Merlin Wood's hypothesis (split from Dark Matter Question)

[mooeypoo]

Einstein actually wasn't an outstanding mathematician, what he had that so many physicists lack, these days especially it seems, was an outstanding independent imagination

Actually, untrue. Einstein was a theoretician - he explained and proved his theories logically and supported them with math, then wrote in his theses that he expects the experimentalists to support (or destroy) his theories.

 

On top of that, whether he liked math or not is irrelevant - his theories were supported on proofs and maths otherwise they'd be joining the long long line of rejected false theories.

 

If it's not supported in reality (hence - if it's not PROVEN) - it's not true.

 

 

Proof is about logic and mathematics.

Well, not necessarily. Proving horses can be green can be achieved by finding a green horse. Observations, for that matter, are proofs too.

 

However, if a theory is FAILING math (math doesn't support it, that is) or is against reality, it's false. Proven false, for that matter.

 

 

Newton didn't prove his laws of gravity he demonstrated them from the observable findings.

Wrong. Newton (who was not 100% right, btw, remember? How could we have found out if his theories were just out of his head with no basis in reality? think about it) hypothesized his (MANY) theories, but then spent a large sum of his time proving it by mathematical data as well as observations and factual reference in reality.

 

Newton's three rules are mathematical....

F=ma ... remember?

 

 

Empirical science is about support from the experimental and/or natural evidence. If you don't have that then it's not science.

Right. Where's yours?

 

Just "Claiming" something's logical doesn't make it so. Claiming something is rational does not make it so. Claiming something must be true doesn't make it so.

 

You need to demonstrate that your theory has any basis in reality.

 

Arguing against it just deters from your hypothesis' plausibility as well as your personal attitude towards what is and isn't science, apparently.

 

 

Biology and medicine could not do without verbally justified diagrams.

 

It's not about the pretty pictures, it's about what the pretty pictures represent. The data behind a graph needs to be explained, whether it is a bar graph or a logical-process flowchart.

 

Otherwise you can't possibly separate between a TRUE theory and a CRAPPY one.

 

I understand that you don't like math, I don't either, and I see that you have a natural rejection from doing the hard work and actually basing your theory on reality that works in real life rather than in our imagination or personal preference - but that is not science. It's wishful thinking.

 

 

Bottom line: You suggest a new hypothesis that is against a current theory. The current theory explains natural phenomena VERY well. Yours doesn't quite. The current theory has proof in observational, mathematical and logical empirical data. Yours does not.

 

By giving us proof (either math, observation, substantiation, logical (ahem-- EMPIRICAL logic, not your own prefered logic) methodology, anything like that) - you convince us to switch the current WORKING theory with yours.

 

By avoiding proof and arguing against the need for such proof you're doing nothing other than joining the other previous (and current) non-scientific hypothesizers in these forums, and give absolutely no reason to give your theory any kind of credence.

 

Convince us. With reality. Give us proof.

 

 

 

~moo

[Royston]

Deleted

Edited June 14, 2008 by Snail
Don't wish to solicit a response

[merlin wood]

Actually, untrue. Einstein was a theoretician - he explained and proved his theories logically and supported them with math, then wrote in his theses that he expects the experimentalists to support (or destroy) his theories.

 

On top of that, whether he liked math or not is irrelevant - his theories were supported on proofs and maths otherwise they'd be joining the long long line of rejected false theories.

 

If it's not supported in reality (hence - if it's not PROVEN) - it's not true.

 

Einstein could not have done anything without an outstanding independent imagination. That's why his best work was highly original and worked out idependently of ansd contrary to the academic consensus of the time. Whereas his later work on general relativity was influenced by other contempory academics and the definite existence of gravity waves has yet to be demonstrated experimentally.

 

I'm not keen on the word 'proof' for the validity of any scientific theory because of the association of the word with mathematics. Mathematical models can turn out to be empirically wrong and proof in mathematics is not to do with empirical demonstraton. So theoretical physicists can be entranced with the complex mathematically worked out models of string theory that can be proven to be valid just as such. Whereas, after more than 30 years, you can still ask where is the observable evidence that demonstrates or tests the validity of this theory as a scientific account?

 

By avoiding proof and arguing against the need for such proof you're doing nothing other than joining the other previous (and current) non-scientific hypothesizers in these forums, and give absolutely no reason to give your theory any kind of credence.

 

I have NOWHERE argued against the need for proof, if proof means clear demonstration from the observable evidence!!! That's just a complete distortion of what I've been arguing. I've just insisted such empirical demonstration is the essence of science and which you call proof.

 

Convince us. With reality. Give us proof.

 

I've found that, rather like Darwin's theory of evolution, you can sufficiently argue for a theory of a nonlocally acting cause and its effects only by considering together a wide ranging accumulation of various natural evidence. And also, like biological evolution, only subsequently can this theory be supported by measurement and mathematical calculation.

 

So if you can call it 'proof', then I can only refer you to the hypothesis at http://foranewageofreason.blogspirit.com/ as an argument from the natural and experimental evidence that's at all adequate. But then you need not expect such 'proof' from any scientic hypothesis in any case. And, no doubt, physicists would not call this proof until the cosmological part of my blog hypothesis is supported by further measurement, mathematical calculation and experimental tests

 

As I've already indicated a non-local causal theory is just not like any other that can be found in physics, or in any other natural science. Yet it could be considered just as much science as other generally accepted scientific theories because it is supported by (a lot of) consistently confirmable natural evidence.

 

And here I can only give the barest indication of why this theory is unique and why it's very unlikely that any academically trained scientist would develop an initial hypothesis for such atheory..

 

So firstly, despite all the successes of the standard model quantum theory, you can still instist, with Richard Feynman, that "nobody understands quantum mechanics" in the sense that no-one can show how the results of quantum experiments "can be that way". For to do so can be thought to require an explanation where enough details were sufficiently justified and described of a cause of behaviour that can by no means be directly observed of objects in motion. Such behaviour having been called wave, spin and entanglement.

 

Then one can reason that, without a sufficient causal explanation of the quantum behavior there's no adequate explanation of how matter can exist at all as atoms and molecules. So that physicists may cite the Schrodinger or Dirac equation. the uncertainty principle or the exclusion principle as an explanation of how electrons can remain organised as components of atoms and molecules and not fall into nuclei as the result of the hugely powerful charge force. But the quantum theory has nothing definite to say as to whether a cause of wave, spin and entanglement behaviour can or needs to be described to explain how atoms and molecules can remain in their forms and organisation despite the internal and external action all the forces.

 

Now think that there could be a universal distinct and invisible cause that acts just so as to maintain the form and organisation of matter. How could you sufficiently justify and describe such a cause in enough detail to show that and how it acts upon matter and given that it would have no measurable strength, could not be described as surrounding objects and any description of such a cause could not be supported from any kind of evidence of atoms, molecules or the energy that matter radiates apart from quantum mechanics?

Edited June 14, 2008 by merlin wood
clarification

[iNow]

Fifty-three posts in and still no math, eh?

[mooeypoo]

This is silly, we're churning water.

 

There is NO SCIENTIFIC THEORY to date (NONE) that is accepted without empirical support and proof. None. Not Einstein's theories, not Newton's, not Darwin's... they're ALL supported by evidence, otherwise they would be tossed out of scientific acceptance - as other theories HAVE BEEN. Even if (and your depictions are very innacurate, but i'll entertain them) the scientists who came up with these theories lacked proper basis for them, they had to provide them eventually (Darwin's book is FULL of support, explanation, observational data and rational reasoning) or their theories were claimed bunk.

 

-

 

You chose to come to a SCIENTIFIC forum (that follows EMPIRICAL scientific method) and you chose to argue your case here.

We put forth what should be demonstrated for us to be convinced that your theory/thesis/claim is worth consideration.

 

Instead, you argue if you should even bother providing empirical support in a forum that is DEFINED by its REQUIREMENTS for empirical support (did you read the rules? perhaps you should refresh yourself.)

 

Either provide the necessary to prove your theory, or stop wasting our time.

 

~moo

 

 

ps -- btw, if you claim that others already done the mathematical and astronomical evidence for you, all you need to do is find a link to it.

Edited June 14, 2008 by mooeypoo

[merlin wood]

This is silly, we're churning water.

 

There is NO SCIENTIFIC THEORY to date (NONE) that is accepted without empirical support and proof. None. Not Einstein's theories, not Newton's, not Darwin's... they're ALL supported by evidence, otherwise they would be tossed out of scientific acceptance - as other theories HAVE BEEN. Even if (and your depictions are very innacurate, but i'll entertain them) the scientists who came up with these theories lacked proper basis for them, they had to provide them eventually (Darwin's book is FULL of support, explanation, observational data and rational reasoning) or their theories were claimed bunk.

-

 

It's you who are are churning water, Mooeypoo.

 

Are you blind? Why don't you read my posts here properly???? I've just said my hypothesis is supported empirically.

 

And if only you looked at my quantum hypothesis at:

http://foranewageofreason.blogspirit.com/

 

then you'd see the whole article is FULL of empirical support from evidence of quantum mechanics, living organisms, astronomy and cosmology for proposing a theory of a nonlocal cause and effects. If only string theory was like this,

 

It's just that my argument can only be adequately stated by considering ALL the experimental and natural evidence I've cited together on this blog.

 

So its no use stating bits of my argument on this thread, is it? You MUST read that blog carefully all the way through to clearly see that my 18,000 word - plus diagrammatic - argument is empirically valid. Although, just like other major theoretical discoveries, this theory really needs an account of book length to sufficiently support, or "prove" it, if you like

 

And as I say this theory is like no other in science , while the whole point of my posting on science forums is to find an open minded physicist/cosmologist - or preferably both - to further develop the argument mathematically. But so far it seems this quest is quite futile. So rather than possessing a properly scientific attitude it seems physicists on internet science forums, at least, are as bigoted and narrow minded as Creationists and Muslem fundamentalists.

Edited June 15, 2008 by merlin wood
clarification

[iNow]

Wow... someobody's off their meds. Flaming and personal insult is not exactly the best way to support a hypothesis, merlin. Do you really think that the journal Nature only accepts articles if you call their editors and peer reviews "bigotted and narrow minded creationists and muslim fundies?" You're just digging your own hole deeper with such idiocy, my friend.

[Reaper]

-

 

Are you blind? Why don't you read my posts here properly???? I've just said my hypothesis is supported empirically.

 

Since when did you actually show empirical evidence? I saw no such thing during my short read.

 

And if only you looked at my quantum hypothesis at:

http://foranewageofreason.blogspirit.com/

 

then you'd see the whole article is FULL of empirical support from evidence of quantum mechanics, living organisms, astronomy and cosmology for proposing a theory of a nonlocal cause and effects. If only string theory was like this,

 

?????????

 

Would you care to elaborate on this, like actually pull out specific quotes, data, etc. And most importantly, MATH.

 

 

 

It's just that my argument can only be adequately stated by considering ALL the experimental and natural evidence I've cited together on this blog.

 

Yeah right.

 

So its no use stating bits of my argument on this thread, is it? You MUST read that blog carefully all the way through to clearly see that my 18,000 word - plus diagrammatic - argument is empirically valid. Although, just like other major theoretical discoveries, this theory really needs an account of book length to sufficiently support, or "prove" it, if you like

 

Then there is no use in actually taking your ideas seriously, since you refuse to use math, refuse to provide evidence, and provide a simple statement on what predictions it makes (or other implications).

 

 

Because, you must know, the rest of us have lives; we don't really have the time to read every crackpot theory out there. Either show us this is worthwhile, or just shut up about it.

 

And as I say this theory is like no other in science , while the whole point of my posting on science forums is to find an open minded physicist/cosmologist - or preferably both - to further develop the argument mathematically. But so far it seems this quest is quite futile. So rather than possessing a properly scientific attitude it seems physicists on internet science forums, at least, are as bigoted and narrow minded as Creationists and Muslem fundamentalists.

 

Ah yes, all crackpots sooner or later resort to personal attacks when they find that their ideas are rejected by people who know better .

[Klaynos]

For something to be supported empirically it needs to make mathematical predictions...

 

An appeal to keeping the thread calm and avoid personal attacks please!

[mooeypoo]

Ignoring the attempt to degrade the thread to a flaming bash, I have to state one thing on the demands for math:

 

We seem to be doing it a lot lately, demanding math, which is logical (because it IS a scientific demand) and is requested as part of peer review. All good.

 

But we're not there yet.

Our demand for math might have been relevant if the hypothesis was scientific. Or well founded in reality. Or semi well. Or partially. Or even just 'logically explained'. 'Marginally supported'. Anything, really, other than a fantastic claim without any sort of basis to it.

 

Demanding to see the math might have been relevant if the hypothesis in this thread had any sort of basis to it, was supported by observational data, was explained logically, or was shown to have even the slightest basis in reality.

 

It does not.

My fellow SFNers, you're wasting your time even if you DID have the math.

 

I can claim an invisible pink unicorn is poking holes in the universe, which is causing gravitational fields to form.

The hypothesis is so ridiculously unfounded and unbased in reality, that any demand on your part for me to show math is just utterly irrelevant.

Before I show the math, I need to show why math will even be relevant. What kind of equasion can possibly prove what I'm saying. Why what I am proposing has any basis in reality.

 

The first step is to explain why this theory should have any credence in reality, to show observational data, to explain its support in reality rather than fantasy.

 

THEN - and only then - the math would be relevant.

 

In short, guys, the math is important, but we're not there yet.

 

Even if we're shown mathematical formulas in this thread that are perfectly logical, they are absolutely irrelevant, because this "thesis" is not yet proven to even HAVE a basis in reality.

 

Merlin needs to first prove that reality supports his theory before we examine the efficacy of his theory by scrutinizing his math.

 

 

Merlin Wood, my friend, you need to convince us your theory has any credence in reality on the expense of the existing theories.

Forget about the math for now, it's irrelevant, I agree with that - you are not even halfway to explaining to us why we should even entertain the possibility of throwing away a currently working, proven, supported, realistic theory that can explain reality and produce working predictions with your theory.

 

Do that first, then we'll talk.

 

Oh.. and don't forget you chose to post in this forum. Lose the attitude. Peer Review is not personal. Your attempts to try and make Peer Review personal will not change the fact that your theory failed it.

 

Good luck.

 

~moo

[iNow]

We seem to be doing it a lot lately, demanding math, which is logical (because it IS a scientific demand) and is requested as part of peer review. All good.

 

 

But we're not the

 

<...>

 

Demanding to see the math might have been relevant if the hypothesis in this thread had any sort of basis to it, was supported by observational data, was explained logically, or was shown to have even the slightest basis in reality.

 

It does not.

 

My fellow SFNers, you're wasting your time even if you DID have the math.

 

I can claim an invisible pink unicorn is poking holes in the universe, which is causing gravitational fields to form.

The hypothesis is so ridiculously unfounded and unbased in reality, that any demand on your part for me to show math is just utterly irrelevant.

Before I show the math, I need to show why math will even be relevant. What kind of equasion can possibly prove what I'm saying. Why what I am proposing has any basis in reality.

Point taken.

[merlin wood]

For something to be supported empirically it needs to make mathematical predictions...

 

No it doesn't. Darwin's Origin of the Species was supported by a lot of empirical evidence and made no mathematical predictions. And, like Darwins theory, the hypothesis of a non-local cause and effects is in large part about life on Earth and the behaviour of living organisms, as well as about quantum mechanics and astronomical evidence.

 

The fact is that with all its mathematics, by assuming the action of the forces alone. present physics cannot at all adequately explain how the Cosmos can be in its consistent, presently observed form on the astronomically large, organic or the smallest scale as matter and the energy it radiates.

 

And you could ask how much mathematical calculation, if any, could be used to explain how matter as atoms, molecules and living organism can be and remain the way that it is given the action of the forces?

Edited June 15, 2008 by swansont
added paragraph; mod — fix quote tag

[iNow]

present physics cannot at all adequately explain how the Cosnos is presently observed form on the large or the small scale as matter and the energy it radiates.

Huh?

[mooeypoo]

For something to be supported empirically it needs to make mathematical predictions...

No it doesn't. Darwin's Origin of the Species was supported by a lot of empirical evidence and made no mathematical predictions. And, like Darwins theory, the hypothesis of a non-local cause and effects is in large part about life on Earth and the behaviour of living organisms, as well as about quantum mechanics and astronomical evidence.

 

Alrighty then, don't show math, show us the empirical evidence you keep talking about. I have skimmed through your blog and I have seen none to justify me spending time reading it in more detail, for the simple raeson that I haven't seen any empirical evidence.

I've seen you CLAIM empirical evidence, but seen none.

 

What I suggest is that you either point us out to the specific study that shows empirically that your hypothesis is supported in reality, or give us one or two examples of such empirical proof.

 

Even without the math, you've given us nothing empirical other than your CLAIMS that you have empirical data.

 

Where is it?

 

 

The fact is that with all its mathematics, by assuming the action of the forces alone. present physics cannot at all adequately explain how the Cosmos can be in its consistent, presently observed form on the astronomically large, organic or the smallest scale as matter and the energy it radiates.

 

Untrue. The fact you don't understand or don't know the current theories does not mean that the theories don't explain the universe.

 

We know a WHOLE LOT about the processes in the universe and the way it "operates". The current theories are based in factual data, observation, have proper math and predict phenomena truly. All new discoveries support them, even those we didn't expect to find.

 

If you propose a new theory, you need to give us a reason to abandon the current working theories.

 

I suggest you do some research about the current theories, because your claim that they can't explain anything is just wrong.

 

And you could ask how much mathematical calculation, if any, could be used to explain how matter as atoms, molecules and living organism can be and remain the way that it is given the action of the forces?

Well your question is weird.. You're mixing a bunch of subjects here and end up asking a question that cannot be answered.

 

We know what goes on inside matter. We know how atoms operate. We know how molecules interact. We know how the universe operates. We know what happens to stars. We know how stars, planets and celestial bodies are born. We can explain them perfectly well.

 

We have the math to support all of the above, too. What do you mean in your question about "remain the way it is" given the action of forces? Elements are AFFECTED by forces, and for that matter, they don't really "stay the way they are". Things move.. things evolve.. things change.

 

Physics has a lot of supported theories that explain these phenomena. So does Chemistry. So does Biology. So does Geology. So do other sciences.

 

Your insistence that there are no explanations is absurd. If you disagree with an explanation that is one thing, but saying there is no explanation when there is one is just silly.

 

Really, now, how would you expect us to take anything you say seriously if you insist on claiming that existing theories don't exist?

 

I can claim there's nothing to explain why apples fall down from trees. I can stomp my feet on the ground forever claiming there is no theory to explain it.

That doesn't mean the theory of gravity doesn't exist.

Whether you do it through college or through your own studies, I suggest you READ and LEARN about the subject you insist have no knowledge.

 

 

~moo

[merlin wood]

Alrighty then, don't show math, show us the empirical evidence you keep talking about. I have skimmed through your blog and I have seen none to justify me spending time reading it in more detail, for the simple raeson that I haven't seen any empirical evidence.

I've seen you CLAIM empirical evidence, but seen none.

 

Well I'm sorry, but you are blind or if not, lying. So here's a direct quote on quantum mechanics from my blog hypothesis at http://foranewageofreason.blogspirit.com/:

 

The EPR paper concluded that ‘no reasonable definition of reality’ would allow such a connection at a distance between objects, and so a quantum mechanics that implied these correlations must be an incomplete account of quantum behaviour; whereas in a complete quantum theory there would be no such implications. However, Irwin Schrödinger, who first devised a mathematical equation that accounted for the electron’s atomic behaviour in terms of a wave property, described EPR correlations as resulting from ‘quantum entanglement’ and regarded this as an essential distinguishing feature of quantum behaviour.

 

Then since 1972 many experiments have been carried out where the correlations could be measured at various large scale distances both between nuclear components of matter and between photons of light in entangled composite states, and just as described in the 1935 paper. These included the first experiments that measured EPR effects to occur at faster than the speed of light between photons at a distance of 18 metres,[2] and a similar experiment where the correlations were measured over 10.9 kilometres.[3] While the thought can be that these composite states can be measured because a relationship of quantum behaviour, such as the ‘spin-up’ in relation to ‘spin-down’ of protons or electrons, or the different directions of polarisation of photons, remain in these relationships despite the effects of experimental measurements.

T

The details of these behavioural relationships need not be described in this hypothesis. It is sufficient to conclude that the

---------------

page 5

 

Pauli principle is an indication of how for atoms and molecules to possess their visible and chemical properties their subatomic components need to be organised at a distance in relation to one another. So that given our form and organisation conserving causal hypothesis we can propose that such singlet or composite behavioural relationships between or amongst quantum objects can be measured in experiments because a distinct cause acts at a distance so as to conserve them.

 

But then there is the problem that if EPR effects occur at super-luminary speeds, they would at least appear to contravene the principles of relativity theory. Moreover, there are widely accepted interpretations of the quantum evidence which consider that none of the findings that are detected and measured in experiments need correspond to what occurs in the world beyond the experimental results: the quantum wave, spin and entanglement being behaviour that is both unobservable from objects in motion and indeterminate. Thus such behaviour is actually measured to obey a systematic and universal principle of indeterminacy, often called Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle (HUP). Also, a mathematically very detailed and successful account of the observable evidence, called quantum field theory (QFT), has been developed without needing to describe any further cause that could only be described from its effects from any of the results of quantum experiments. And then one could just ask: what could cause anything to occur that has no measurable strength, surely any cause would need to have some strength to produce any effect at all?

 

So these are all factors that can provide reasons to conclude that matter and radiation is just, somehow, self-organising or that, since there seems to be nothing that causes the particular results of quantum experiments, the universe experienced is just one amongst an indefinite number of worlds elsewhere that are organised differently or need not display much or any organisation. Or else, especially in a mathematically detailed development of QFT in a unified theory of the four forces that act at a distance, there could be found hidden properties of these known causes and of quantum objects to sufficiently explain the findings described by quantum mechanics.

 

Notes

 

[2]Aspect, Alain, Dalibard, Jean, Roger, Gerard (1982b) Experimental tests of Bell’s inequality using time-varying analysers. Physical Review Letters, 49, 1804.

 

[3} Tittel, W., Brendel, J., Gisen, B., Herzog, T., Zbinden, H and Gisen, N, (1998) Experimental demonstration of quantum correlations over more than 10km. Physical Review A, 57, 3229.

 

So I think readers of this thread should not take your word for anything you say.

Edited June 15, 2008 by merlin wood
clarification

[mooeypoo]

Stop with the personal attacks already. Other than wasting our time reporting it, it's also not contributing to your attempts to make your theory valid.

 

As I said, I *skimmed through* the humongous website. I didn't read it all. Which is why I asked for you to post what you think is your best proof in here. Don't forget you came to us, Merlin, we didn't come to you. The burden of proof is on you, not us. Own up to it already.

 

Now. That said, I'm going to spend a bit of time reading through your proposed proof and answer after dinner.

 

I will ask that you refrain from degrading this to a personal attack bashing, because if you continue, I don't think many of us will find this worth our time. Not to mention it's against the rules of the forum, and can earn you a suspension. Bzz.

 

We can be adults about this, can't we? Now let's talk science instead of having a silly flame party.

 

~moo

[merlin wood]

Stop with the personal attacks already. Other than wasting our time reporting it, it's also not contributing to your attempts to make your theory valid.

 

As I said, I *skimmed through* the humongous website. I didn't read it all. Which is why I asked for you to post what you think is your best proof in here. Don't forget you came to us, Merlin, we didn't come to you. The burden of proof is on you, not us. Own up to it already.

 

Now. That said, I'm going to spend a bit of time reading through your proposed proof and answer after dinner.

 

I will ask that you refrain from degrading this to a personal attack bashing, because if you continue, I don't think many of us will find this worth our time. Not to mention it's against the rules of the forum, and can earn you a suspension. Bzz.

 

We can be adults about this, can't we? Now let's talk science instead of having a silly flame party.

 

~moo

 

Well sorry but I've found this thread personally degrading since it seems you're trying to deliberately and unjustly undermine everything I say.

 

So I said above that the hypothesis is empirically supported. and then you reply as if it is not. I tell you to read my blog and then you say you've read it but can't find any empirical arrgument, even though the whol article is an empirical justification from a wide range of empirical evidence.

 

Also I've just said that the hypothesis as whole needs to be taken into consideration for it to be considered valid. So especially given the response I've had here so far why should I discuss bits of my hypothesis, which are insufficient arguments by themselves anyway?

[mooeypoo]

It's called peer review, Merlin. It's not personal. Look at the rest of the pseudoscience/speculation forums and see we do this to all hypotheses, including our own.

 

If you keep degrading the channel to personal attacks instead of proper science, we might have to stop wasting our time.

 

Also, that will win you a suspension. Or a ban. Reporting your threads for flaming and/or personal attacks is really not contributing to my time.

 

The reason we reply that your hypothesis is not empirically supported is because we haven't seen anything to support it. You posted a bit of info that might start doing that, finally, but that still awaits analysis.

You are the one proposing the hypothesis. The burden of proof and show empirical process is on you. Not on us. We haven't seen it, hence your theory is not yet supported.

 

 

 

I would recommend, as we are reading through your hypothesis to see if it's realistic or not, that you go over what Logical Fallacies are. Our examination and remarks might be more logical when you understand why we claim logic to be illogical.

 

So far I've counted a few, among other things ad hominem and appeal to authority. You might want to refresh yourself on them to avoid them in the future.

 

 

~moo

[merlin wood]

It's called peer review, Merlin. It's not personal. Look at the rest of the pseudoscience/speculation forums and see we do this to all hypotheses, including our own.

 

If you keep degrading the channel to personal attacks instead of proper science, we might have to stop wasting our time.

 

Also, that will win you a suspension. Or a ban. Reporting your threads for flaming and/or personal attacks is really not contributing to my time.

 

The reason we reply that your hypothesis is not empirically supported is because we haven't seen anything to support it. You posted a bit of info that might start doing that, finally, but that still awaits analysis.

You are the one proposing the hypothesis. The burden of proof and show empirical process is on you. Not on us. We haven't seen it, hence your theory is not yet supported.

 

 

 

I would recommend, as we are reading through your hypothesis to see if it's realistic or not, that you go over what Logical Fallacies are. Our examination and remarks might be more logical when you understand why we claim logic to be illogical.

 

So far I've counted a few, among other things ad hominem and appeal to authority. You might want to refresh yourself on them to avoid them in the future.

 

 

~moo

 

This thread has had nothing whatsoever to do with "peer review" at all. So no-one has yet bothered to examine any of the argument on my blog. And so I don't expect well reasoned argument here.

 

Hence I'm signing off for good. Bye Bye

[mooeypoo]

This thread has had nothing whatsoever to do with "peer review" at all. So no-one has yet bothered to examine any of the argument on my blog. And so I don't expect well reasoned argument here.

 

You came here, we're not supposed to go on your blog. When we request empirical data, you need to present it, not troll and try to get us on your blog.

 

I believe you were also notified this was against the rules of the forum too.

 

Hencw I'm signing off for good. Bye Bye

Oh. Okay, I won't waste my time, then.

[Reaper]

Aww man! I wanted to see flames flying all over the place!

 

He'll probably be back soon enough...

[foodchain]

Doing physics without math is a form of self abuse. It is even worse than doing *shudder* philosophy. Physics is not biology. If you are afraid of or incapable of doing math stop trying to pretend you are doing physics. You are not.

 

while I agree it would be easy to point out fields like biophysics or biochemistry or say structural biology or even microbiology. universal or fundamental laws would be sort of lame if they only worked in physics also. I plan to study QM at university while at the same time I will be a life science major, so I would hope that my plans are not based on something that does not exist..

[Reaper]

Hence I'm signing off for good. Bye Bye

 

 

LIAR!!!!!!!11one/ You signed on 6 hours ago!