0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
However, take care not to knock the maths. Without it Newton’s laws become unusable.If you want to know how much force is needed to accelerate a car to 60mph in 1min and how far it will have traveled, you have to use maths.Interestingly, skimming through this thread I have just spotted an odd post I need to go look at.
I’m not sure whether this is an anti science thread or an anti bad-science thread. Examples of lack of critical thinking exists in all areas, not just science and I’m glad to see that schools are now teaching critical thinking skills.
I can only speak from the specific. We are primarily an educational site to answer general questions posed by listeners to the podcasts, and readers of the articles. Listeners who pose these questions are usually looking for the current understanding on the topic. We often found that these questions were interrupted by people with their own theory or hobby horse. For example, a question about the moon’s orbit would attract a post by someone saying the answer was wrong because the world is flat not round; or a question on gravity would have the claim that gravity is due to air pressure and buoyancy; or someone else tries to interject aether or wormholes as the answer to most questions (these are real examples). In each case the original question gets lost because the thread gets diverted. So, it is necessary to draw a line about what can be discussed in the main section, but where do you draw that line? Some fora draw a hard line and will not allow any new theory discussion; I can understand that because they want to have an in depth discussion on quite detailed topics in specific areas. We take a more liberal view and will allow discussion in the appropriate area, but in drawing the line we are saying that many famous scientists around today would find themselves in the new/speculative section - and most wouldn’t mind.
I find it very difficult to think that you are against science if you write in this forum.
if someone attempts to disagree with Einstein, his thread is moved to new theories.
Appreciate if you let me know your findings on the odd post.
Re censorship here is a copy of some wordage that i just posted on another thread re The Catt Question some of which details the suppression of Ivor Catt & his ideas.http://www.ptep-online.com/2016/PP-44-13.PDF//www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fqqXQPgCKo
It most certainly would be beyond bizarre to think that the major scientific organizations of the world with their instruments and mathematical expertise came to conclude that relativity was correct if the older, non-relativistic aether theory was the one actually supported by the measurements.
We get quite a lot of anti science posters. Some don’t understand it; some talk about ‘science’, usually hurt because no one will agree with their pet theory; some have religious reasons and disagree with heliocentrism, tectonics, evolution, etc.Not strictly true, we have had quite a few discussions around Einstein's views, understanding has moved on since he originally put forward his ideas so there are areas of debate. Nor are we anti aether, just agnostic, because we don’t see clear evidence that it exists - you will find discussion here on LET (Lorentz Ether Theory) which gives the same experimental results as relativity, but a different explanation. However, most aetherists are putting forward posts which contradict the results of verified experiments and observations, so they are offering new theories. We (as a forum) are not saying they are wrong, just that we organise the forum with a separate category for new or alternative ideas. As long as folks are polite and don’t troll we are happy to debate, but time is limited and we give priority to the mainstream sections. All who answer questions here do so in their spare time, unpaid, but they have day jobs, projects etc so time is limited. So we can’t debate everything and we can't leave mainstream questions/statements unanswered because people wrongly assume no response = agreement. We would have a real problem of credibility if a schoolchild goes and tells teacher that tides are not due to the moon, but to giant whirlpools, they saw it on a TNS site, so it must be true.PS - you don’t see many trolls because we weed them out asap, but we do get quite a few.
No. Every particle has an electric field. The neutron might have a zero nett field, but that doesnt mean that it has no field. The neutron is made of elementary particles which are confined-photons & confined-photons are a process of the aether, so in a sense there is interaction
QuoteQuote from: Paradigmer on 22/10/2018 04:14:28Quote from: mad aetherist on 20/10/2018 22:44:24The neutron is made of elementary particles which are confined-photons & confined-photons are a process of the aether, so in a sense there is interaction. I totally agree with this: The neutron is made of elementary particles which are confined-photons. Have tell me how you come to this proposition?Is the electron a photon with a toroidal topology -- J G Williamson & M B van der Mark -- 1997.A new theory of light and matter -- J G Williamson -- 2014.On the nature of the photon and the electron -- J G Williamson -- 2015?The toroidal topology of the electron -- Miles Mathis --2012.Restoring the physical meaning of energy -- Conrad Ranzan -- 2013.The fundamental process of energy -- part 1 -- Conrad Ranzan -- 2014.The fundamental process of energy -- part 2 -- Conrad Ranzan -- 2014.A model of the electron -- R Wayte -- 2010.
Quote from: Paradigmer on 22/10/2018 04:14:28Quote from: mad aetherist on 20/10/2018 22:44:24The neutron is made of elementary particles which are confined-photons & confined-photons are a process of the aether, so in a sense there is interaction. I totally agree with this: The neutron is made of elementary particles which are confined-photons. Have tell me how you come to this proposition?
There is not a single science forum on the web which allows non-maintream and mainstream science in the same section (if there is one, tell me please!).
Quote from: myuncle on 24/10/2018 12:48:51There is not a single science forum on the web which allows non-maintream and mainstream science in the same section (if there is one, tell me please!).I was invited by a Nobel Laureate to join the Researchgate Forum. With given impression, I believe this forum might allow non-maintream and mainstream science in the same section. But really speaking, IDK.Despite they allow participants who are independent researchers, I was denied entrance for not having an institutional email account. If you at least have a student email account, they might let you in. Good luck.Previously there was a Natural Philosophy Alliance forum, they allow non-maintream and mainstream science in the same section. You have to pay an annual fee to join, however, it went defunct sometime ago.
Science will only accept people of their own learning,
Box, its not just science.....its weapons....space weapons....rockets, all that crap.
I think we will need a technology beyond the crap we've left in space already, that can deal with the crap we've left there, and can ideally not promote any more the crap we put there. I can't patent that, and I don't think anyone can patent that device....it would be too scary for governments scaring other governments with debris. But...do real scientists in the new ideas forum have another idea?
.its not like aliens have landed.