Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

What about new ideas?

  1. May 4, 2003 #1
    I had became participant of PF since August 2002. My opinion and offers hereinafter. Say, how it looks from outside. I do not feel " I am inside". A reason is an enigmatic silence after my posts . I do not wonder the reaction of a schoolboy on a new ideas. They wait a "high opinion" and are oriented on it.
    Though some of them perceive the difference of idea from a known as insult of the science, as a whole and his personally. This is a baby pranks and this it is understandable.
    I am not surprised by position of mentors in the same way. Protection of official glance in science this their work.
    But new idea can not look like existing glances on determination.
    And I see that forum has not a clear strategy or tacticians, at least, in respect of a new idea.
    PF can become very revenue business exactly due to new idea . It is necessary to attract rather then repulse the new ideas on forum. It is necessary to do the estimation to ideas, conclude an agreement with author, publish the idea in scientific journal with observance of all copyrights, search for the sponsors... . This be funny to teach the American on business. This is not my.
    I only offer to change the attitude to a new idea.
    May be some time, some of a Noble prize winner be able to say:

    - I began my way in PF. This is a best scientific school in the world.

    Greg, I hope you do not miss such a good chance.

    Otherwise you must honestly say what PF is not place for a new idea.
  2. jcsd
  3. May 31, 2003 #2
    So what's your NEW IDEA? Please say.
  4. May 31, 2003 #3


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I personally shy away from your posts because of the language difficutlies, I frequently am not sure what you are attempting to say. Further, you do not speak of physical concepts in a manner which I am familiar. If you have sound physical concepts the fisrt step in presenting them is to learn the current state of physics, if you have that understanding then it is clear if you are doing valid work. It is not clear to me that you have a grasp of modern physics, Hence you spend a lot of time in Theory Development. I presonlly spend little time there.
  5. May 31, 2003 #4

    I'm not doing "valid work" -- but I'm doing "interesting thinking" (to me). And what better place for "theory development" than this?

    To Michael:

    Start from the beginning with your new idea -- just one or two sentences per post -- and you will make it easier for people to respond. The biggest bonus, however, is when people disagree, because it will help you to better EXPRESS your case...or to modify it.

    P.S. to Integral:

    I truly respect your preference not to deal with the "less informed". It's more fun -- and more challenging -- to play tennis with someone at -- or ABOVE -- one's skill level. Mentoring, of course, has its rewards as well, but I'm with you on this...that there's only so much time.

    By the way, what YOUR pet theory? (Just send me to a post.)
  6. May 31, 2003 #5


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I have no problem with dealing with "the less informed" when the less informed come to ask questions and learn. I do have problems with the "less informed" who come here pretending that they have solutions to all the worlds problems.
    I do not believe that all Physicists for the last 400yrs are total idiots who have been wasting thier time developing the current state of Physics.

    Pet theory? Why should I have a pet theory? I have a pet dog, a pet cat? I do not place them in the same catagory as theories. My goal is to attempt to understand the world we live in. My primary interest has been the world of Newton, simply because that is the world we live in. Sub atomic particles and the univers at large have not been my main thrust. I am educated in Physics sufficiently to have a pretty good BS detector.

    I do not view the purpose of this forum as a place to overturn the world of Physics. I do see it a place where a High school student can come to learn some deeper facts of Physics then is presented in the average HS physics class. This is why I watch the Physics forums carefully. I have posted a warning on one of your posts simply because I cannot recoginze what you said as sound Physics. I have left the content in place, I could have after all simply deleted it. I have posted warning so those who are learning will know to investigate your words further. Perhaps the only problem is your usage, I am still not convinced that you have presented sound physical information. It is confused at best.

    My aplogies if I have offended you.
  7. Jun 1, 2003 #6
    How do I know when I've been "warned". To which post do you refer? I just now checked my PM to see if something is there. But no.

    We each have our own particular areas of interest, levels of information, and abilities to express. While not trying to "overturn the world of Physics," I wouldn't mind if I had an insight that was proven "right" someday.

    I've been admonished more than once in the 5 weeks I've been here for violating Occam's Razor...but, upon review of my posts, I believe they (my assertions) would be better characterized a "propositions". In other words, I am "taking the case" that thus and such is so, so as to pursue "possibilities" beyond what is "known"...or CAN be known.

    Perhaps I should use a disclaimer like "I am not a physicist, but..." ...in addition to the "I speculate that..." or "IMO"...which I try to insert periodically even as I get carried away by my own ruminations. Henceforth, I will try not to show up as a blip on your BS detector.

    Trust me: I am VERY FEARFUL of getting "ousted" like two others have been during my brief relationship with the Forum, so I will take any warnings very seriously.

    Regarding Michael F. Dmitriyev, I was trying to be helpful and encouraging -- and maybe a little "protective" -- tendencies I had better curb as well. Who am I, Mother Teresa?
  8. Jun 1, 2003 #7


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    M. Gaspar
    Please, forgive me, I have had a senior moment, and confused you with someone else. My apologies.
  9. Jun 1, 2003 #8
    Please create a smilie that's wiping sweat from its brow.

    Thank you.
  10. Jun 2, 2003 #9
    Re: Re: What about new ideas?

    The Universe is straight inverse to beliefs about it. And I have much proofs. I can't understand why nobody does not see this, except me.
  11. Jun 2, 2003 #10
    Why you have solved that who offers the new theory this " the less informed"? Has the current state of Physics the answers on all questions? Can be someone is vested by God's grant, sees the mistake, which has made by science of its way from begining? The Illusory perception of reality by human's is guilty here.
  12. Jun 2, 2003 #11
    Re: Re: Re: What about new ideas?

    Maybe I would "see" it if I UNDERSTOOD what you mean by "The Universe is straight inverse to beliefs about it."

    Are you saying that the Universe is the OPPOSITE of what "everyone" THINKS it is? Unfortunately, there is NO "opposite" because "everyone" believes DIFFERENT THINGS about what the Universe is.

    Just start with ONE SIMPLE CONCEPT and, keep in mind, English is not an EASY LANGUAGE ...and while you speak it fairly well, there may be phrases than don't translate into what you REALLY MEAN.

    I am interested in your new idea...so try again, OK? :smile:
  13. Jun 2, 2003 #12
    Forgive me, Michael, but as a part-time ESOL ("English as a Second Language") tutor, I feel COMPELLED to restate the above paragraph in terms more comprehensible to this audience:

    "Why is someone with a new theory considered "less informed"?

    (By the way, Michael, I'm the one who used the term "less informed" first...and Integral was just responding to MY post, OK?)

    "Are all the questions now ANSWERED in Physics? Might not someone be granted (by God) the ability to see certain fundamental errors made by science? Might not scientists be guilty of false perceptions?"

    Please don't be offended by what I have done. I am simply showing you why people might not "get" what you are proposing.

    I have a similar problem...except, people "get" what I'm saying. They just DISAGREE! :wink:
  14. Jun 3, 2003 #13
    Thank you for the English lesson, M. Gaspar. My bad English can create some problems indeed. But I see on replyes that basically my posts are understandable. My problem in the other. Suppose, I began the new subject. After several replyes (sometimes happens nor one not get) my topic "is frozen".
    Though I take fundamental subjects such as infinity, space, time and cite my look at their essence.
    As a result, I consider that my point is right since nobody has not refused it. Thereby I have proven following:
    - infinity of universe is directed inward to absolute zero (as ideal), but not in meaningless expansion outward;
    - entropy is necessary element of evolution;
    - a space this illusion, created by the time and light;
    - each object in universe exists at its Time Cycle (TC);
    - a value of object's TC defines its energy;
    - all interactions between objects occur in the manner of interactions their TC;
    - all known and an unknown yet forces and phenomenas are due to attempt of the change object's TC on the part of the other object or several them;
    - all the laws of conservation are a quotient by events of the general law of conservation TC;
    - time has counting down from the initially installed importance of TC onto a zero;
    - a count of time goes the discrete quantum of time Qt which corresponds Plank time;
    - Qt synchronizes TC of all objects in universe;
    - an universe exists in realities in current Qt only;
    - discrete defines all advantage of the digital information system what is it is an universe, indeed, before analog one, as this is perceived by people.

    As you can see, my vision of universe differs from official scientific glance completely and in ditto time does not disagree nor one result of the practical experience and observations. On my glance, such universe beautiful and intelligent.

    But. That further? That I must prove else?
  15. Jun 3, 2003 #14

    I have printed out your last post so that I can "process" your ideas.

    I will reply soon (but not tonight).

    Meanwhile, I DO agree with one thing -- if you mean it LITERALLY -- which is: the Universe is beautiful and intelligent .
  16. Jun 4, 2003 #15
    Of course, you realize that NOT being refuted is NOT THE SAME as "proving" that a contention is so.
    I don't think I understand what you're getting at...'though I will say that when you use the word "meaningless" perhaps you are saying that you don't believe the Universe will CONTINUE to EXPAND...and I would be in AGREEMENT with you on this.
    While I understand how certain systems within the Universe can lose energy and become chaotic, I do NOT see how the Universe at LARGE can experience entropy AS A WHOLE due to the conservation of energy. But how is the loss of energy -- or a state of chaos -- necessary for evolution. I would think it is just the OPPOSITE.
    Some say "time" is an illusion. Still, if "real", I do not see -- or, more accurately, I haven't THOUGHT ABOUT -- how time and LIGHT? creates the illusion of space.
    If I understand this correctly, you are saying that dynamic, coherent systems can only exist for a finite period of time...so perhaps this is what you mean by ENTROPY being necessary for evolution. But I don't "see" this clearly.
    I would think it's the other way around: that a system's initial ENERGY dictates how long it will "live". But, again, I might not "get" what you are proposing.
    Do you mean the "life cycles" of different systems EFFECT each other???
    Are you saying that systems are trying to "steal" -- or draw from -- each other's energy?
    Since a "quotient" is a quantity resulting from division of one quantity by another, are you saying that...in fact, I can't begin to GUESS what you are saying. Please explain.
    Are you saying that there is a finite amount of energy in the Universe, and that It's "life cycle" is GIVEN by that amount of energy?
    Sorry. No comprendo.
    You have defined TC, but not Qt (quantum theory???). Please define...and explain.
    I don't get these either.
    I agree that the Universe is beautiful and INTELLIGENT (actually, I contend that is it CONSCIOUS). But I don't "get" what you mean by the words in the last line of your post.If interested in MY speculations, please go to the thread under Philosophy: "A Conscious Universe". Otherwise, we can continue here.
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2003
  17. Jun 4, 2003 #16


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Technically, this is not the correct forum for the direction this discussion is taking.

    Some of your points could be the starting point of valid physical discussions, others are best mulled over in phiolophy. Perhaps if you were to create shorter posts with a single point they would be easier to respond to. Long posts combined with your admirable but still difficult to follow English, make it very hard for me to get clear to the end. This in turn makes it difficult to respond in an intellegent manner.
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2003
  18. Jun 7, 2003 #17
    Ok. Since all my topics are located in "Theory Development" that I'll be there. In "Philosophy" probably too. I hope on a good discussion.
  19. Jun 16, 2003 #18
    The Question was – What about new ideas?
    I don’t see answer.
    Perhaps to be not unreasonable to do in PF bank of ideas, where authors will be able to place a summary of his idea, something like subject of invention.
  20. Jun 16, 2003 #19
    If you have a new idea, start a thread. :smile:
  21. Jun 16, 2003 #20
    Read: Theory Development/Polytron II
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook