Mike Smith Cosmos

If Boxes are not possible at least it could have been self regulation. But if it was a screen printed statement , it could be pointed back to . I would guess people do not read rules. I think too much reading itself has problems , I often wonder sometimes when I write longer text if people will read it. That is one of the reasons I use diagrams and pictures, mike

Because , This would be formalized to only be possible to proceed if completed. ( Four Boxes ). This is similar to ordering up a purchase on the net , say a Flight ticket eg * compulsory field . Either by Software or by initial moderation, which i am sure moderators look at all new Speculations .if they do not comply, then put into a holding bin ,until they do. This would save all this repeated nagging to get something that would be a requirement before the start, at least in brief . [ No 4 answers, no way forward , right at the start.] More detailed points can be obtained as the thread proceeds. mike

The title of this thread is Suggestions, Comments and Support. I really do hope my replies are accepted as exactly that . Because that is how they are offered. Mike

Acme , I have no idea why you sound off like that. This is a genuine suggestion well though out , to overcome the two difficulties I see the forum happening with SPECULATIONS A ) Is getting people to cover the four points I have mentioned. My suggestion is that it is a pre-requisit to starting a speculation entry ,must complete this box ,style B) Also to not be overtly hostile . Provocative , insulting etc Throughout the thread I thought that was a positive way forward . Hope you can see it that way . Mike

Yes . I appeciate , and have seen you ask these questions many, many times . I am suggesting this it put to a proposer , before they start . Almost like they need to fill out these four Questions in the initial Post Post #1 I ] Observation ................... 2] Speculation ..................... 3]. Test ......................... 4] .Future Use ..................... Only Then Invite Comments mike [ I am off to bed ]

...Gently explain why their idea won't work... is directly full frontal provocative . ....... telling them they should go away and learn is confrontational I am not saying you are wrong , but it is provocative These people might have been thinking about this, or proud of their idea. These people might have done, or are learning currently . There must surely be a way of getting them to explain the three things I have said without using a provocative style . Get them to fill out themselves 3 Boxes 1] OBSERVATION ................2].SPECULATION .................3] TEST......................4]. WHERE CAN THIS BE USEFUL ............. Only then can they invite discussion . Mike

Yes, I agree. But if we had a simple sequence..........That they need to go through before the whole thing turns int a Fight 1] What is your Observation ? ......bla de Bla ... no What is your observation....etc ok 2] What is your Speculation ? .....Bla de Bla no What is your Speculation etc...... ok 3]What is your test of this Spec ? Bla de Bla .... No that was not a test ....Thats better Ok 4]Now what are you thinking . Use ? de de de de de ................................................... .Ok see what others think ..General Free for all . mike

Yes I do understand what you say, and have seen it many times. I would dare to say I think often the style of beating the living daylights of of people can precipitate this result. I could not possibly treat my physics students, that way , when as budding scientists they proposed the crazy ideas they had in all naive ideas. But there is a way of nurturing them to productive development. I think a little more nurturing and little less bombastic, bullying , unpleasant attack . Maybe this has been the way Graduates Doing PHd vivas are tested . Whether this is the case I think it would be possible to set a different intellectual environment so the sequence describe is not precipitated. mike

Ok well that is the nub . Let us kindly ask for their observation . Then ask them kindly ask them how they construct their Speculation . and third kindly how they are going to test it out on the universe. Instead of beating the living daylight out of them because they have not quoted copious Maths. Further beating the living daylights telling them they are not scientist because they are not demonstating rigor, And every other type of abuse and bullying to beat the last glimmer enthusiasm out of them. No I would dare to suggest ALL THAT MATHS is Isaac Newtons. His was enjoying playing with his slopes. Yes he made measurements based on set divisions of the slope . And yes he used a simple formula for speed distance over time . and he noticed by this observation that the speed changed known as an acceleration. Again I have had students running model cars down a slope .etc etc We have tried it out then with bigger cars and bigger slopes. I am inclined to say quite the opposite. We are in danger of frightening some of potential tomorrows scientists away , before they have chance to love physics at its observation , speculation, discovery aspect. True there are a number of students that detect and learn to love the power of maths, the beauty of formula . These will go on to become excellent supportive scientists etc but I would say , not all scientists , have, or need to have these feelings. By forcing Maths and rigor on all 'cart blanch ' is mistaken guidance. And again this aggressive style is uncalled for. mike

Yes . I agree Galileo went on to do further experiments with slopes. But the Maths that is shown in that quote were not Galileo formulas. These were produced later by Isaac Newton and used in this clip. Galileo made the Observation and showed changes in speed. Isaac Newton put this in a Formula later . NOT GALILEO mike

Yes , i do not disagree with the things you say as regards the detail. but Galileo was able to break the knowledge given by Aristotle . This allowed further advances due to his new speculation that possibly assisted Newton to make further advances , which I agree were mathematical . My point is that it did NOT require Galileo to use math in his original Observation.and Postulation ( speculation). So today it is important The Young potential designers of the future MUST NOT BE PUT OFF DOING OBSERVATIONS. They can go out into the world tomorrow . Make an observation. think through a possible Speculation. Then go Try it out . All without at this stage Maths and Rigor . Mike

Not true. I have done this experiment many , many times with my concrete lemon and a real lemon many , many times teaching physics to children. We dropped from upstairs fire escapes to arrive later on the grass below, photographed arriving at the same time . I did not manage to get a photograph for obvious reasons from the base of the Tower of Pisa. But a Local Italian Hotel owner allowed me to drop them from the top of his hotel, and I have photos. I might even be able to find them somewhere. No Maths. No rigor . Just an observation, a principle ,and science and fun and learning . True the rigor can come later, the detail can come later, Formula, Maths, but the speculation proposed everything works equally under the same influence. Galileo Speculation overthrew Aristotle who said heavy things rush quicker to get to the center of the Earth. Galileo made the Correct observation and has proved to be correct in saying they respond similarly . Obviously Newton put ' meat on the bone' with formulas, and Einstein with his general theory of relativity and the structure of space. But it was Galileo ( At the Tower of Pisa) made the FIRST correct observation and Speculation. So no reason why we can not do Observations today and make Speculations. mike

This is where the speculation is tested not by the science forum itself. But by the mechanism that it has, within itself with :- The Speculation should have come from some 'observation' of some sort. If the interpretation of the observation ( namely the speculation as to what is going on ) is correct then the universe will show it working . If the Speculation is not correct , it will not work correctly . Although this sounds an over simplification. The function of the science forum can be to see if the observer of the universe undergoing the test of the speculation either Works or does not work in the Universe. By universe I do not mean necessarily stars, galaxies . It could be fish food flakes on a still pond . or Pollen grains in a tank of water , like Einstein Used. This, is open to anybody with a 'scientific - Universe scientific observational ' , investigative mind . Doctors do not cure you . it is the natural chemicals, and your own bodily systems that mainly cure you. True doctors need to learn of the correct chemicals or operational procedures or manipulations. This is not to minimize the skills and incredible work of Doctors. But I am sure they would admit , it is the incredible mechanisms of the body , that do the healing. Not the Doctor. So with this issue , of speculation, You yourself have said this to me in the past . The proof of Speculation is under ' Actual Test ' by nature. So the Speculations can be tested by there performance within the environment. If the observation with its attached speculation by the thread proposer is correct. It will work under test by then universe/Nature. If the speculation is incorrect it will not work This is Science This does NOT necessarily need MATHS . it will work , or not work WITHOUT the MATHS. Similarly IT can work WITHOUT the RIGOR . ( Perhaps Once is enough for the speculation ) Rigor later. I went over to Pisa ( ONCE ) to drop a concrete lemon and a real lemon . Off the top of the tower of Pisa . To see if they both landed at the same time. An Italian shop keeper in the street leading up to the Tower , nearly wet himself with glee. He Exclaimed " This is what we need is more real science going on here." I must admit the police/guards had other views. Where is the Maths Where is the Rigor Just Pure Science Desk Top Science Mike

Ah yes ! well I have already worked that one out . You might be in for a bit of a shock . The device ( if that is the word ) for deciphering the ( signal ) within the noise is :- THE UNIVERSE ITSELF . It tests out the random happenings . If it is good it works if it is no good it does not work. The rest is history Mike

It has oft been Quoted " If monkeys sat at a keyboard and randomly tapped the keys, soon or later they would type ' the worls of Shakespeare or E= mcsquared. what is important is the truth being recognised. That is even if the originator is monkey like, if he taps out E=mc squared , as a monkey might , highly highly speculatively almost randomly. If a scientist has this drawn th their attention , by an anybody , all well and good. Of course that speculation has already been dealt with. But what of the future. Why stop the monkey's typing , even if some are very bright monkeys or even human ? mike

I do not think you will have a problem. Many are already placing themselves in Speculations to start with. Those that are strong on maths and rigor will be pleased to set their speculation in the Rigorous category Those that are not strong on maths , or rigor will avoid that category. Place themselves in ( less rigor ) Clever Middle road category Those with way out Blue Sky ideas are usually proud of the fact , and will self sort into the Audacious group. ( may be ' Blue Sky ' sounds less frightening to the moderators ) I genuinely think your speculating contributors enjoy debate,as do the main stream , but they do not like to be 'trashed ' from the start over maths and rigor. Make a nice HOME for them down here among the trash can and they will love to be here and debate themselves into the FUTURE mike

A suggested solution to this recurrent debate, by hard liners, as well as the current 'Log Jam ' A look at the interest people show in speculative ideas , can be seen in the number of viewings : Some 80,000 viewings in Speculations . Some 80,000 in Politics . These are some of the largest viewings across the whole of the Science Forum , Which must show audience interest. The speculations forum could possibly be split into Three categories. ( not by subject type as this already exist is the main forum) . It could be split into ---------------------------- ----------------------------------- ------------------------------------ ------------------------------------ a) . Rigorous , incremental development, SPECULATIVE DEVELOPMENT keeping the mathematicians and other rigorous scientists happy. b) . Clever, as yet unproven ideas of a SPECULATIVE CHARACTER where those with useful ideas are given space to make contributions. c) . Blue Sky AUDACIOUS SPECULATION ideas, so far out as to shock many of a conservative nature, which however could well possess (Tomorrows Science Answers.) -------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- ----------------------- Thus not fragmenting into different subject type , But into SPECULATIVE DEGREE mike

A look at a Dictionary definition of ' Speculation ' carries with it 'Risk '. As with Speculating on the stock exchange. " speculate to accumulate. ". Good Speculation Pays off. Bad speculation makes a loss. If we closed the speculative element on the Stock exchanges , our current economic system would collapse world wide, and industry ' to boot' . If we remain too calculating in the speculation process, we stand to loose out on risky ideas that sound risky and may in fact be Right. Contrarily , Ideas that sound right, but are in fact Wrong. However the history of our growth in today's understanding of the universe is littered with educated guesses that sometimes are right ,with great gain, and others Wrong and thus wrong understanding for a while . If we were to 'launder ideas' too heavily before they are expressed. I am suggesting we might kill off an idea , before it has a chance to being made reasonably public. Aired, debated, and yes given credibility , or given the doubts by other thinkers in science. As long as it ( included in a location that is clearly titled SPECULATIONS ) and is stated as Speculative not well proven fact, surely that is a reasonable way to behave .Often at the time the speculation is originated, it is most likely that thorough investigation, or rigorous mathematical proof , at this stage is unlikely to have occurred YET. Mike

My Goodness me ! If you stop speculation ,.... You stop the future.....Things not yet even imagined ! ... .If you do that we will go into a spiral of decline ! Mike

More space allocation for illustrations. We, or at least I do , think in pictures. Cap'n Refsmmat . I have run out of upload space. Could I politely ask for more space ,please. Thanks. Mike

There is an interesting conversion of energy here demonstrated. Heat- sun , rising hot air , circular wind - weather patterns , sail capture, momentum conversion , velocity of movement, sailing through the centuries on the sea. Oops can't seem to upload ! Mike

So following the flow of charge through the labyrinth channels of the universe , could give us some insight into the change of entropy ? Mike

Change in Electrical Charge and change in magnetic flux at sufficient frequency in a Capacitor - Induction Coil assembly , connected to an antenna , can cause Photons of E-M waves to move away at the Speed of Light E=M Waves link :- https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAcQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rmcybernetics.com%2Fscience%2Fphysics%2Felectromagnetism_intro_electromagnetic_waves.htm&ei=bWZZVPbWNcLVaqDYgvgH&bvm=bv.78677474,d.d2s&psig=AFQjCNEIA3gLOxCW1lAVd0dYBqHOXq12VA&ust=1415231440851398 Courtesy of Nasa Mike

Welcome Adriana. I have some land in AlJezure , in the Algarve , On the Atlantic Coast , Portugal . But I live in England . Mike

Well ! That is an interesting reply. Do you have any ideas of the source of this observation ? Earthly originated Observation. ... Super human intelligent life,lives, ... Other intelligent life on a level with ourselves , but somewhere else. or something else that I have not categorized ? mike