[paul cotter]

Hamdani, I don't want to get into a slanging match with you but I will give you one example: the magnetic field is well understood as a relativistic correction to the electric field and vice versa. Attempts to tie it in to gravitation are wholly incorrect.

[alancalverd]

Or something significant has been omitted from the calculation, like an unidentified planet.

Not the same thing!
If you've missed something out of the calculation, that means that you have chosen (perhaps inadvertently) the wrong model.
Previously unknown planets were discovered precisely because the model was right and adding a few decimal points to the observation predicted the properties of a perturbing entity.  One of my favorite examples of pushing a "good
 enough" model was the remarkably accurate prediction of the physical and chemical properties of germanium from what was then a gap in the periodic table.

[alancalverd]

If you really want to try add something to physics then you should go to college and get a PhD in physics.

Do you think it's necessary, even for an extremely specific thing?

Put it round the other way. If you can resolve an anomaly, publish your observation or calculation and get an honorary PhD from an institution that wants to bask in reflected glory. But publish it in a peer-reviewed physics journal, not a chat forum! 

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Not the same thing!
If you've missed something out of the calculation, that means that you have chosen (perhaps inadvertently) the wrong model.
Previously unknown planets were discovered precisely because the model was right and adding a few decimal points to the observation predicted the properties of a perturbing entity.

That's precisely the case where discrepancy between model's prediction and observation doesn't necessarily mean that the model is wrong.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

If you really want to try add something to physics then you should go to college and get a PhD in physics.

Do you think it's necessary, even for an extremely specific thing?

Put it round the other way. If you can resolve an anomaly, publish your observation or calculation and get an honorary PhD from an institution that wants to bask in reflected glory. But publish it in a peer-reviewed physics journal, not a chat forum! 

I treat my ideas as memes, just like any others. The ones I posted here had won internal competitions in my mind. I'll just let them to compete externally with everyone else's ideas. Hopefully they will win or lose for their own merits. Whatever the final result, I'll win some or learn some.

[Origin]

Here's the definition of guarantee.

Thanks for the definition.  I checked and my use of the word 'guarantee' matches up with the definition that you provided.

[Origin]

Many people have read my posts. You are the only one confident enough to guarantee that I will fail. Do you know something that they don't?

You have no idea how many people have read your posts nor do you know if they agree or disagree with you.

[Origin]

Why so? Many of my experiments show that currently widespread explanations for physical phenomena don't provide correct predictions.

This is just another example of your delusions of grandeur.  I'll make another guarantee.  If your experiment disagrees with established science then I guarantee that your experiment was faulty.

[Origin]

Do you think it's necessary, even for an extremely specific thing?

If that extremely specific thing is a physics 'thing', then the answer is yes.

[alancalverd]

The ones I posted here had won internal competitions in my mind. I'll just let them to compete externally with everyone else's ideas.

Science is not about competition, though there can be rewards for first publication or early exploitation of a discovery. Either your hypothesis stands up to experimental test and predicts something better than a previous hypothesis, or it doesn't. 

[alancalverd]

I treat my ideas as memes,

The essence of a meme is that it gets promulgated by others, so you can't define anything as a meme until it has been distributed by third parties.

I have no evidence of anyone else promulgating (or even accepting) any of your ideas.

[Zer0]

@Yusuf
It is Always a Pleasure sharing thoughts & ideas with you.

https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=top_venues

(all the best & tc)

ps - The greatest enemy of Knowledge is not Ignorance,
it is the illusion of Knowledge!
(Boorstin)

[Petrochemicals]

Strong psychoactive compounds?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Here's the definition of guarantee.

Thanks for the definition.  I checked and my use of the word 'guarantee' matches up with the definition that you provided.

Where is the formal part?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Many people have read my posts. You are the only one confident enough to guarantee that I will fail. Do you know something that they don't?

You have no idea how many people have read your posts nor do you know if they agree or disagree with you.

At least more than one.
I find no one else has guaranteed something about my posts. Do you know someone else?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Why so? Many of my experiments show that currently widespread explanations for physical phenomena don't provide correct predictions.

This is just another example of your delusions of grandeur.  I'll make another guarantee.  If your experiment disagrees with established science then I guarantee that your experiment was faulty.

Don't you feel that delusion of grandeur yourself by making that guarantee? Do you think established scientific models never failed and never changed?

[Origin]

Don't you feel that delusion of grandeur yourself by making that guarantee?

No, I'm just a realist stating the obvious.

Where is the formal part?

I wore a tuxedo when I wrote the post. 
This was fun but I am going to put this thread on ignore with the rest of your threads and let you bask in your delusions with out my annoying input.  Have fun.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Do you think it's necessary, even for an extremely specific thing?

If that extremely specific thing is a physics 'thing', then the answer is yes.

Haven't you heard about contributors to discoveries in physics who were not a PhD?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The ones I posted here had won internal competitions in my mind. I'll just let them to compete externally with everyone else's ideas.

Science is not about competition, though there can be rewards for first publication or early exploitation of a discovery. Either your hypothesis stands up to experimental test and predicts something better than a previous hypothesis, or it doesn't. 

That's the competition. Like it or not, our ideas compete for memory space in people's minds, as well as data centers.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I treat my ideas as memes,

The essence of a meme is that it gets promulgated by others, so you can't define anything as a meme until it has been distributed by third parties.

I have no evidence of anyone else promulgating (or even accepting) any of your ideas.

I've found some supportive comments on some of my YouTube videos.