Revolution in science, prof. Kuhn, and paradigma Hi James, I seek in your words opinion of prof. Kuhn. Problem is not "Science is better then anti-science"; problem is "Science contains anti-science, it is very usefull for science, long time, but in some short time, general "paradigma" is changed. New paradigma gets on, it build new "dogma". Truth borns better from "non-truth", as chaos. It is lot of critics, but a few master-builder only. Did I understand it? Emil Smejkal
Uh, yeah. See, people like you are the reason this sticky exists in the first place. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! - Warren
Anybody cares to reopen this discussion ? The amount of crackpottery has risen beyond recognition at this point, both in the Physics & Math, as in the Astronomy forum.
It's not clear to me whether I'm a crackpot or not. (You may have an opinion, I'm still trying to find out). However I sympathise. I suspect that the problem will never go away. People are interested in these topics, and people come in all sizes. I find that there's enough sanity to make it all worthwhile, but that's just me. Considering it's a group of people with different opinions who don't know each other discussing complicated topics about which they feel strongly by typing to each other via a machine it's a wonder it isn't a veritable Tower of Babel.
UniKEF As a newcommer to this thread I've come across the word "UniKERF" I wonder if MakM could briefly explain what it stands for. So that I may have the oportunity to agree or disagree with the concept (or theory or hypothesis) or whatever it is. Thamk you APOLO
thermodinamics of hell Since no one apears to want to answer the question in my last post, and since there has been no postings on this thread for a while, I'm going to inject a bit of humor, to se what happens. A friend of mine who is a physics profesor in Calefornia send me the following, and he swears on a stack of books it is true. The following is an actual question given on a university of Wasington midterm exam. BONUS QUESTION Is Hell exothermic (gives of heat) or endothermic ? Most of the students wrote proof of their beleifs using Byole's law (gas cooles off when it expans and heats up when it is compressed) One student however wrote the following. First we need to know how the mass of hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate that souls are moving in to hell, and the rate they are leaving. I think we can safely assume that once a soul gets to hell it will not leave. Therefore no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering hell, let's look at the different religions of the world today. Most of these religions state, that if you are not a member of their particular religion, you go to hell.And since there are many different religion we can project that all souls go to hell. With the birthrate we have today we can expect the souls in hell to increase exponentialy. Now we look at the rate of change in the volume of hell. Because Boyle's Law states, that in order for the temperature and pressure in hell to stay the same, the volume of hell has to expand as souls are added. this allows 2 possibilities. 1. If hell is expandig at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter hell, then the temperature and pressure will increase untill all hell breaks loose. 2. Of course, if hell is expanding at a rate faster than the rate of increase of souls, the the temtperature will drop untill hell freezes over. So which is it? If we accept the postulate by Ms Banyan during my freshman year that"...it will be a cold day in hell before I sleep with you" and take into account the fact that I have still not succeded in sleeping with her, the No2 cannot be true, and I'm sure that hell is exothermic and will not freeze. APOLO Any one want to contradict the logic in the above. PS The student got the only A
I am not sure why people are jumping on James- he said he wants the alternatibve theories to stay her eand get a fair airing. As someone who is more likely to ask a question than give an answer in physics and maths, i am very interested in both traditional and non traditional answers. The answers i am interetste din most however are those pushing the boundaries, new ideas to describe observatiuons, things that tie together things other theories dont and explained a t a pop physics level so i acn underatnd the, i would love to see such stuff. And the problem then is whne the new is garbage and when it is just ground-breaking new research and interesting alternatives. So i gues sit is important if people can explain to others how their theories do better explain observations or better tie together current ideas at extremses of physics or whaetever.
<i> Most of these religions state, that if you are not a member of their particular religion, you go to hell.And since there are many different religion we can project that all souls go to hell. </i> this is the logical error in the argument. No reason to assume that what religions state is true, so the consequence doesnt follow at all.
Apolo, It is an acronym for "Universal Kenetic Energy Field". It is the basis for my own personal view of gravity; plus other possibilities. Since I have been admonished for discussing my views here let me merely direct you to my site for further information. http://groups.msn.com/McCoinUniKEFTheory/home.htm I also host an "Other Theories" forum where new concepts are put for response by others. Sort of a "Crackpot" peer review. We are currently rated #1 out of 333 Physics MSN sites and I would like to draw your attention to David B's "Unification Theory" available from the left menu on the Home Page. He is currently working with a recognized Journal for publication and has the mathematics (which I have lacked) to advance a UniKEF type concept.
Mac You might like this. The book is worth a read, although I can't judge it's credibility. http://home.comcast.net/~anpheon/html/Books/TheOrb/TheOrb_Preface.htm
Canaute, Thanks I'll have a look. Can't say yet since when I tried to download I got the message "Done" but had a blank page. When I tried to "Close" my computer locked up. I saved the URL and will try again.
Canute, Thanks. Your new link seems to be working. http://www.anpheon.org/ Within it the following subject is of great interest to me. We have discussed this issue on this MSB but according to the information on this link the explanations given have now all been found untrue and the biggest change is that two other dis-simular craft designs are starting to show the same affect making it appear universally applied as opposed to craft design specific, which it originally did. ********************************* Pioneer deceleration mystery solved! ********************************* http://www.holoscience.com/news/mystery_solved.html Now I didn't like the solution they propose in that at one point they stated the energy of the sun is "Externally" generated. That made no sense what-so-ever but may be because this was a short article devoid of mathematics showing their cause and affect. My interest is because I have predicted this affect long before space flight was even achieved. See "D = V * T Invalid" in the "Summaries" menu of my home page http:/groups.msn.com/McCoinUniKEFTheory/home.htm . Which states that distance is variable and is a function of the mass of observer and observed. i.e. It is only 4.3 ly to A.C. (our nearest neighboring star) for a photon traveling at v = c but for a bowling ball the distance will be less. In this case objects removed from the mass/distance affect of the earth and now the bulk of the solar system is resulting in distance Pioneer sees to deep space objects as increasing, making it appear to us (bound to distance as viewed from earth) that the vehicles are slowing down. Really crazy stuff. And I didn't like Relativity because it is counter intuitive - Go figure. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Hmm. I don't know what craft you're refering to. Is that the right link? I meant you to get to the book of the theory called 'The Orb', a fairly detailed theory of cosmology and matter based on an ether. It's under 'books', but the site is slow and quirky.
Canute, It seems to be working differently now. The first time the graphics on the home page was pulsing, when I clicked on it it went to another page with the same name but had a list of topics of which the second link I posted was one. Now the home page graphics are not pulsing and I get a different link when I enter. In any case thanks.
little concern Look I am the first to recognize and admit that I know little about physics. But I am trying to learn more and this forum is seeming to help. I am an engineer and can usually peice different parts of somehting together. When I have a question and get both conventional, and new ideas tossed at me I can take them and usually get the answer, however I believe I learn more that way, having different options to follow. By spliting up the forums I think that this will stifile continued learning for those of us who admit to a knowledge defficiency. I think this come down to two questions I have some general questions sometimes, therefore where would I go for them, compared to my more 'off-the-wall' ideas that end up in questions. And if I read something related to both conventional and new ideas where does that pertain. I belive the spirit of making multiple areas to post is a good idea for organization, I do not believe that it would promote, further understanding of each-other and our ideas, as well as further learning for all.
I am new to the forums and probably already considered (at least by Crisp and several others) as one of the leading crackpots, my choice of word not Crisp's). I understand their reason for this belief and an not concerned. By being in the "mainstream" forums, I have an opportunity to have some response from very credible physicists and mathematician to my unorthodox views, where if "banished" to a separate alternative theory thread would probably never get looked at (by those most trained in the present mainstream theory and beliefs). Therefore, I would hope it remains the way it is at present but if the preference is for majority determining the structure, then this idea should be considered. Sincerely deweyb I