Collaboration?

[illuusio]

I got an idea! Yes another one. Could we do history here at SF? In means of collaboration (on the Thing)?

 

Here is very educated and smart people. Obviously many of you likes speculations Could we create a private section here for the collaboration? Everybody capable of distributing (math, knowledge, hardware resources, experiments, articles and so on) is welcome. I'm serious here.

 

Only open mind is required.

Edited October 19, 2012 by illuusio

[ajb]

In means of collaboration (on the Thing)?

 

You are certainly free to try to find collaborators via this forum.

[michel123456]

Actually some time ago I thought naively that was the aim of a scientific forum...

[illuusio]

Actually some time ago I thought naively that was the aim of a scientific forum...

 

Haha... This is serious topic, so please, give me some respect here I'm looking for people ready to collaborate with me. Or do you really want me alone collect physics Nobel prize in the near future?

Edited October 19, 2012 by illuusio

[Ophiolite]

Or do you really want me alone collect physics Nobel prize in the near future?

I presume you need some of us to distract the security guards while you grab the prize. Is that the collaboration you had in mind?

[illuusio]

I presume you need some of us to distract the security guards while you grab the prize. Is that the collaboration you had in mind?

 

Of course not! I need person(s) capable of creating solid scientific articles, experiments and so on. Fame and money is split equally. When things go as planned we have to have written agreement on everything. I'm a honest man (Finnish people are) so no need to be concerned of anything bad or hidden agenda.

[timo]

When we discussed the forum structure some years back, I was actually hoping that the typical speculation thread-starters (meaning people whose threads end up in speculations) would engage in lively and possibly even productive discussion with another in the speculations forum (though my expectation of "productive" may be a bit different from the average poster's expectation). I hoped for it, but I didn't really expect it. This was, if I recall correctly, even part of the reason for the name "speculations" rather than e.g. "pseudoscience". It did, as you probably notice, indeed not happen. Instead, the typical structure of a thread here seems to be person A starting a thread and then all others either talking down the idea (nothing wrong with that in principle - just not very productive) or talking about something else that they fancy more (the world should revolve around my ideas after all, not yours ). At least that's what I gather from sporadic reading over a relatively large amount of time.

 

It would be extremely nice if you could bring together some people in this forum that regularly engage in interesting speculative debates with another. I would in fact be very impressed, because in my opinion neither sfn nor any other location on the Internet offers the personal resources for such a discussion - I believe there is a reason why academic outsiders are academic outsiders. I don't quite see what you mean with "private section", given that (a) sfn is a private website in the first place, and (b) the speculations subsection probably already has its "private audience", already (I almost never read speculation posts - the only reason I clicked on this thread was the thread title that promised sensible content). You should probably start to create a recognizable social structure in the speculations forum before you ask for VIP treatment (or lay out the document detailing the sharing of the fame that comes with the Nobel Prize).

[tmpst]

This might be heading for an off-topic, but...

 

I am sure many people would be happy to speculate, but you need an idea worth the speculation. In most of the presented ideas (or "theories"), this is just not the case. When an idea is presented, it is natural for anyone to try to shoot it down with easy arguments as a part of an "feeling out" process. If the original writer has convincing answers to present, then the thing might get interesting. In most cases it is painfully obvious that the idea is shot down by the first, very elementary arguments. Then there is really nothing left to speculate about.

[timo]

That may actually not be so off-topic as it raises the question whether a thread in speculations ultimately is about the idea presented (as it seems to be your point of view) or about an interesting and productive discussion as it is my line of thinking. My view of "productive", that I already mentioned in my previous post, would actually be that people came out of the discussion having learned more than "others don't see the potential of my idea".

[Phi for All]

Believe me, when we set up Speculations, we were totally prepared to move ideas that weren't mainstream into Spec, review and discuss them, and if any were found viable, we'd move them back into mainstream fora and start talking about ways to test and make predictions based on the hypotheses. Invariably, the OP asks us to overlook obvious errors and gaps in the beginning and just look at the "theory" as a whole. They become incensed when people refuse to start investing time and resources in these ideas until those gaps and errors are addressed.

 

Most of these types of speculation are from those who don't understand the accepted theories and want to replace them with something that makes sense to them. I understand that; science is not always intuitive, it doesn't always click easily into place. But these speculations are never based on a mathematical model and they always fail to address the reality that the accepted theories actually work.

 

As tmpst says, we need an idea that is worth the effort. It might even be worth it to teach something to those who don't understand, but in virtually every case, the one who originates the speculation leaves in a huff after having been shown where they went wrong, convinced fully that they were never wrong in the first place. If we could overcome that attitude somehow, I think this section would be a lot less abrasive. I also think it's the Speculator's job to capitulate; I don't see any of the serious scientists here giving up on theories they fully understand that have a proven track record of being correct.

[ydoaPs]

Actually some time ago I thought naively that was the aim of a scientific forum...

 

What expertise, exactly, do you bring to the table?

[Ophiolite]

What expertise, exactly, do you bring to the table?

That's sounds quite aggresive. Is there entertaining history we could know about?

 

My view of "productive", that I already mentioned in my previous post, would actually be that people came out of the discussion having learned more than "others don't see the potential of my idea".

I cannot think of a single speculations thread I have not learnt something in as a consequence of having to properly study or review issues in order to make meaningful posts. OK, so far this thread may be the exception, but I am an optimist. Edited October 20, 2012 by Ophiolite

[EquisDeXD]

Of course not! I need person(s) capable of creating solid scientific articles, experiments and so on. Fame and money is split equally. When things go as planned we have to have written agreement on everything. I'm a honest man (Finnish people are) so no need to be concerned of anything bad or hidden agenda.

 

Yeah...no one not likely going to get anything big on a science forum, and who would do all the mathematical work just for the idea of some guy? It's also hard to take you seriously when you use so many smilies.

Edited October 20, 2012 by EquisDeXD

[illuusio]

Yeah...no one not likely going to get anything big on a science forum, and who would do all the mathematical work just for the idea of some guy? It's also hard to take you seriously when you use so many smilies.

 

I'm gonna fight against the odds (sorry about that smiley) Math is all ready existing, at least in it's rudiment form.

 

What's with the smilies? They look a bit silly but so what? Is it generation issue? or just a personal preference? Actually I came up with that same claim of being seriously taken argument in Finnish science forum (tiede.fi). What else? Can I drive my SUV or does it me less good (at least selfish because of collision safety)? If I use suit, is it ok? if I use sneakers and sweatsuit when I'm on my yard and so on...

 

It would be extremely nice if you could bring together some people in this forum that regularly engage in interesting speculative debates with another. I would in fact be very impressed, because in my opinion neither sfn nor any other location on the Internet offers the personal resources for such a discussion - I believe there is a reason why academic outsiders are academic outsiders. I don't quite see what you mean with "private section", given that (a) sfn is a private website in the first place, and (b) the speculations subsection probably already has its "private audience", already (I almost never read speculation posts - the only reason I clicked on this thread was the thread title that promised sensible content). You should probably start to create a recognizable social structure in the speculations forum before you ask for VIP treatment (or lay out the document detailing the sharing of the fame that comes with the Nobel Prize).

 

What I had in my mind was an area or thread only accessible to collaborators. Only to prevent unnecessary angle shooting and distractions. There are benefits in case of "open" thread collaboration but is the price too high? And Iovane is after me all the times... I'm so afraid of her.

 

Mmm... sharing fame. I don't know, to me equal amount is sufficient. How come? Well, I'm not after the fame, I really don't. Life after brought to spotlight ain't easy. Some people don't realize that but I do. There is all kinds of people out there who can do stupid things in order to get their faces into a fame of some kind Also your privacy is reduced if you are a public figure. I'm at the money and that I'll get mostly from my applications. Why that money isn't enough to you, why driving the Thing? Good question... I don't know exactly. Maybe after getting engaged to it I can't get rid of it. Hmm.. why indeed?

 

 

 

 

As tmpst says, we need an idea that is worth the effort. It might even be worth it to teach something to those who don't understand, but in virtually every case, the one who originates the speculation leaves in a huff after having been shown where they went wrong, convinced fully that they were never wrong in the first place. If we could overcome that attitude somehow, I think this section would be a lot less abrasive. I also think it's the Speculator's job to capitulate; I don't see any of the serious scientists here giving up on theories they fully understand that have a proven track record of being correct.

 

I have came back time after time But I have learn as a byproduct.

 

I'm not looking anybody to give up current theories. I'm looking further, more detailed understanding, the theory behind current theories.

 

 

[Phi for All]

What I had in my mind was an area or thread only accessible to collaborators. Only to prevent unnecessary angle shooting and distractions.

To me, this sounds like, "Give me a place where everyone agrees with me and no one points out mistakes."

 

And Iovane is after me all the times... I'm so afraid of her.

Paranoid and crotchety (whoever that is).

 

I'm at the money and that I'll get mostly from my applications. Why that money isn't enough to you, why driving the Thing?

If you make enough money from your applications to drive the Thing, make sure to get the convertible.

 

I have came back time after time But I have learn as a byproduct.

If you truly learn something, it's all worth it. That's why we're all here.

[ajb]

Actually some time ago I thought naively that was the aim of a scientific forum...

 

I think the problem is that peoples' interests and expertise are varied and wide.

 

The idea of a reading group also occurred to me, but again getting people together here who have the same interests and skill levels is just about impossible.

Edited October 20, 2012 by ajb

[illuusio]

To me, this sounds like, "Give me a place where everyone agrees with me and no one points out mistakes."

 

 

Paranoid and crotchety (whoever that is).

 

 

If you make enough money from your applications to drive the Thing, make sure to get the convertible.

 

 

If you truly learn something, it's all worth it. That's why we're all here.

 

To that first part, you may think in that way. But there is one other problem with open thread collaboration. When somebody contributes a bit, like pointing an error in calculus, should (s)he get equal amount of credit for that? It would be simpler way to have a private thread collaboration. Let the science community do the peer reviewing

 

I meant obviously Iodine!

 

BTW, is here even technically possible to have a private area?

Edited October 20, 2012 by illuusio

[Phi for All]

To that first part, you may think in that way. But there is one other problem with open thread collaboration. When somebody contributes a bit, like pointing an error in calculus, should (s)he get equal amount of credit for that?

If that error was keeping you from productive and meaningful progress, why would you object to giving them credit?

 

It would be simpler way to have a private thread collaboration.

Simpler, maybe. Limited in expertise, probably. More prone to compounded errors, definitely.

 

I meant obviously Iodine!

If I couldn't muster the respect to get her username right, I'd be afraid of her too.

 

BTW, is here even technically possible to have a private area?

Probably. Admins can set up a subforum usable only by people with group permissions. But that's counter to what we do in a discussion forum.

 

Again, it sounds like you want a space where you can work with nobody to point out your mistakes. You may think that would be productive, but history proves you wrong. Small, like-minded, isolated groups often come up with some fairly hideous collaborations.

[illuusio]

If that error was keeping you from productive and meaningful progress, why would you object to giving them credit?

 

Again, it sounds like you want a space where you can work with nobody to point out your mistakes. You may think that would be productive, but history proves you wrong. Small, like-minded, isolated groups often come up with some fairly hideous collaborations.

 

It will generate huge arguments when it's time to cash collected credits, maybe even lawsuits. I think that nobody wants that.

 

Open collaborating is nice idea, but only with certain restrictions. No credit is given anybody else but original members of the collaboration team. Do you think that there is any person (outside from team) who is willing to give feedback with previous stated restriction? I doubt it. Only mud throwing is guaranteed.

 

Further I can't promise anything from behalf of future collaboration team. At the moment there is one person interested in collaborating (if the goal is reasonable with time resources).

[Mellinia]

I believe you have seen:

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/69681-avoiding-black-holes-by-gluon-field-collapse/

This guy showed us the theory, the maths (that is consistent is units, and uses maths that is not self created out of nowhere.) , the predictions.

Now that is the proper way the present a scientific theory.

Unfortunately, you showed us the theory, the maths(if that was even maths...), and the predictions....the predictions were wrong, the maths were convoluted, and the theory hinges on an effect that describes the 'ether' as a fluid, without explaining the mechanism of ether production. You simply stated some strange particles produce them, without explaining why they haven't been found yet.

Faraday did not maths. He did the experiments and let peers do their evaluation on them. Maxwell did the maths. But the Faraday experiments were consistent with the predictions of his hypothesis.

Your experiments were not self-consistent, unexplainable by your own theory, and we can't repeat it. Are you taking random results of experiments that seemed to be correct?

And still you did not in any way answer our criticisms rationally.

You didn't even to attempt to answer.

You saw no need.

You thought that we are seeing this wrongly.

 

当者则迷,旁观则清-->Seeing things in your own eyes doesn't compare to the objective eyes of others.

 

Your hope to 'collaborate' is like gathering a cult of ToEBi...with you as the cult leader.

 

Dude...just...........dude!

[illuusio]

I believe you have seen:

http://www.sciencefo...field-collapse/

This guy showed us the theory, the maths (that is consistent is units, and uses maths that is not self created out of nowhere.) , the predictions.

Now that is the proper way the present a scientific theory.

Unfortunately, you showed us the theory, the maths(if that was even maths...), and the predictions....the predictions were wrong, the maths were convoluted, and the theory hinges on an effect that describes the 'ether' as a fluid, without explaining the mechanism of ether production. You simply stated some strange particles produce them, without explaining why they haven't been found yet.

Faraday did not maths. He did the experiments and let peers do their evaluation on them. Maxwell did the maths. But the Faraday experiments were consistent with the predictions of his hypothesis.

Your experiments were not self-consistent, unexplainable by your own theory, and we can't repeat it. Are you taking random results of experiments that seemed to be correct?

And still you did not in any way answer our criticisms rationally.

You didn't even to attempt to answer.

You saw no need.

You thought that we are seeing this wrongly.

 

当者则迷,旁观则清-->Seeing things in your own eyes doesn't compare to the objective eyes of others.

 

Your hope to 'collaborate' is like gathering a cult of ToEBi...with you as the cult leader.

 

Dude...just...........dude!

 

Obviously somebody has been left on the station Train went away... a lot has changed since we last talked on the thing.

[michel123456]

When we discussed the forum structure some years back, I was actually hoping that the typical speculation thread-starters (meaning people whose threads end up in speculations) would engage in lively and possibly even productive discussion with another in the speculations forum (though my expectation of "productive" may be a bit different from the average poster's expectation). I hoped for it, but I didn't really expect it. This was, if I recall correctly, even part of the reason for the name "speculations" rather than e.g. "pseudoscience". It did, as you probably notice, indeed not happen. Instead, the typical structure of a thread here seems to be person A starting a thread and then all others either talking down the idea (nothing wrong with that in principle - just not very productive) or talking about something else that they fancy more (the world should revolve around my ideas after all, not yours ). At least that's what I gather from sporadic reading over a relatively large amount of time.

(bolded mine)

Why then did you put the "Speculations" down in the Forum's bottom (where it stinks), exactly above the waste disposal?

 

 

It would be extremely nice if you could bring together some people in this forum that regularly engage in interesting speculative debates with another. I would in fact be very impressed, because in my opinion neither sfn nor any other location on the Internet offers the personal resources for such a discussion - I believe there is a reason why academic outsiders are academic outsiders. I don't quite see what you mean with "private section", given that (a) sfn is a private website in the first place, and (b) the speculations subsection probably already has its "private audience", already (I almost never read speculation posts - the only reason I clicked on this thread was the thread title that promised sensible content). You should probably start to create a recognizable social structure in the speculations forum before you ask for VIP treatment (or lay out the document detailing the sharing of the fame that comes with the Nobel Prize).

 

You could upgrade the speculation entity: rename the existing "Speculation" into "My Pet Theory", and create four levels of speculations, at the top of the Forum. The first level for all members - at the risk of being throwned into MPT, a second level for speculations that resisted level 1 and experienced members (as you did for the religion forum)-at the same risk- , a third level for members who resisted level 2 for several weeks, and a fourth level only for V.I.P. (maybe upon invitation)

 

Something like that.

 

I bet this kind of organization would leave the speculation entity almost empty, and you would be very interested to read the lonely thread in speculation level 3.

[Phi for All]

It will generate huge arguments when it's time to cash collected credits, maybe even lawsuits. I think that nobody wants that.

Let me ask you a few questions.

 

Your original idea was poorly supported and had many flaws that kept it from being taken seriously, you've said this yourself. If nine more people were to come on board your collaboration, take the work you started and really make it work, doing all the things you're unable to do, make the calculations, develop the model and present the paper to peer review in a way that gains it a true standing within the scientific community, is your share of the credit going to be an equal tenth, or would you require more because it was your concept originally?

 

How are you going to justify to your fellow collaborators that you've already applied individually for patents based on the idea you're collaborating on?

 

If your original concept gets abandoned but leads the other nine collaborators to something much more productive that eventually becomes accepted theory, what should your share be?

[michel123456]

Let me ask you a few questions.

 

Your original idea was poorly supported and had many flaws that kept it from being taken seriously, you've said this yourself. If nine more people were to come on board your collaboration, take the work you started and really make it work, doing all the things you're unable to do, make the calculations, develop the model and present the paper to peer review in a way that gains it a true standing within the scientific community, is your share of the credit going to be an equal tenth, or would you require more because it was your concept originally?

 

How are you going to justify to your fellow collaborators that you've already applied individually for patents based on the idea you're collaborating on?

 

If your original concept gets abandoned but leads the other nine collaborators to something much more productive that eventually becomes accepted theory, what should your share be?

 

The result is more important, or is it not? ...Maybe the dividends are more important, and glory.

Edited October 21, 2012 by michel123456

[illuusio]

Let me ask you a few questions.

 

Your original idea was poorly supported and had many flaws that kept it from being taken seriously, you've said this yourself. If nine more people were to come on board your collaboration, take the work you started and really make it work, doing all the things you're unable to do, make the calculations, develop the model and present the paper to peer review in a way that gains it a true standing within the scientific community, is your share of the credit going to be an equal tenth, or would you require more because it was your concept originally?

 

How are you going to justify to your fellow collaborators that you've already applied individually for patents based on the idea you're collaborating on?

 

If your original concept gets abandoned but leads the other nine collaborators to something much more productive that eventually becomes accepted theory, what should your share be?

 

Good questions! To the first question, yes, my share would be an equal tenth.

 

Patents have nothing to with the theory. Having patent even don't need any theory as long as it works. However there is few other patent ideas (not applied yet) which I'm willing to share with my collaborators. Those ideas need more investigation (time & money) than previous ones.

 

To the last question, be my quest If I'm right, there is no fear of your scenario. And besides that, I have my previous patent application on my name.

 

 

 

The result is more important, or is it not? ...Maybe the dividends are more important, and glory.

 

To me glory is secondary. Of course it would be awesome to pick up Physics Nobel and give a speech (with my collaborators of course). But the main driver is money. Nobel prize money at the moment is about 1 MEur so that won't do the trick, so dividing it with few other people is just fine with me. I'm after bigger bucks.