View Full Version : Has any New Science originated in Sciforums?
Robittybob1
12-05-11, 09:24 PM
Has any New Science originated in Sciforums?
Has the forum had any success in finding out something new, assisted in the development of a new idea?
What do you use the forum for? Does it help you learn and understand science better?
Discuss the successes please.
:)
I almost did a research project about online community interactions using Sciforums and thescienceforum.com, but I didn't complete it.
But that's off topic.
Sciforums, and most other online communities, are primarily about social interaction.
It's not a place where you expect New Science to be made... but I'm not sure that there's any single place where New Science is made.
Has any New Science originated in Sciforums?
Has the forum had any success in finding out something new, assisted in the development of a new idea?
What do you use the forum for? Does it help you learn and understand science better?
Discuss the successes please.
:)
Why would you think that any new science comes out of here? This is an internet chat site. The level of ignorance and stupidity here is probably greater than that in the general population.
Robittybob1
12-05-11, 10:17 PM
Why would you think that any new science comes out of here? This is an internet chat site. The level of ignorance and stupidity here is probably greater than that in the general population.
That is what I was wanting to know. Is there any point in it? You spend a lot of time on here too correcting people (putting your spoke in). You are not everyone's favourite, you are a bit of a troll, but somehow they let you carry on.
Why do you go to all this trouble?
I was thinking couldn't the combined intellect of the forum be greater than an idividual, and if it was some "new science" idea may result.:)
kwhilborn
12-05-11, 10:25 PM
I think such a thought is almost laughable. No original thought could be posted without it (The Topic) being redirected to the Cesspool or Fringe.
Once it is in the fringe there is a slew of people who dwell there just to jump on and make fun of any fringe theories.
"Where's the proof?" Or just plain old "There's no arguing with a crank". The level of stupididty in here is probably greater than that in the general population.
Alex G says that meaning he thinks he is smarter than everyone else, and I say it meaning the trolls are stupid for wasting their time on this forum.
Anybody researching anything however will find our opinions on the matter in google if they are looking hard enough.
Robittybob1
12-05-11, 11:47 PM
I was thinking of the incredible power of Wikipedia. Combined knowledge, But what about "combined thought", like a "Super Brain" as compared to a super computer or an array of radio telescopes working together? Why can't this be done?
kwhilborn
12-06-11, 05:40 PM
I would differentiate between combined knowledge and combined thought.
I am sure sciforums has probably helped someone do something, if only for its value as a search in google.
combined thought
http://www.alltm.org/pages/crime-arrested.html
Robittybob1
12-06-11, 05:48 PM
I would differentiate between combined knowledge and combined thought.
I am sure sciforums has probably helped someone do something, if only for its value as a search in google.
combined thought
http://www.alltm.org/pages/crime-arrested.htmlWe are sharing thoughts all the time. As long as you can read and attempt to understand the post it is a type of combined thought process. :)
Pincho Paxton
12-07-11, 06:52 AM
My science gets used everywhere Stephen Hawking was using it last week. I've also seen Brian Cox use it in the past. Science News reveal a lot of my stuff as new science. Stephen Hawking altered a part of it though, where I used Negative Mass he used energy, which is a bit of a mistake for him, because the guy digging the hole was the energy, not the hole itself.
Robittybob1
12-07-11, 11:45 AM
My science gets used everywhere Stephen Hawking was using it last week. I've also seen Brian Cox use it in the past. Science News reveal a lot of my stuff as new science. Stephen Hawking altered a part of it though, where I used Negative Mass he used energy, which is a bit of a mistake for him, because the guy digging the hole was the energy, not the hole itself.I heard about your 3 legged animal too. The reason it had 3 legs was that you had pulled the other one.:D
spidergoat
12-07-11, 11:52 AM
I share some ideas I discover here with my scientist friend, which has stimulated some experiments. I would tell you about them but the applications are somewhat trade secrets.
Robittybob1
12-07-11, 12:42 PM
I share some ideas I discover here with my scientist friend, which has stimulated some experiments. I would tell you about them but the applications are somewhat trade secrets.Well that is bloody good isn't it. Plagiarism and we are not getting any royalties!:)
spidergoat
12-07-11, 01:03 PM
Well some of you aren't US citizens, and this technology is restricted to within the country.
Robittybob1
12-07-11, 01:17 PM
Well some of you aren't US citizens, and this technology is restricted to within the country.Do you mean Iran? Helping them build a bomb!:)
spidergoat
12-07-11, 02:35 PM
It's not that.
Robittybob1
12-07-11, 02:43 PM
It's not that.Thank God for that! When I see your avatar I was thinking you might be a terrorist not a tourist passing through.:D
spidergoat
12-07-11, 02:55 PM
If you read more carefully, you will see that the organization is a US one, and the technology is limited to there because it has national security implications. I don't get any classified info of course, but it's still somewhat sensitive. I happen to work in the footwear industry, and I like to think about how some of these technologies can be used in shoes.
Pincho Paxton
12-07-11, 02:59 PM
If you read more carefully, you will see that the organization is a US one, and the technology is limited to there because it has national security implications. I don't get any classified info of course, but it's still somewhat sensitive. I happen to work in the footwear industry, and I like to think about how some of these technologies can be used in shoes.
yeah, I always wanted some rocket boots! :D
spidergoat
12-07-11, 03:04 PM
Soon... LOL
...more like bulletproof.
Robittybob1
12-07-11, 03:13 PM
Soon... LOL
...more like bulletproof.I'd need some of them. I'm always shooting myself in the foot!:D
Captain Kremmen
12-07-11, 03:28 PM
My science gets used everywhere Stephen Hawking was using it last week. I've also seen Brian Cox use it in the past.
You write your theories on toilet paper?
Pincho Paxton
12-07-11, 03:54 PM
You write your theories on toilet paper?
Go to 25 minutes and watch for a few minutes, and listen to the words...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQhd05ZVYWg
Now click this link of mine, and scroll down just a bit to the igloo, and read that...
http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/58032-bubble-universe-and-black-holes/
My igloo post is quite old on some sites.
Luis A.C.ROMANELLI
12-07-11, 04:20 PM
Anything for the World that can help humans to USE THE HEAD is GOOD ! ! !
Captain Kremmen
12-07-11, 04:26 PM
Which is your theory.
The one where the Universe emerged from an infinitesimally small, infinitesimally dense black hole.?
Or the one where it emerged from nothing?
Hawking seems to hold both.
And I don't know about his physics, but his straw man theology is extremely annoying.
Robittybob1
12-07-11, 04:29 PM
Anything for the World that can help humans to USE THE HEAD is GOOD ! ! !But does it waste more time than it is worth. The brighter ones seem to suggest staying off the forums and studying other resources, like texts or Google searches.
I found while on the forums, they were tossing me from one topic to another and it just got confusing. I wasn't sure if I was learning.
Well you certainly learn to communicate. That must be worth something.:)
Pincho Paxton
12-07-11, 04:29 PM
Which is your theory.
The one where the Universe emerged from an infinitesimally small, infinitesimally dense black hole.?
Or the one where it emerged from nothing?
Hawking seems to hold both.
And I don't know about his physics, but his straw man theology is extremely annoying.
Mine emerges from nothing. I didn't want any loose ends where people ask what happened before so, and so. So I spent years working out how to start a universe from nothing. I don't have a Big Bang, I just have Galaxies that grow like opening rose petals. Working outwards, creating their own particles.
Captain Kremmen
12-07-11, 04:37 PM
And the negative matter that must be produced at the same time.
What happens to that?
Pincho Paxton
12-07-11, 04:47 PM
And the negative matter that must be produced at the same time.
What happens to that?
It has properties like matter, holes that bump holes. Strange to think about, but we just don't consider holes to be anything. Holes are just negative mass, like anti-matter. They bump apart. It makes a very interesting computer model. So for example, Gravity bumps us down, the holes bump outwards, it is all working to eliminate a lot of what we are able to see. when a particle is over a hole it is mathematically none existent, but they will move apart, and the particle will become existent again. It is like the Game Of Life but with a very complex pattern. I have started some computer model tests...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggRxyHjimxM
Captain Kremmen
12-07-11, 04:59 PM
My understanding of antimatter is that it is exactly the same as ordinary mattter, and nothing like a hole.
The PET scanner uses Positrons.
They have no resemblance to holes.
Pincho Paxton
12-07-11, 05:28 PM
My understanding of antimatter is that it is exactly the same as ordinary mattter, and nothing like a hole.
The PET scanner uses Positrons.
They have no resemblance to holes.
You can't switch between my theory, and science that easily. You have to just use one theory or the other theory. Science anti-matter is missing the ingredients. Science is sort of 2D, and my theory is sort of a 3D version. You can't see the holes anyway, our eyes have evolved to pick up mass. For example, water, and glass contain a lot of negative mass, and see how they have become semi-transparent?
Robittybob1
12-07-11, 08:26 PM
You can't switch between my theory, and science that easily. You have to just use one theory or the other theory. Science anti-matter is missing the ingredients. Science is sort of 2D, and my theory is sort of a 3D version. You can't see the holes anyway, our eyes have evolved to pick up mass. For example, water, and glass contain a lot of negative mass, and see how they have become semi-transparent?The igloo or the hole in the dessert and the hill beside it both don't just happen.
When you can come up with analogies where they just happen I will believe it just happened from nothing, but until it is done and while there is the need to intentionally to move stuff from A to B, I will still take the revelation that it was God who put the Energy into void to create the Universe.
You might think of that as splitting the void into positive and negative matter but it had to be done.:)
Pincho Paxton
12-08-11, 06:29 AM
The igloo or the hole in the dessert and the hill beside it both don't just happen.
When you can come up with analogies where they just happen I will believe it just happened from nothing, but until it is done and while there is the need to intentionally to move stuff from A to B, I will still take the revelation that it was God who put the Energy into void to create the Universe.
You might think of that as splitting the void into positive and negative matter but it had to be done.:)
They can happen because they equal zero. You don't need a reason to create 0 from nothing. Although the reason is that the first particles that equal zero also have no relative scale either, so they can be any scale. The Universe has a particle around it that is identical to the smallest particle in the Universe, they are the same particle. We are inside that particle, and also made from that particle. Scale is relative. Energy is in/out, so you have X/Y/Z/in/out. In/Out is like water pressure in a hose, it comes from a scaling factor. Squeeze down a drain, squirt out a hose. If you look at a Galaxy, and the Black Hole the 'IN' is the hole, and the 'OUT' is the vortex type bubble.
Pincho Paxton
12-08-11, 07:18 AM
Voyager is also finding my theories from 2004 to most likely be correct. That there is a push force out there, and I also predicted the Bubble as well.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111205141802.htm
"Voyager is showing that what is outside is pushing back.
And my posts from 2004...
http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/2796-gravity-theory/page__view__findpost__p__39517
Captain Kremmen
12-08-11, 08:14 AM
You can't switch between my theory, and science that easily.
Obviously not.
That was an interesting link about Voyager reaching a stagnation zone.
RichW9090
12-09-11, 11:45 PM
I get nervous in these sorts of discussions when people use gratuitous capitalization, such as "New Science". It often indicates that they have redefined the words or terms which are capitalized.
As someone noted, these Forums are public social interaction sites - sometimes with an element of education thrown in. I participate in them because often they are they Forums in which people like creationists, or the proponents of ID, like to present their ideas, and I refuse to let them do so unchallenged. I don't debate with them to try to change their minds, but rather for the benefit of the onlookers who might otherwise be led to think that their ideas have merit. I know for a fact that a number of people who were observers of Forums I participated in, or hosted, have gone on to understand science, and choose it as a path they'd like to pursue. That alone makes it worthwhile.
Robittybob1
12-10-11, 12:01 AM
I get nervous in these sorts of discussions when people use gratuitous capitalization, such as "New Science". It often indicates that they have redefined the words or terms which are capitalized.
As someone noted, these Forums are public social interaction sites - sometimes with an element of education thrown in. I participate in them because often they are they Forums in which people like creationists, or the proponents of ID, like to present their ideas, and I refuse to let them do so unchallenged. I don't debate with them to try to change their minds, but rather for the benefit of the onlookers who might otherwise be led to think that their ideas have merit. I know for a fact that a number of people who were observers of Forums I participated in, or hosted, have gone on to understand science, and choose it as a path they'd like to pursue. That alone makes it worthwhile.More like New Scientist rather than New Science. Good that you get some pleasure from that. I started this thread with the intention of finding out if some benefit comes out of participating in the forums.:)
Has any New Science originated in Sciforums?
Has the forum had any success in finding out something new, assisted in the development of a new idea?
What do you use the forum for? Does it help you learn and understand science better?
Discuss the successes please.
:)
Yep
Rotary Piston (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=101648)
Some concrete results (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2588599#post2588599)
The patent (http://bd.osim.ro/pdf/122000-/122100-/122160.pdf) ;)
kwhilborn
12-10-11, 07:44 AM
Congratulations Emil.
That is sweet. Lets hope they go mainstream soon.
Yep
Rotary Piston (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=101648)
Some concrete results (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2588599#post2588599)
The patent (http://bd.osim.ro/pdf/122000-/122100-/122160.pdf) ;)
Since you joined in 2010 and the patent application was filed in 2006, it's not clear to me how sciforums could have been responsible...
Congratulations Emil.
That is sweet. Lets hope they go mainstream soon.
Thank you.
Since you joined in 2010 and the patent application was filed in 2006, it's not clear to me how sciforums could have been responsible...
The applications are multiple. I presented these and if you want we can discuss other applications or improve those already presented.
Captain Kremmen
12-10-11, 01:39 PM
Since you joined in 2010 and the patent application was filed in 2006, it's not clear to me how sciforums could have been responsible...
It was a part for a time machine.
Robittybob1
12-10-11, 02:51 PM
It was a part for a time machine.It does look like a futuristic motor to me. :)
kwhilborn
12-10-11, 03:10 PM
@ Nasor,
Probably had to rejoin under a new name as Sciforums bans anyone trying to think of new science.
@ Emil,
Grats again.
The fashion now is the curvature of space, dark matter, dark energy and not such a trivial things (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrbDU_n1jqM). :rolleyes:
The economic crisis is still not deep enough. ;)
cosmictotem
02-20-12, 06:38 PM
Since I joined the forums a few days ago Einstein's Theory of Relatvity has been completely overturned. Where the hell have you been?
Robittybob1
02-20-12, 07:40 PM
Since I joined the forums a few days ago Einstein's Theory of Relatvity has been completely overturned. Where the hell have you been?
You used the word "Forums" obviously meaning other forums and not this one. What forum were you implying? :)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.