Strange

How do you know those "woolly" things are not already being looked at? If you can't say what we should look for or how we should look for it, then this thread is pretty pointless.

We do look at a far wider range of signals and information than in the past - from neutrinos to gravitational waves, for example. We also look at more combinations of these signals, and do more complex analysis of correlations and interactions between all these things. But if there are things that we cannot detect then they cannot be part of science, for obvious reasons. And purely subjective perceptions are not part of science, for similar reasons. However, subjective effects such as the "attraction" you mention can, of course, be studied by science. It really isn't clear what your point is. You need to be more specific about how something not currently studied or used by science could be useful.

I have had enough and I have reported your incoherent, incomprehensible, rambling, egotistical, arrogant and off topic post to the moderators. I don't suppose they will ban you. But, at this point, I would.

Well, it is familiar. Annoyingly so.

Why? And what sort of "different approach"? Anyway, as my example of computer animation shows, this is not true.

I'm sure he will tell you that you are wrong. Because he is series and creative.

Yes, an excellent question. This also relates to the idea of developing a business model for any invention. You need to be sure that the cost of the patent applications are justified by the possible returns. You also need to convince possible buyers/licensees of the invention that it is worth their time and money. Being creative and coming up with ideas is the easy part. The hard part is turning it into a successful product.

Totally incomprehensible. It appears to say: "Hayır mühendislik teknolojisi, adım çok iyi bir dokunuş yaratmaktı. (Dokunmatik Yüzey, Android, vb) aydınlıktır. ama emin maalesef yeterli bilim adamı değildir o büyük miktardır."

Sorry. That was a typo. It should have been "a separate patent". You should file the patent first for two reasons: 1. Disclosing the idea before filing a patent will make the patent invalid. Having a Non Disclosure Agreement (NDA) with the company may give some protection against this but we were always strongly advised not to rely on an NDA to protect you. 2. If you have not filed the patent then the company could go and file the patent before you.

I cannot understand what you are asking. Can you confirm that you are asking about patent applications? (Or something else?) If so, I can only repeat what I said before: You should describe the invention in terms of one or two specific implementation methods. However, you should repeatedly say that these are examples and other implementations are possible, possibly listing examples, but making it clear that others are also possible (not just the ones you list). Changing the method will not (in general) be a new invention and so cannot be a new patent. If you have a totally different method for creating a product then it could be a operate separate patent. But a patent has to have novelty (be new) and an "inventive step" (not be obvious based on other work). Sometimes a company will file multiple patents for the same thing, with slightly different descriptions. This is in the hope that one might be more acceptable to the patent office than another. But this is a very expensive process and I would not recommend it unless you have a lot of experience with patents. (And a lot of money.)

Hair (as well as fluids such as liquids or gasses) can be described scientifically. You might have seen some of the recent animated feature films with animals in. A great deal of work goes in to accurately (i.e. mathematically) modelling the physics and behaviour of fur and hair.

An excellent idea! We can apply science to this question. Based on what you write here, you English is not sufficient for that. I seem to remember that you posted an abstract before. The standard of English in that was just as bad as your posts here.

If you want an NDA (which is a very, very good idea) without having to pay a lawyer to create one for you then yes, you should read it. Better for what? If you are talking about a patent application then you cannot patent a theory. You should describe the invention in terms of one or two specific implementation methods. However, you should repeatedly say that these are examples and other implementations are possible, possibly listing examples, but making it clear that others are also possible (not just the ones you list). Changing the method will not (in general) be a new invention and so cannot be a new patent.

Good point. You can probably find a good template online. In fact the UK IPO has some examples: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/non-disclosure-agreements I strongly advise you to get an expert (e.g. patent lawyer) to help write the patent. There is a very special format required by patents (claims vs description, etc). And there are ways things should be described to stop people getting around your patent by making small changes to the invention. If you do not have expert help you could file a patent that is not valid or that is easy for people to ignore. I have no idea what that means. (Try Google Translate.) I doubt any journal will be interested in publishing a description of an idea or an invention (especially not Nature). That is why you keep getting replies saying it is not the sort of thing they publish.

First you need to develop a working example of your invention, and a business model for why it will be beneficial to them. No company is going to be interested in just an idea. They have enough ideas already. After that you should apply for a patent. Then you can approach companies. China has a very poor reputation for patent and IP protection so I would stay well away from that market until you get some expert advice.

Several native speakers of English have told you that your English is between "poor" and "incomprehensible". The fact that you continue to insist it is good is going to be a major problem for you if it means that you will not take steps to learn a reasonable level of English. I don't hate you, and I have no idea why you would think that. People are being friendly, honest and helpful by telling you how bad your English is. That is no what "intimately" means. And I am quite certain that using Google Translate would be better than your attempts at English. I hope you are not equally deluded about those things. I am not angry. (Why would I be.) I am calmly trying to explain why you are wrong about your level of English. I have to be concise because you are often confused by sentences that are not simple.

The left-right brain thing is a myth, you know. I don't believe this is true. (Do you have any evidence for it?) There are people who are creative and also understand mainstream science. But this is completely irrelevant to my original point. Even if there were your two types, the question is why some of them (from either type) are unable to communicate or explain their ideas. This applies, in my experience, both to those who are very creative and those who are less creative. It depends what you mean by "speculation". If you mean using imagination too come up with new ideas that can be tested by science then, obviously, it is a valuable part of the scientific process. It is one of the ways that science proceeds. However, if you mean (as some of the posters in the Speculations forum) that it is OK to make up any old nonsense with no evidence, that is contradicted by science then no. Nonsense. Science is always on the look out for new and unexpected things. Hence Asimov's statement that the most important phrase in science is not Eureka but "that's odd". The only people who think scientists are afraid of new ideas are crackpots who have their idiotic ideas rejected. I do not put down creative thinkers. But this is a science forum and, as such, creative ideas need to be supported by evidence and/or theory. I will question and criticise people who make up stuff with no evidence or theory and claim it is "science". And I will only call someone a liar if they say something that is not true (for example, "I will not use numerology" before launching into an explanation based purely on numerology). And finally, to drag this back on topic, if people do not understand something then the author needs to consider that it is a problem with their explanation. (As your post is totally off topic, we can leave the subject there. Start a new thread if you wish to discuss it.) I think that is a far more extreme phenomenon, where people say things that bear little relationship to what is going on and make little sense. I am thinking of people who have (or may have) a clear internal model but explain it by leaping straight into the middle, without realising that people need to understand the assumptions and thought that went into developing the conclusion. And even detailed questioning can only step slowly back to the original evidence or thought processes. I think there are probably several different causes. In some cases, it may be that people are very, very clever and assume everyone else will instantly see what they have worked out. There may be some where there is an element of mental disorder leading to slightly incoherent thoughts. And there are others who don't really have a clear idea in mind and so are generating partial explanations of half formed ideas.

You are wrong. I think it might be better if you did. (The adverb "intimately" is entirely inappropriate in that sentence. No one who had a good grasp of English would use it.)

I don't see how reading it slowly will make data supporting your claim that "the brain is one of the least studied parts of science" suddenly appear. Or that it is not science. So you agree that it is science and that a large amount of research has already been done. Good. So your original post was just misleading. I never said such a thing and I don't think such a thing. Why are you using such a silly straw man argument? There is another possibility: that they have been found to be effective. Without scientific data it would be impossible to know which is the right answer. You seem to oscillate between science being a good thing and a bad thing.

This is, as far as I know, pretty much a uniquely US thing (presumably because of the old first-to-invent priority system). However, the USPTO apparently takes a rather dim view of non-US residents filing in the USA first. So for most people the advice is not to publish before filing and to publish in their own country (or via a EU or WIPO application) first. In that case, stop wasting your time writing papers and get on with developing a working prototype f your invention. Then you will be able to (a) file a patent and (b) maybe interest a company in it. You will need proof that the invention works and that it has value (it is more efficient or cheaper than current methods, for example). So you will need a working prototype and a detailed business case. And a lot of marketing/sales skill. And some luck.

It sounded like you were asking for us to give you money. I can't see any reason why a company would sign an agreement with you.

Why do you mention patents? Either you want to publish a paper (in which case you can pay to get it published) or you want to get a patent (in which case you should NOT publish a paper). As far as I can tell, most of the emails from them (that you have reported) are telling you that they will not publish your paper. If so you must not publish them. It is not poor. It is worse than that. I did not mean go away from this forum. (And the only reason you would think that is because your English is so poor.) What I meant was: several native English speakers have told you that your English is not good. They are not being rude or impolite or insulting. They are being honest and helpful. http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/best-crowdfunding-sites/

I have read about several very scientific bits of research in psychology. Just because thoughts and behaviours are complex does not mean they cannot be studied in a falsifiable way. You haven't answered any of my questions. I assume that is because you can't. So when you said "the brain is one of the least studied parts of science" that was just an unsupported opinion. As such, I see no reason to take your other opinions seriously. If we don't have the information that you claim we need, then how can you know it is "over-proportionately" ?

Because it is almost completely incomprehensible. Does this mean "all people who do science are honest but ordinary" ? If so, it is not true... I think everyone is aware of youth. (But I am not sure youth is very important.) It is probably very difficult to make an extraordinary contribution in science. To do so requires, at least: 1. A good education in the subject, which requires many years of hard work. (Whether this is done via university or self-taught) 2. Working with an excellent team of people. 3. A certain amount of luck. This article is about physics, but it has some good advice for everyone: https://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~gadda001/goodtheorist/

Maybe you should try Google Translate instead of writing in English?