment should yield if it is to validate your theory.
This bit?
One 'tick' to you for using a bit of (incomplete & flawed) maths - Where you are comparing the forces impacting a plane's wings entering a cyclone (made of a compressible medium -air- that it's already flying through) against the impact against water (claiming an uncontrolled dive at only 10% air speed into what you've omitted to mention is an effectively non-compressible medium).
Putting this analysis of one 'set' of events to one side for now, I can see absolutely no expression of a deeper understanding that comes about by means of referencing nature from a vortex-centred view. Where's the stunning epiphany of logic that gives us the spring-board to a higher, deeper understanding of the physical laws?
Vincent - before asking the forum to read through the many pages you have provided, would you answer one simple question (admittedly in two parts) that will allow progress? Does UVS explain any observable and measureable phenomena that are currently unexplainable; and where does UVS predict answers that are not in alignment with current (ie non-UVS) theories? There are people on this forum (and I dont include myself) with a profound knowledge of physics - they will be capable of understanding your theories; but you need to provide a reason to devote time and in my opinion that reason is within the answer to the question I posed above.