I have an idea regarding the GEOPHYSICS . pls let me know what should i do or where should i register my idea in any institution or to publish so that i can take advantage if it later prove . So pls let me know if any website there who registered ideas or tell me where i should try to publish my idea. thanks
OK - I'll bite. If your idea has any merit, you'll need some genuine physical or observable evidence to support it. Do you have this yet? If the answer is yes, then you'll need to send your findings to a scientific journal to be reviewed by a board of scientists in that field - at which point your work will either be: Published in the journal Sent back to you for editing/changes prior to publication Rejected. here's some journals to try: http://www.dmoz.org/Science/Earth_Sciences/Geophysics/Journals/ If the answer is no, have you designed the experiments that would help you to gather this evidence yet? If the answer is yes, then you'll probably need some money to conduct the research and experiments there are various bodies to whom you can apply to for funding - I get mine from these guys http://www.nerc.ac.uk/ If the answer is no, you'll need to figure out how you are going to design your experiments as a first step. try listing your ideas, (at home if you like) and then devise some ways (in your head) that you might go about testing those ideas - before you present those ideas to a funding body, it might be an idea to run them by a geology/geophysics professor at your local university - he might be able to give you some useful tips and advice There's nowhere you could register your ideas so that no-one else could work on them - science is an open forum - the best you can hope for is the credit and kudos for being the originator of a hypothesis. Final bit of advice - don't send anything to a funding body or a journal that is written in crayon
idea registeration who is pre peered rewing pls tell me the whole procedure. it will be a great help.
But you've tried that before, right? You show up on a forum to 'discuss' and get told (sometimes in incredible detail) what's wrong with your ideas, or what you might want to learn to further your knowledge. You shrug it off and ignore what you've been told, disappear for a while and then show up again a few months down the line repeating the same flawed statements and logic as last time. Forgive me if I seem too abrupt with you, but I lose count of the amount of times I've seen you post this same stuff on different messageboards. You've been given some good advice and good information in the past- please take it in to account if you are really serious about learning.
i am very serious to learn because i am chasing this idea from long time.pls see the following points why i am stressing this idea. SOME LOGICS THAT EARTH IS LIVING THING LIKE TREE AND ITS BIRTH IS FROM SEED. 1. IT IS EXPANDING LIKE LIVING THING 2. IT HAS SKIN OR CORE THAT ALL LIVING THING HAS. 3. IT HAS MOUNTAINS SAME TREES HAS TREE KNOT. 4. ITS CORE HAS TEMPRATURE LIKE ALL LIVING THING. 5. WHEN WE SEE THE MAP OF EARTH IT SEEMS IT HAS EXPANDED FROM SMALL GLOBLE WNEN SEE THE LAND AREA 6.IT HAS CRUDE OIL SAME TREE ABSTRACT MILK OR WAX OIL 7.STROKE OF EARTH QUAKE IS STOKE OF EXPANTION. 8. IT HAS GRAVITY LOT OF OTHER SIMILARTIES ARE THERE SHOWING BIRTH OF PLANETS ARE LIKE BIRTH OF PLANTS. SURESH BANSAL +91 9814058342
It is not expanding like a living thing. Firstly, it is not expanding. Secondly a living thing expands by ingesting other organic or inorganic material and incorporating it into its structure. This involves a complex, structured and directed interplay of linked catalytically facilitated chemical reactions. The growth of the Earth and other planets through accretion is a simple physical process, not a biochemical process. Which is it. A skin or a core? A core is in the inside a skin is on th eoutside. Books also have 'skins' and 'cores'. Are books, therefore, living things? Now you are just being silly. All things, dead, alive, non-living have a temperature. The presence of a temperature is not diagnostic of life. An observation that is wholly explained by plate tectonics, a concept whose reality has been validated by measurement. Crude oil does not fullfill a function. Milk and wax do. The comparison is meaningless. No it isn't. (Do you have to go back through your posts and put in all those incorrect spellings?) Anything with mass has gravity. Lots of things with mass are not alive. Some things that are alive are brain dead.
Like the poor, misguided individual that came up with all this useless and clueless nonsense?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
birth of earth 1. book has skin and core but dead . you can not match because book is man made not nature has produced.i think no match.
You just aren't paying attention, are you? It's been explained to you time and again but you keep holding onto this childish fantasy of yours. It's SERIOUSLY flawed right at the beginning. To keep on repeating this nonsense in the face of clear explanations is starting to make you appear mentally ill. Really!!! It's also quite obvious that you have NOT studied even the most basic principles of science - otherwise you'd see how foolish your ideas are. Please just go away until such time as you have something worth saying (as if that should EVER occur).
