Dark Energy Dubbed a Universal Kenetic Energy Field (UniKEF)

[MacM]

James R.,

Since I recently posted three releases which I thought interesting and possibly good topics for discussion which prompted you to snub all three with an admonition that if I have no comment then don't post them, I tought I would post this one with a comment.

*********************************************
Well, well, well. It of course is more complex than I had envisioned but "Dark Energy" is not only now being considered a Universal Kenetic Energy Field but it is being suggested that it may be derived from the "Vacuum Energy".

They generically refer to it as K-essence but explain that it is a kenetic energy field.

UniKEF predicted an accelerating expanding universe and was thought to be effuding from the voids of space.

http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/astro-p...04/0004134.pdf

[James R]

Please quote the relevant parts of the paper which you think support UniKEF.

[MacM]

James R.,

Please quote the relevant parts of the paper which you think support UniKEF.

That didn't take long.

Actually it would be far easier and quicker for you to point out where I specified any link to the data other than the basic facts.

1 - It is now being referred to as a universal kenetic energy field.

2 - It is suggested that it may effude from "Vacuum Energy"

3 - It is responsible for an accelerting expansion of the universe.

I believe this link is more in depth.

http://physicsweb.org/article/world/13/11/8/1

As I indicated this k-essence is far more complex than I could have ever imagined so I am not making any claims other than the most basic and that is regardless of how I came to my conclusions I had envisioned a UniKEF that created space and caused an accelerating expansion of the universe (long before that was discovered). I also indicated it came from every ordinate point in the universe (didn't know about the vacuum energy or planck lengths back then).

The major difference at this point is that I had envisioned it as a much more primary force and it apparently is extremely weak but has remained constant (because it continues to come from space and from the space it creates) whereas the forces of gravity, etc have decreased with expansion and we are now reaching a point where this constant weak force is overcoming the other forces as they grow weaker.

I have envisioned this process like the Big Bang was only a tear in some dimension and the rip is propagating and more space is being created yet today.

[Quantum Quack]

this reminds me of a posted question I made some time ago about the expansion of the universe creating a need for more "content" in the void or vacuum created.

[James R]

I see no obvious link between this and your UniKEF theory, MacM. I think you're just jumping on the band wagon.

[MacM]

James R.,

I see no obvious link between this and your UniKEF theory, MacM. I think you're just jumping on the band wagon.

ANS: How did I ever guess you would take that attitude.

It is a shame that my worthless thoughts are well documented and preceeded these findings by almost 50 years.

[James R]

Please post the relevant parts, with references.

[MacM]

James R.,

Here are a few basic correlations.


From the INTRODUCTION: UniKEF

UniKEF stands for Universal Kinetic Energy Field Theory. It is a concept of time-space based on space being formed by time-energy (UniKEF). That is time is not a 4th dimension. It is an illusion of energy transfers or flow ****in an energy field that creates our three dimensional space****

http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/astro-p...04/0004134.pdf

In the Introduction of the paper in the first link the k-field or k-essence is defined as a kenetic energy field and it is causing the expansion of additional space in the accelerating Universe.


http://physicsweb.org/article/world/13/11/8/1

In this link under the section entitled "quintessence on track"

The energy is composed of kinetic energy, which depends on the rate of oscillations in the field strength, and potential energy, which depends on the interaction of the field with itself and matter. The pressure is determined by the difference between the kinetic and potential energy, with kinetic energy contributing positively to the pressure.

FROM Volume 1: UniKEF

UNIKEF Verified predictions: *
1 - The more remote the galaxy to an observer the greater its speed
of recession, including acceleration at large seperations.

* Verified by astronomical observations.
http://www.msnusers.com/McCoinUniKEF...FUFig4%2D5.gif

See graphic in link above showing accelerating expansion of the Universe

5 - Matter will coalesce or clump within a given radius of a active
tep mass but will become repelled beyond that limit.
* verified Predicts the expansion but did not forsee the transitional phases getting to the point the force was larger than initial gravitation. Was thought to be a primary force. Can't win them all.


From Volume 3: UniKEF: This one appears to be a potential answer to the anomaly of deep space craft currently being studied.

Distance to the stars calculated by using light as a tape measure
is only the distance for light and the integrated masses of objects in
the gravity line between points A & B. "q" defines the quantitative
T.E.U. between points by teu - gravity in the measured distance.

"Distance" is an abitrary number since distance is an energy term
which varies with the "q" or mass of observers and observed points.

So distance at the velocity of light is only 4.3 years for light
traveling at v=c. For a massive rocket traversing time-space to the
stars the physical distance is not the same because the q of the rocket
establishes a different distance than it is for light.


I don't call this "Getting on the Band Wagon", more like them catching up and speeding on past

[Quantum Quack]

I think at this point in the discussion it is worth considering what is being proposed and the attitude to the proposition.

Obviously the moderator ( quite correctly I might add) has decided to consider this posting as alternative theory mainly in that it is expressing views contrary to popular and currently accepted scientific research.

I think even the poster knows that this thread is attempting to push the boundaries a little and allow the reader to explore beyond the mainstream and allow for a little imagination in applying logic to the study of reality.

I think that this is evidence that a theory development board needs to be established to facilitate the exploration of ideas based on exsisting science.

To me I find that there is a state of tension that exists in that persons are wanting to explore and postulate but are in a state of combat and conflict with strong orthadox views.

As new ideas or angles to old ideas are posed there is a definite "No no" attitude that prevails and all this achieves is the stimying of what could be a productive approach or angle.

The obvious answer is either the poster can head his post as theory development or alternative or a separate board be established.

The reason I have bothered to post this reply is simply that sometimes a little imagination ( as demonstrated by Albert Einstien) can shift the approach to problem enourmously and I think this needs to be encouraged not discouraged by virtualy saying that the use of imagination is banned.

If this board is really only a teaching of mainstream views then this is what it is and alternative or theory development postings are not welcome.

I think some policy activity is needed to allow for this forum to thrive and encourage alternative approaches.

After all sometimes alternative views can be alot of fun and incredibly good as a learning tool.

For instance instead of asking "What proof and references?
Ask "How can this be proved? ,,,,is this a new approach?

What can I say that allows the poster to explore his approach with out self delusion or irrationality etc?

[MacM]

Quantum Quack,

Thanks for the thoughts. I only want to add a couple of notes.

We have had these discussion here before and the attitude is if you aren't "qualified" as in being a professional or recognized person with top of the line skills, then anything you say is BS, Crack Pottery.

I am the first to acknowledge my work is full of gapping pot holes, I say so in the Introduction of my work. But at the same time the challenges you mention are the same anytime something is said that refers to UniKEF as being a correlation.

It matters not that the work has a long list of "Priori Predictions".

The lack of mathematical proof and demands to "Prove" the concept is used to bury any discussion of the general principles which have been absolutely thrilling to watch unfold as later discoveries.

FYI: The basic theory was put forth in 1954! I'll not list the predictions here since that will only start the snow ball once more.
Anybody interested can go to the UniKEF site and read them for themselves.

What really tops the cake (and I don't personally object to it having been posted) is that something like this is kicked out and/or poked at without any consideration and yet we recently saw the post about "Santa's Physics".

Their idea of a "Theory Development" is to stick you into "Pseudoscience" along with "Alien Abductions, etc."

In any case thanks once again.

PS: I hasten to point out that this post was to show correlation to current findings, even though it is an alternative view.

[James R]

<i>We have had these discussion here before and the attitude is if you aren't "qualified" as in being a professional or recognized person with top of the line skills, then anything you say is BS, Crack Pottery.</i>

No. The attitude is that if you can't provide any evidence or good argument for your ideas, then they are probably worthless, particularly if they contradict very well established existing ideas.

<i>It matters not that the work has a long list of "Priori Predictions".</i>

... which are all unproven and unexplained. No derivations have ever been given, or any good evidence that they are prior.

<i>The lack of mathematical proof and demands to "Prove" the concept is used to bury any discussion of the general principles which have been absolutely thrilling to watch unfold as later discoveries.</i>

No "general principles" have ever been given for UniKEF. Newton had 3 basic laws, from which all else is derived. Einstein had 2 basic principles, from which the whole of relativity follows. UniKEF, on the other hand, seems to be a hodge-podge of vague claims to priority without basis.

<i>FYI: The basic theory was put forth in 1954!</i>

Then why are we yet to see any of it here, after about a year of you coming here? All we've seen are statements that "UniKEF claims this" and "UniKEF correctly predicts that". No actual evidence is ever given in support of these claims.

<i>I'll not list the predictions here since that will only start the snow ball once more.</i>

Go ahead, if you have evidence or argument to back up any of them.

<i>Anybody interested can go to the UniKEF site and read them for themselves.</i>

Yes, then can.

<i>What really tops the cake (and I don't personally object to it having been posted) is that something like this is kicked out and/or poked at without any consideration and yet we recently saw the post about "Santa's Physics". </i>

"Santa's physics" is a playful thread. Surely you can see that. On the other hand, your "theory" is in deadly earnest. If you want to play with the real scientists, you need to subject your ideas to real scientific scrutiny. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen!

<i>Their idea of a "Theory Development" is to stick you into "Pseudoscience" along with "Alien Abductions, etc."</i>

Please refer to the sticky thread on "Science and Pseudoscience". You may find it enlightening.

<i>PS: I hasten to point out that this post was to show correlation to current findings, even though it is an alternative view.</i>

But no explanation of how UniKEF's results are derived has ever been posted here (or, I suspect, anywhere else). It's easy to stand back and say, after the event, "Oh, I predicted that years ago". It's harder to really make accurate predictions and have a theory which is actually useful.

Stop grandstanding, MacM. Frankly, I'm getting a little sick of it.

[MacM]

James R.,


No. The attitude is that if you can't provide any evidence or good argument for your ideas, then they are probably worthless, particularly if they contradict very well established existing ideas.

Point 1: Good evidence is the many "Priori Prediction'. A term tauted by this forum as being prima-facia good evidence before testing.

Point 2: The point is and has been that it doesn't contridict existing concepts. that is continually ignored since it provides an alternative to Relativity for the same data predictions.

... which are all unproven

Which is the status with all "Priori's"

and unexplained.

Only if you continue to refuse to read the theory,

No derivations have ever been given

Not so. Most are by way of example and not to your quality but they are there and then there is the matter of several pages of calculus done by a physicist that actually saw value in the concept which you choose to ignore.

, or any good evidence that they are prior.

On this point I feel justified telling you to shove your attitude where the sun doesn't shine. You know damn well I have letters from the Geodetic Institute, NASA, The US Army Research Command, Notes from Professors of the Physics Department of Purdue University, News Paper Articles, etc. That show this comment is Bull Shit. If you had any interest I could supply you with numerous witnesses.

No "general principles" have ever been given for UniKEF. Newton had 3 basic laws, from which all else is derived. Einstein had 2 basic principles, from which the whole of relativity follows. UniKEF, on the other hand, seems to be a hodge-podge of vague claims to priority without basis.

Wrong again access has been made to the theory which the abstract is 50 pages and in no way could be laid out in a few simple sttement (which I tried once if you recall) and all one gets is based on what?, Where is the math?, where is the proof?, etc. The fact that you haven't taken the interst to even look is not the same thing as saying such material hasn't been made available. We just covered this BS about "priority without basis".

Then why are we yet to see any of it here, after about a year of you coming here? All we've seen are statements that "UniKEF claims this" and "UniKEF correctly predicts that". No actual evidence is ever given in support of these claims.

As you well know it has been made impossible to discuss such things and based on the few attempts to do so I would even care to. You want answers go read the material. I'm not going to do battle over every sentance of a 200 page manuscript that has numerous graphics, etc.

As far as "Priori's" that has been covered. The evidence is there for anyone to look at and I would assist anybody actually interested in making such a determination by providing witnesses. I am not going to set here and defend my integrity to a bunch that seem to have none.

Go ahead, if you have evidence or argument to back up any of them.

Been there done that once before as you might recall. The effort was met with the same degree of challenge and bull that we see here. I listed some of the predicitions and that was met with "Based on what", "Wheres the math", "Prove it".
Go read for yourself, or do you suggest that I had full page news articles printed by myself. If so then I would suggest that you merely pickup the phone and call the news paper and ask for a copy. That wasn't to tough was it? The theory is from 1954 and it had those predictions. That has absolutely nothing to do with me explaning to you the thought process that caused me to arrive at those jprecidtions. I made them I have been right. You want to know more then study the concept.

Yes, then can.

Don't know if this is a typo but I think you said "Yes then they can". That is correct and if they don't they should keep their mouth shut about things they know nothing about.

"Santa's physics" is a playful thread. Surely you can see that. On the other hand, your "theory" is in deadly earnest. If you want to play with the real scientists, you need to subject your ideas to real scientific scrutiny. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen!

Of course Santa's Physics is a spoof, not to unlike the video I had on "Centrifugal Force" (Where a bird had been tied by a string to a cieling fan and the family cat jumped from a table and caught it and couldn't turn loose and made several squaling revolutions as people were yelling "Shut off the fan".

Damn funny video and I was chastized for trying to post it here. You only apply standards when you want to.

Please refer to the sticky thread on "Science and Pseudoscience". You may find it enlightening.

In case you have forgotten I had a fair number of post in those threads and it still irks me that the vote was in favor of a "Theory Development" area and you over ruled your on post calling for a vote and refused to jproceed. I think you were surprised that more people wanted one than agreed with your policy.


But no explanation of how UniKEF's results are derived has ever been posted here (or, I suspect, anywhere else). It's easy to stand back and say, after the event, "Oh, I predicted that years ago". It's harder to really make accurate predictions and have a theory which is actually useful.

Actually under the circumstance and experience here, they never will but it would be damn easy to click and simply read and not expect that I would try to re-post a 200 page theory whien enven one sentance turns into a pissing contest and arguement over nothing.

Stop grandstanding, MacM. Frankly, I'm getting a little sick of it.

No grand standing on my part. Just posting facts as they come out. You don't like that I have seen so many things right and I don't favor Relativty, that your loss not mine.

PS: We have all noted here that once again after asking for some examples you returned to insults, enuendo, attacks, false statements and challenges and failed to make any comment what-so-ever to the actual correlations shown. So what is new on SciFi? Nothing.

[Crisp]

MacM,

You sound like Nostradamus. He also predicted many things, and wrote them down in an incomprehensible language. Now -- years after, people say that he predicted it all along.

I can only agree with James arguments, and this is not because of some "scientists stick together" reason.


1) Prediction: your theory predicts nothing. In order to formulate a prediction from a given set of premises, you need a logical reasoning to get from one point to another. You have not provided us with logical statements, but only with a set of words which are subject to misinterpretation.

Whenever you attempted to do the maths, it turned out to be wrong.

Whatever you call "priori" is usually called a "conjecture" in science. Your theory is one big conjecture as you say yourself (50 pages of text postulates that cannot be summarized into a few lines), even though all "serious" theories consist of only a few postulates. The fact that you can deduce an entire description of nature from only two or three assumptions distinguishes us from pre-1600 "science", or rather science pilosophy, where descriptions of nature also consisted of books filled with unsubstantiated conjectures and words.

And generally speaking, even if one would have only a few postulates, then further conjectures are to be avoided as much as possible.


2) Proof. When asked about your derivations, you say that most of them are by example.

"Not so. Most are by way of example and not to your quality but they are there ... "

Any serious scientist would burst into laughter at this point, because you cannot prove anything by example. I can show you 1000 examples of black cats, but this does not prove that all cats are black.

A proof is a logical explanation of how to go from one point to another, which cannot be misinterpreted since everything is well and strictly defined. The conventional language to do this is mathematics, because this language is very well defined. Verbal languages such as English can be misinterpreted because some words have more than one meaning.

If you really want then you can try to do the same in the English language. You tried so and you have seen that this leads to many discussions and inconsistencies, just because you have some idea in your head which you could not bring over to the reader in the words you wrote. All problems that can be avoided by studying a new language.

"... and then there is the matter of several pages of calculus done by a physicist that actually saw value in the concept which you choose to ignore."

Goodie, several pages out of 200 pages of text. If I remember correctly those are available on your webpage (yes, I visited it several times already), and if I remember correctly it could have been anything.


3) Reproducable experiments or calculations: you made predictions, but fail to explain how you got there:

"The theory is from 1954 and it had those predictions. That has absolutely nothing to do with me explaning to you the thought process that caused me to arrive at those jprecidtions. I made them I have been right."

The same Nostradamus spirit again. I can also predict that the earth will tremble near Asia and that it will kill many thousands somewhere in the year 2004. Just watch the news and for the next earthquake in the midde-east, you'll remember that I predicted it.




Anyway, with your last post you have proven (yes, finally you have proven something) that you failed to learn even the most basic thing required to be taken seriously: the foundations of the scientific method.


I wish you loads of fun with your theory, please do not spam our scientific forums with it anymore. This will also be my last post on this thread, I do not feel the urge anymore to get into one of those good ol' flaming threads once again with you.

Bye!

Crisp

[Quantum Quack]

Oh boy, is there some heat in here.....

After reading the responses I can only ask why alternative concepts and theories are unable to be handled abstractly instead of hard and solid.

Theory acceptance can take many years I read somewhere and they must have started as abstractions at some time or some where.

Say I postulate the abstraction of photonic backpressure, suggesting that Em from a star may very well be a stronger repelling force than first thought.

Say I go on to say that this could provide a clue to why the stars are apart ( all of which I have posted in the past) a universal constant.

These are really unqualified attempts at opening discussion on what I would have thought an interesting subject.

I am still interested but because we seem to be unable to handle ideas abstractly, demanding proof from the first instance shuts the door on some qualified discussion and imagination.

I haven't read the theory that MacM is citing properly and am unqualified to do so but from what I have read there seems some valuable ideas there some of which may be very useful in the future as science moves forward.

I know that every one with alternative theories aspires to being of the caliber of the Hawkings and the Einsteins and tend to push their theories with inordinant confidence but a little grace and understanding could make this whole posting thing a hell of lot more productive.

James and Crisp I ask when confronted with new ideas do you look for value and proof or just proof.

Do you feel that nothing of value actually comes from any adventurous postings and the only value is in educating wayward theorists back to the conventional and orthodox view?

Do you have any exciting ideas of your own that you would care to share?

The reason I say this is that for any understanding of the coming to be of this universe is going to take a hell of lot of imagination and some times it's going to be way out there.

Also a idea posted is not the end of the idea but possibly the start of an idea. As you know theories can take ages to develope and many wild brainstorming activities needed.

[MacM]

Crisp,

Sorry to see you take such a distorted position.

Regardless of any detailed mathematical model to support the concept the predictions are not some vauge claims subject to broad interpretation.

1 - Planetary heating & gravity. Heat correlation to gravity found 1964. (predicted 10 year advance).

2 - Accelerating expansion of the Universe. Found recently not sure just which year. perhaps last decade. (40 year advance)

3 - Distance is a variable. If confirmed by current anomaly which now shows all deep spacecraft are mislocated, not just the initial two like designs, then this would be 50 years advance.

4 - At the most basic level the entire concept of UniKEF is stated as a Universal Kenetic Energy Field that creates space and is responsible for its predicted accelerated expansion. Long before such function was even guessed at much less observed.

These are not some broad oh it could mean this or oh it could mean that. These and several others are quite specific and are not comperable to Nostradamus type projection of vauge events requiring interpretation.

None the less I just want to close this New Year's Eve message with this.

As you should also admit I have not mentioned UniKEF for quite some time. However, if one looks at these threads one sees numerous conjectures, statements of belief and "I think" type posts. Not one is attacked. Some of these thoughts are nearly grounds for institutional proceedings, but yet none are getting negative responses. They may get some serious counter modern correction or an LOL but never are they pounded for "Where is your mathematical proof"? (For a thought, an idea a basic instinct or thought; what a joke).

James's recent whirlwind negative comments to the three topics I posted for possible dicussion with the admonition that "I" not post unless I had specific comments on a topic pissed me off and as I indicated I thereafter posted this string "With Comment" purposely to piss him off for his attitude.

Nothing personal I generally enjoy your posts but I frankly give a damn if you or he or anyone else likes or believes in the general UniKEF view. That is your perogative just as I don't agree with Relativity as a proper interpretation of observation and data.

But when he or anyothers start to suggest I lie and fabricate, they are actually lucky that this is via virtual communication. I don't tolerate such bullshit in real life on a day to day business basis.

It would indeed result in sombody getting their mouth mashed and taught some manners.

Happy New Years. End of my post on the topic.

[MacM]

Quantum Quack,

Once again thanks for your well anchored (feet on the ground) post.

The simple fact is that most if not indeed all of this crap has become personal to them and it matters little what I have to say they will find cause to challenge it. Just as I pointed out simular basic huntches or ideas never draw this kind of fire.

It would seem logical that an idea that has been around and has had some element of Priori would receive better treatment than just some off the wall "Oh, I was wondering about .....?"

But it is just the opposite. They go to the extreme to deny any idea and to calling me a liar with regard to Priori, not only without any bases but in total disregard of News articles, letters, notes from physics professors, etc.

It is they that act in a most ludricrus manner.

They are permanetly handicapped by their predispostion against the idea that sombody might have alternative concepts that offer a different meaning to their favorite (and hoplessly floundering) view of the world through Relativity stained glasses.

Happy New Year.

BTW: This is the only site which I am on that treats people in this manner and while mine is not a professional site it hosts an alternative theories segment, I have several professionals that have joined as well as some notable alternative theorists that are published and have substantial mathematical support. One of which is near publication in a mainstream journal.

PSS: That particular author joined UniKEF because our views were so simular and I have on file several e-mails where he says his mathematics lends support to the UniKEF view. He even asked for my help on one occasion but I was not able to assist due to my lack of indepth mathematical calculus education.

So if they really had any interest they could see some real mathematics but they aren't and they won't. But be assured when he becomes published, I'll be back and I'll shove his work right down the gullit and attached copies of his e-mails with it.

My alternative site has some wackos but it also has some very serious ideas being developed. Of almost 300 MSN Physics sites it currently is and has been for a number of months rated #1 site.

http://groups.msn.com/browse.msnw?catid=297

As of 9:00AM New Years Eve, 03. Physics 1,100+ members is in 2nd and just moved up and may temporaily over take my rating so, I have recorded it here before I get called a liar once again.

*********************
Physics Groups (276)
Name Previous Next Activity Level

McCoin UniKEF Theory (119 members)
A different perspective on gravity that is mathematically and observationally consistent.********* UniKEF Gravity Testing is currently being done. See Photo Album. ********* Many UniKEF predictions have been discovered and other interesting predictions remain to be verified.******* Einsteins' Theory of Relativity is compared.**********This site supports an "Other Theories" forum. Your ideas are welcome.*******Has numerous links to Physics and Astronomy news releases and archives. *******Trying to build an active Chat Room


Physics (1166 members)
A community where physics can be learned, discussed and enjoyed.


A New Kind of Science (210 members)

**********************************************

Other sites and other physicists show considerable more respect than is shown on SciFi. The following is from last night where on another site I had been in a pissing contest with a person that claimed to be a professional and having more physics education than I but he was totally wet on a very basic issue dealing with Archimedes. He tried to talk to me just like these guys and this went on for 5 weeks where he assualted my intelligence and phoo-pooed my view.

Finally last night I submitted the issue to :"ASK A PHYSICIST". The follow is his response.


****************************************
Dan,
You are indeed correct on all counts.
-J Izen


X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2
From: "Dan McCoin" <lmccoin@elp.rr.com>
To: <joe@utdallas.edu>
Subject: Archimedes
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 22:28:25 -0700
X-Priority: 3
X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine
******************************************

That board has now gone silent. SciFi - James R., your day is coming as well. Cheers.

[2inquisitive]

MacM, Quantum Quack, I don't mean this to sound like
a confrontation or anything, but how would you define the following
terms? I think this is where the problems arise.
(1) idea
(2) conjecture
(3) scientific hypothesis
(4) scientific theory

[Votorx]

Well MaCM, you seem to have alot of hostility aimed towards you. Please repost your theory, so i can see what your talking about.

As for Quintessence, it seems very logical to me. This can explain the confusion between the excelerating and recesing universe. Think about it. If this dark energy is "Negative" Gravity, then there would have to be gravity in the first place for Quintessence to have an affect. No Gravity = No Effect Of Quintessence. Logical. As 2 planets grow further, the gravity between the 2 planets weaken, therefore the effects of quintessence also weakens. This may explain the appearance of the planets slowing down since, in reality it is. But the majority of the planets are closely packed with gravity playing a huge role. So while some planets may be recessing the universe in general is excelerating. Also the Doppler Theory comes into effect here but i hope that ya'll with some education in cosmology already know about this.

[MacM]

2Inquisitive,

MacM, Quantum Quack, I don't mean this to sound like
a confrontation or anything, but how would you define the following
terms? I think this is where the problems arise.
(1) idea
(2) conjecture
(3) scientific hypothesis
(4) scientific theory

ANS: I for one don't see your post as confrontational. James was being confrontational and accusatory.

(1) - Idea a thought or series of related thoughts about an issue with little forethought or correlation to data or information.

(2) - Conjecture is a more coherent thought pattern where an idea has been considered in light of certain known constraints and is proposing a workable solution.

(3) - Scientific Hypothesis is Conjecture in a more formal setting that results in predictions the conjecture could lead to if correct.

(4) - Scientific Theory - A formally thought out Hypothesis which has detailed mathematics and/or processes accounting for predictions of the hypothesis and with methodology to test the Hypothesis.

I did this from off the top of my head and will now refer to Webster:

Webster:
----------------
Idea: Something one knows, thinks or imagines, an opinion or
belief.

Concept: a generalized idea of a thing or class of things (See Concieve)

Concieve: to form or develope in the mind, to hold as onesconviction or opinion, think, imagine, to understand; apprehend, to put into words, couch; express.

Hypothesis: An unproved theory, proposition, supposition, etc., tentatively accepted to explain certain facts, to provide a basis for further investigation, arguement, etc.

Theory: Mental viewing, contemplation, speculation. A speculative idea or plan as to how something might be done. A systematic statement of principles involved. Formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which has been verified to some degree

SYN - theory as compared here, implies considerable evidence in support of a formulated general principle explaining the operatin of certain phenomena./; hypothesis implies an inadequacy of evidence in support of an explanation that is tentatively inferred, oftern as a basis for further experimentation


I'm sure there are different interpretations under theory as to the meaning of "....has been verified to some degree".

While I have not considered the UniKEF Theory to meet the standards as generally express by this MSB, I also think the "Priori's" fit the requirement to meet the Webster view of Theory.

[Quantum Quack]

Some posters are here that have very qualified abilities there is no doubt about this. Posters such as James R are with out doubt erudite in their knowledge and debating prowess's.

How ever where we all seem to lack is the ability to show forebearance of other less informed and trained minds ( imaginations.)

A good teacher is one that excersises forebearance and enthuisiasm for the students attempts to learn something. Taking delight in what the untrained mind can conjure up so to speak.

Some times a student can surprise a teacher with his approaches and thus the teacher learns something from the student.

If the student asks the teacher is this al there is to know and the teacher says yes, unless you become a S. hawkings, then the student is left no where and the teacher has failed.

WE are all teachers and we are all students.

Some people feel that relativity theories are it and find great difficulty imagining beyond and some people reject this notion and will battle to go beyond it.

For example, I feel relativity was and is the next best thing to sliced bread, I find it a truelly amazing and baffling subject but I also feel that it could provide science with it's greatest obstacle as we take it as a truth in full. Rather relativity should be looked at as only part of the truth and not the full truth.

Closemindedness of the teacher leads to closemindedness of the student and the net result is BS. and angst.

So if posts where treated a little more openly withholding judgement or leading the student to make his own judgement based on what is provided would lead to a more productive forum all round both for the teacher and the student.

Forebearance is an important word in this context.