0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
This is a question of transparency. Its ok if this question is deleted.Like for instance, I had this:"Hi, opportunity...On the NS Forum, we encourage discussion of science and technology, and their impacts on society.It is an opportunity to learn from others who have different fields of expertise, and to discuss different possibilities.For myself, it is an opportunity to learn about things I had never questioned before - or at least, never bothered to investigate.However, looking through your posts, I don't see much of an attempt to learn, investigate or discuss. They often come across as sarcastic and critical rather than contributing to a discussion.I am interested to hear what you hope to get out of the Forum.I look forward to your future, more positive contributions to the discussion.Failing this, we may ask you to restrict yourself to the "Lighter Side" of the forum. Thanks, xx (moderator)Any new idea may seem sarcastic, right, especially if its that good, right? But, its a new idea, its not sarcasm. Btw, Mod there wasn't Colin. TheBox, my point is, I've had direct criticisms, its not about whatever you think hurts.
Gold as a standard is useless without two parties,
zero as infinity is a scientific faux-pas if there's nothing in between.The simplest thing in between is a ratio that abides from the 0 to the infinite. A "fractal" progression, a Fibonacci.
You're N-field is trying to resolve mathematical applications to space while trying to be relevant to the idea of the big bang, an expanding universe. The latter is not necessary, because you're "trying". We have to hit the situation of data that's not going to lead science into believing in a universe they can't reach because its stupidly impossible to actually get there, right?
And I am Captain James T. Kirk.How does that start though?
That's clearly not entropic, right.Enthalpic energy is something we haven't "done", yet, right?
Yes. That's why 6 papers are needed before a 7th. Its stupidly hard.
Think of it this way.....you have a theory that holds all the data science is doing....yet you have a different a-priori....a different "start point" for the fundamentals.....you want to test that and you do......and then you get results you as a scientist has never seen on a level of contemporary scientific wisdom.My initial impression for weeks has been disbelief.....because I am solid with science.Its not magic though.
Yeah, I've been there....but when you create a new phenomena.....despite the new science you have....its magic.....to the Church.....especially with a new a-priori.Its a miracle of scientific need.A "new phenomena" that no one else has seen "is" seen as magic, right?