I speculate that this forum doe's not know the definition of speculation.

[JohnLesser]

speculation

ˌspɛkjʊˈleɪʃn/

noun

1. 1.

   the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.

   After my recent speculation being closed I am some what confused , you seemingly do not understand what speculation means.

   Is this forums native language English?

 

[Strange]

It is a science forum. There are expectations that speculations will be science (i.e. evidence) based.

 

Not just made-up nonsense with no basis in reality and that is contradicted by evidence.

[JohnLesser]

It is a science forum. There are expectations that speculations will be science (i.e. evidence) based.

 

Not just made-up nonsense with no basis in reality and that is contradicted by evidence.

The very definition of speculation says it doe's not have to be evidence based, (although I did use evidence).

 

 

Are you saying the definition of speculation is incorrect?

 

Speculation is before theory, theory is providing evidence.

Edited May 3, 2017 by JohnLesser

[StringJunky]

 

speculation

ˌspɛkjʊˈleɪʃn/

noun

1. 1.

   the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.

   After my recent speculation being closed I am some what confused , you seemingly do not understand what speculation means.

   Is this forums native language English?

 

 

The operative word in that definition is 'firm'. This does not equal 'no evidence'. The boundary a speculation must meet is set in the rules:

 

 

Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure.

It's a reasonable bar to jump in my opinion.

[Function]

The very definition of speculation says it doe's not have to be evidence based, (although I did use evidence).

 

House rules do.

Edited May 3, 2017 by Function

[DrmDoc]

 

speculation

ˌspɛkjʊˈleɪʃn/

noun

1. 1.

   the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.

   After my recent speculation being closed I am some what confused , you seemingly do not understand what speculation means.

   Is this forums native language English?

 

I speculate that the OP doesn't understand that even speculations involve a discussion of supporting evidence to either be proved or disproved.

Edited May 3, 2017 by DrmDoc

[JohnLesser]

The operative word in that definition is 'firm'. This does not equal 'no evidence'. The boundary a speculation must meet is set in the rules:

 

It's a reasonable bar to jump in my opinion.

Well my evidence was totally ignored , I used everything that was mainstream, nothing was made up. I feel the answer in this forum if ''they'' can't win a debate is to close thread or ban poster, therefore nether reaching any sort of conclusions. Most replies in closed thread completely ignored my notions.

 

Confused.com is an understatement.

 

I speculate that the OP doesn't understand that even speculations involve a discussion of supporting evidence to either be proved or disproved.

By definition it doe's not, also I did provide supporting evidence which was completely ignored.

I think this may be an american based forum, so maybe our wording may be different. That is why we have definitions to be clear.

[cladking]

It is a science forum. There are expectations that speculations will be science (i.e. evidence) based.

 

Not just made-up nonsense with no basis in reality and that is contradicted by evidence.

 

Even the best theories are contradicted by evidence and the wildest speculations are supported by evidence.

 

This is because all evidence is subject to interpretation. All theory is a model based on experiments. Experiments don't create models, interpretation does.

People are simply brushing off any idea that devites from traditional interpretation no matter how weakly based is that interpretation. They are also brushing off the supporting evidence.

[dimreepr]

 

The best theories are contradicted supported by evidence and the wildest speculations are supported contradicted by evidence.

 

FTFY

Edited May 3, 2017 by dimreepr

[DrKrettin]

 

People are simply brushing off any idea that devites from traditional interpretation no matter how weakly based is that interpretation. They are also brushing off the supporting evidence.

 

As I understand it, the speculation was that the speed of light was variable. If so, the above is just nonsense.

[JohnLesser]

 

People are simply brushing off any idea that devites from traditional interpretation no matter how weakly based is that interpretation. They are also brushing off the supporting evidence.

That is exactly what they do, I provide strong axiom evidence which gets ignored.

 

As I understand it, the speculation was that the speed of light was variable. If so, the above is just nonsense.

variable by interpretation, however I can not discuss this or I am banned.

[Delta1212]

That is exactly what they do, I provide strong axiom evidence which gets ignored.

 

variable by interpretation, however I can not discuss this or I am banned.

If your logica chain of reasoning is contradicted by experimental evidence then your axioms are wrong.

[JohnLesser]

If your logica chain of reasoning is contradicted by experimental evidence then your axioms are wrong.

To the contrary, the experimental evidence and my logic shows I am correct. I was using everything that is mainstream but wasn't given a chance to get people to understand. The messenger got shot before he had even warmed up.

[Klaynos]

The rules are clearly laid out.

[Strange]

The very definition of speculation says it doe's not have to be evidence based, (although I did use evidence).

 

 

Are you saying the definition of speculation is incorrect?

 

 

No, I am saying that this is a science forum with rules. You agreed to abide by the rules when you joined. The rules override a dictionary definition of a section of the forum.

Well my evidence was totally ignored , I used everything that was mainstream, nothing was made up.

 

 

Nonsense.

[JohnLesser]

The rules are clearly laid out.

Where did I break any rules? My notions all had present information for support, I was using your experiments etc, although definition states I do not need to provide firm evidence to speculate. Changing the English language and definition to suit is misleading .

[Strange]

To the contrary, the experimental evidence and my logic shows I am correct.

 

 

The experimental evidence contradicts you. The existing theory contradicts you. From this, logic dictates that you must be wrong.

[JohnLesser]

 

 

 

Nonsense.

So you are saying Einstein, Newton, Planck, Maxwell, are not mainstream and provide evidence?

Edited May 3, 2017 by JohnLesser

[dimreepr]

That is exactly what they do, I provide strong axiom evidence which gets ignored.

 

OK lets look at a couple of definitions that seem to elude you:

 

Axiom:

 

noun

1.

a self-evident truth that requires no proof.

2.

a universally accepted principle or rule.

3.

Logic, Mathematics. a proposition that is assumedwithout proof for the sake of studying theconsequences that follow from it.

 

 

Evidence:

 

NOUN

mass noun

• 1The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

  ‘the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination’

  .Law Information drawn from personal testimony, a document, or a material object, used to establish facts in a legal investigation or admissible as testimony in a law court.

 

[JohnLesser]

 

 

The experimental evidence contradicts you. The existing theory contradicts you. From this, logic dictates that you must be wrong.

The point was the experimental evidence you have misinterpreted, and the evidence shows I am correct in my interpretation. I used this evidence to show I was correct. It is ''your'' evidence but seemingly I am not allowed to use it.

[Lord Antares]

I agree with the OP, as I have stated many times before.

The sole definition of speculation implies that it should lack evidence. When you say that his speculation should be supported, it's like saying ''an unsupported claim should be supported by evidence''. If it were supported, it becomes a hypothesis and not a speculation. He is right in that regard.

 

I firmly believe that we would get less of this if that sub-forum were renamed as ''hypotheses'' instead of ''speculations''. It's even more in line with what is sought by the rules of the forum.

 

Of course, I disagree that his claims are valid. They aren't and are therefore, speculations! I wonder when people will realize this.

[JohnLesser]

 

 

OK lets look at a couple of definitions that seem to elude you:

 

Axiom:

 

 

 

Evidence:

 

 

Axiom's are exactly what I am using. Evidence is what I provided.

[Strange]

So you are saying Einstein, Newton, Planck, Maxwell, are not mainstream and provide evidence?

 

 

No. I am saying that you posted a lot of ignorant nonsense. You then resist any attempt to explain your errors and insist that you are right and more than a century of scientists, students and interested people are wrong. How arrogant.

 

This is exactly the same behaviour you showed before. You should learn a little humility and consider the possibility that you might be wrong.

[JohnLesser]

I agree with the OP, as I have stated many times before.

The sole definition of speculation implies that it should lack evidence. When you say that his speculation should be supported, it's like saying ''an unsupported claim should be supported by evidence''. If it were supported, it becomes a hypothesis and not a speculation. He is right in that regard.

 

I firmly believe that we would get less of this if that sub-forum were renamed as ''hypotheses'' instead of ''speculations''. It's even more in line with what is sought by the rules of the forum.

 

Of course, I disagree that his claims are valid. They aren't and are therefore, speculations! I wonder when people will realize this.

You are correct in your understanding of speculation sir, due respect. However speculations are there to be built into theory or hypothesis.

 

I am sure Einstein had rudiment thoughts before he put everything together to create relativity. To speculate in one's mind is just to think about things.

Edited May 3, 2017 by JohnLesser

[Sensei]

Axiom's are exactly what I am using. Evidence is what I provided.

 

In which post you provided evidence.. ?