Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 46

Thread: Has any New Science originated in Sciforums?

  1. #21
    All aboard, me Hearties! Captain Kremmen's Avatar
    Posts
    11,680
    Quote Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton View Post
    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?

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Kremmen View Post
    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.

  3. #23
    Anything for the World that can help humans to USE THE HEAD is GOOD ! ! !

  4. #24
    All aboard, me Hearties! Captain Kremmen's Avatar
    Posts
    11,680
    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.

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Luis A.C.ROMANELLI View Post
    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.

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Kremmen View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Pincho Paxton; 12-07-11 at 04:38 PM.

  7. #27
    All aboard, me Hearties! Captain Kremmen's Avatar
    Posts
    11,680
    And the negative matter that must be produced at the same time.
    What happens to that?

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Kremmen View Post
    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

  9. #29
    All aboard, me Hearties! Captain Kremmen's Avatar
    Posts
    11,680
    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.

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Kremmen View Post
    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?
    Last edited by Pincho Paxton; 12-07-11 at 05:36 PM.

  11. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton View Post
    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.

  12. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Pincho Paxton; 12-08-11 at 06:53 AM.

  13. #33
    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
    Last edited by Pincho Paxton; 12-08-11 at 07:23 AM.

  14. #34
    All aboard, me Hearties! Captain Kremmen's Avatar
    Posts
    11,680
    Quote Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton View Post
    You can't switch between my theory, and science that easily.
    Obviously not.
    That was an interesting link about Voyager reaching a stagnation zone.
    Last edited by Captain Kremmen; 12-08-11 at 08:47 AM.

  15. #35
    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.

  16. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by RichW9090 View Post
    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.

  17. #37
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    2,789
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    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

  18. #38
    Congratulations Emil.

    That is sweet. Lets hope they go mainstream soon.

  19. #39
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    6,223
    Quote Originally Posted by Emil View Post
    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...

  20. #40
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    2,789
    Quote Originally Posted by kwhilborn View Post
    Congratulations Emil.

    That is sweet. Lets hope they go mainstream soon.
    Thank you.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nasor View Post
    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.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. By rpenner in forum Physics & Math
    Last Post: 06-17-14, 01:02 AM
    Replies: 427
  2. By wellwisher in forum General Philosophy
    Last Post: 11-12-11, 10:57 PM
    Replies: 24
  3. By hujiaqichina in forum The Cesspool
    Last Post: 11-19-09, 09:02 PM
    Replies: 4
  4. By hujiaqi_beijing in forum General Science & Technology
    Last Post: 08-03-09, 04:05 PM
    Replies: 3
  5. By coberst in forum General Philosophy
    Last Post: 07-13-07, 02:12 AM
    Replies: 54

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •