Strange

What is this flaw? Can you provide a reference? What is this alternative theory? Can you provide a reference? Pilot wave theory is a mathematical theory. As far as I know it already explains entanglement. What is the mathematics of your "vortexes"? How, exactly, does this add to or modify the mathematics of pilot wave theory?

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations

What is the connection with Darwin or natural selection? And what does the title "threads and knots" refer to? You never mention threads or nots again. More generally, I have no idea what point you are trying to make. The brain is more complicated than a computer? I don't think anyone will be surprised by that. Most of what you have written above, seems irrelevant to the operation of the brain. What does it matter how people greet each other? This is obviously different in different languages and cultures; but it doesn't really tell us anything about the brain, as far as I can see. Can you summarise your point in one or two sentences BTW: if anyone is thinking of downloading the PDF to get more explanation: don't bother. It appears to be exactly the same text.

Until we have a theory of quantum gravity, your guess is a s good as mine!

They are both made of keratin. But apart from that, this sounds like magical thinking (a form of sympathetic magic, in other words).

Interesting. I was going to suggest that it was the date you last logged in, but mine says "Just Now" so it can't be that.

It is the size of the event horizon (the radius is directly proportional to the mass). This is slightly larger than the one in M87 that was imaged recently by the Event Horizon Telescope. In both cases, we don't know what happens (happened) in the ultimate condition. We know the early universe was uniformly hot and dense and if you keep extrapolating back you get infinities from the math (a singularity). Similarly, with black holes, when you use GR to predict what happens to the matter, you end up with a singularity. I don't think anyone considers singularities to be physically realistic; they are just an indication that the math no longer makes sense. However, there are two big differences between the universe and a black hole. A subtle one is that the singularity for the early universe is in the past while one for a black hole is in the future (the radial dimension of the black hole becomes time instead of space when you pass the event horizon). A more significant difference is that a black hole is a concentration of mass at one place (our mathematical models of black holes actually describe an unchanging black hole in an otherwise empty universe; but this is a reasonable approximation to reality). The universe on the other hand has always been uniformly (approximately) full of matter.

Here is something useful: Confirmation Bias

Supermassive black holes are quite hard to explain! It isn't known if the black hole came before the galaxy, or was created from material in the galaxy, or they both developed at the same time. There is a limit to how fast black holes can "feed" (because the heat generated by infalling matter blows away some of the material). Current models do not allow black holes to get to that sort of size by absorbing material. It is also hard to see how that much matter could get that closes well. One plausible hypothesis is "direct collapse" where a large cloud of gas collapsed directly to form the black hole, instead of forming stars as it collapsed. But I don't know how well confirmed this is yet. In this model, I think the black hole becomes a seed for the later formation of the galaxy.

! Moderator Note This is a discussion forum. The rules require you to present what you want to discuss here, not force people to follow links.

You make some interesting points. We have discussed (in this thread and many others) the importance of having at least a basic understanding of the subject one is attempting to criticise or contribute to. However, I think you have highlighted another equally important problem that can arise from lacking a formal education: the inability to clearly express your ideas in a way that can be understood by others. And, related to this, being able to give clear answers to straightforward questions. I think it was clear from your thread that you found it hard to clearly explain your idea. You tried to say that this was because of lacking "scientific terminology" but I get the impression that you don't actually have a completely clear idea in your own head. You have been mulling it over for years, but you have never (or rarely) tried to distill it down to a simple, well-organised description. That resulted in your description being slightly "stream of consciousness" - throwing in new bits as they came to you. Similarly, when answering questions you would drag in extra stuff that was in your head, rather than focussing on the question asked. This is not intended to be any sort of criticism, by the way. Just an attempt to understand (and maybe help you understand) why some people struggle with getting their ideas across. If you want to improve your ability to express your idea in a clear and structured way (and this applies equally to Bez(*) and anyone else struggling with this) then a good place to start might be to look at some online essay writing courses. (I can't recommend any, but the UK's Open University used to have some good books on the topic.) (*) Not that I am sure Bez is actually interested in learning anything new, not anything that requires disciplined thought anyway. ! Moderator Note This is off-topic, but I think it is interesting. I was going to move it to another section of the forum, but I'm not sure where it belongs. I will let another mod decide

! Moderator Note A simple reminder to all: this is the "Homework Help" forum, not the "Homework Answers" forum. We will not do your work for you, only point you in the right direction. Posts that do give the answers may be removed. So jackyaf123 would you explain where you have got to in solving this problem and what has stopped your progress - hopefully members can then help you to overcome your difficulties yourself.

! Moderator Note A simple reminder to all: this is the "Homework Help" forum, not the "Homework Answers" forum. We will not do your work for you, only point you in the right direction. Posts that do give the answers may be removed. So jackyaf123 would you explain where you have got to in solving this problem and what has stopped your progress - hopefully members can then help you to overcome your difficulties yourself.

! Moderator Note A reminder to all: this is the "Homework Help" forum, not the "Homework Answers" forum. We will not do your work for you, only point you in the right direction. Posts that do give the answers may be removed. So jackyaf123 would you explain where you have got to in solving this problem and what has stopped your progress - hopefully members can then help you to overcome your difficulties yourself.

! Moderator Note A simple reminder to all: this is the "Homework Help" forum, not the "Homework Answers" forum. We will not do your work for you, only point you in the right direction. Posts that do give the answers may be removed. So jackyaf123 would you explain where you have got to in solving this problem and what has stopped your progress - hopefully members can then help you to overcome your difficulties yourself.

Stars like our sun are relatively rare. Also, it would limit the search for planets that could have life far too much; Earth-like planets can exist around different types of stars. Also, planets capable of supporting life (even if they are not Earth like) could exist in an even wider range of conditions. Controlled acceleration is much more efficient than a single explosion. Also, spacecraft need to control where they are going. That requires fuel and so would be impossible f was all used up in one explosion.

Scientific observation is not just "what I see" (especially as what you "see" seems to mean stuff you have imagined). Scientific observation means rigorous and objective data collection; in the case of a subject like physics this must include accurate measurement. That is NOT the reason your ideas are not taken seriously. I am surprised you fail to understand the explanations you have been given, as you have such a high IQ. That has nothing to do with physics, so it is hard to see why it would generate an interest in physics. Maybe you should have developed an interest in psychology or neurology, instead. Stuff you see in your mind has nothing to do with science. Until you can come up with something testable (which would imply something much more rational than you have posted so far) then there is nothing to test or run with. Thousands of people post on science forums saying "I have this vague idea, I just need someone to fill out the details". But if the idea makes no sense, why is anyone going to consider it.

When you log in, there is a "Remember me" checkbox. I think that if you don't tick that then you are logged out when the browser is closed. Doesn't help if you don't close the browser, though! Any particular reason you log out at night? I rarely log out deliberately.

This technique, sometimes called "back-casting", is often used to test statistical models. It can be a good way of validating a model. It is not usually enough by itself to confirm a theory; you also need show the ability to forecast future events. (This is because it is too easy to accidentally "tune" a model to fit existing data.) You are right that using a location where large earthquakes could make the analysis easier - if you can accurately predict an event that only occurs, on average, every century that is more convincing (everything else being equal) than predicting an even that occurs every week. As far as falsifiability is concerned, you need to loom at correlations. Basically a list of your predicted dates/locations (and magnitudes, if possible) and a list of actual dates/locations (magnitudes). You then need to show that the number of matches (and mismatches) are better than would occur by chance. You might need the help of a mathematician with some expertise in statistics. You used "unaccredited" a few times. I don't know what you mean by it.

It is not the data that needs to be falsifiable; it is the hypothesis. So, you need to work out what evidence would show you to be wrong. A hypothesis can never be proved to be correct. We can gather some evidence that appears to confirm it. Then we can get some more evidence that also confirms it. But we can never be sure that one day we will find some data that contradicts it (see the "black swan" effect). However, a hypothesis can be proved wrong. A scientific hypothesis must be capable of being proved wrong; I other words falsifiable. If it can't be falsified then you are always assuming it is true and evidence become irrelevant. Any hypothesis like yours needs to do two things: produce positive evidence (ie. a correlation between your predictions and earthquakes, and also between non-prediction and absence of quakes); and just as importantly show there is no negative evidence (eg no big earthquake when you predict one; earthquakes when you predict there should not be one). Obviously, in your case, this is going to require a lot of data because you are (I assume) looking for a very small effect that will only be apparent in very large data sets. The other possibility is to look at the mechanisms. Without wanting to reopen the discussions in the closed thread, this would mean looking for evidence that the mechanisms exist. For example, can the position of the moon and sun significantly affect the magnetic field at the surface of the Earth; can such changes in the magnetic field affect geological processes; can these changes make earthquakes more likely; and so on. (I am guessing that the answer to each of these is "no"; but it is up to you to provide the chain of evidence to prove sceptics wrong).

The equation is mathematically and physically meaningless.

That is not the reason you are wrong. It is utterly irrelevant to whether you are right or not. I have very little formal education (my only experience in "academia" was working as a lab technician for a few months). There is no connection between IQ and knowledge/understanding. I am not sure that IQ really means anything much.

Yes, friction can create static electricity but that does not mean that electromagnetism has any connection with friction. Also, it does not "turn it into a magnet". Not even "of sorts" or even "same principle". This is a laughably ignorant statement and is the reason no one will take you seriously. (This is probably a problem related with relying on "images" rather than facts.) No thanks. It is more plausible that the Earth is flat.

It probably would have been really helpful to provide that context right at the beginning. Rather than assume people can guess what you are thinking. (Hint: they can't.) As I assume you have read that paper (unfortunately, I don't have access) can you quote the data and calculations they use? And then show why you think they are incorrect? Yep. Note that the definition of "battle" is NOT "having part of one's head removed by a blade".

And yet, all the major advances in modern science have been made by people with formal training who actually understand the subject. There are a small number of cases in some fields such as astronomy, mathematics and botany where people who are self-trained and so have the relevant expertise do make occasional contributions. But, basically, it requires an in-depth knowledge of the subject to understand what a new idea needs to do. Your problem is that you know so little, you can't even see that your own ideas are worthless. They make sense to you because they exactly match your level of understanding (because you made them up, based on that level of understanding). To anyone with a basic grounding in physics, they are clearly nonsense.