Has any New Science originated in Sciforums?

**Captain Kremmen** · 12-07-11, 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton

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

Originally Posted by Captain Kremmen

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/5...d-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

Originally Posted by Luis A.C.ROMANELLI

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

Originally Posted by Captain Kremmen

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

Originally Posted by Captain Kremmen

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

Originally Posted by Captain Kremmen

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

Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton

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

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

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...1205141802.htm

"Voyager is showing that what is outside is pushing back.

And my posts from 2004...
http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/2...post__p__39517

**Captain Kremmen** · 12-08-11, 08:14 AM

Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton

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

Originally Posted by RichW9090

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.

**Emil** · 12-10-11, 04:48 AM

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

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

Some concrete results

The patent