Speculation

[andreasjva]

I am a little confused about this topic category. I recently posted a fairly out of the box speculation, which got shut down. Not sure why exactly. There was something provable in it, but I certainly am not capable of proving it myself. I don't have access to a Hubble telescope or the math skills. Not many would at that level. Some existing math does support this concept though, and it was done by a fairly well known scientist. other ideas haven't been attempted. I stumbled upon him after I came up with the fundamentals of this concept and went searching. I have expanded on it a bit more since my last posting.

My idea seems to possibly fit time, and answers acceleration of the universe as well. It also defines motion and could clarify why we cannot surpass light speed. It's a logical hypothesis based mostly on the unknowns with an attempt to answer the why. It pulls them all together like assembling a puzzle. Yes, it's a little raw, and I have some terminology a little bungled, but that doesn't change the overall concept. Just needs a few tweaks here and there in the language. It could work.

What is the point of this topic anyway?

It clearly says "Pseudoscientific or speculatory threads belong here."

spec·u·la·tion
ˌspekyəˈlāSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: speculation; plural noun: speculations
1. the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.

But your site seems to contradict the meaning of speculation, and pseudoscience for that matter.

1. Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof.

The topic header seemed self evident to me. Speculation threads belong here.

I understand you don't want nonsense to clutter up the site, but it's not like I was talking about pink unicorns in never never land. It's a theory that fits the current observations as is. I see a different interpretation, that should in theory, mathematically work out exactly the same. I understand math well enough to know it could work. I don't know for certain though, but that's why I am here. I'm simply skeptical of the popular interpretation of the observations, and see a better logic to it all. I see the way everything ties together as a part of the whole, rather than all these broken up and compartmentalized unbound fragmented theories. Like dark energy for example. It's another separate theory hanging in the wind, detached from the rest of physics. Everything is detached from one another.

I'd like to post it again in slightly better format, but I'm hesitant. Are you guys going to kill the thread before it gets started? I don't know if it can be proven or not, but I'm not certain anyone can disprove it. If it fits 5 major observations like a glove, it seems to me that it might be worth taking a look at. Wouldn't you think so?

What it can explain in plain English in fundamental terms is:

Motion
Why we can't go over light speed
What mass gain with acceleration means
Time as a physical property
Acceleration of the universe (dark energy)
A new idea about the big bang (yes it's real)
Where we're headed (yes our universe will end)
Space
Expansion
Gravity
It could possibly explain dark matter as well, but I'm not sure how at this point. I don't understand my own theory well enough to apply it to galactic spin. It has the base dynamics though, so I'm pretty confident this might replace it. Maybe not, but that's not a deal breaker.

Sure, it's a bit strange reading it at first, but so is everything else in physics. I actually consider this less strange, because it just makes frigging sense if you gave it half a thought.

[elfmotat]

Please read the Speculation section's rules. Rule #1:

 

 

The Speculations forum is provided for those people who like to postulate new ideas in the realm of science, or perhaps just make things up for fun. Whatever the case is, this forum is not a home for just any science-related idea you have. It has a few 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.

 

This is a science forum. If there is nothing objective to discuss then we aren't doing science.

[Strange]

 

Speculations must be backed up by evidence

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/

 

Not too complicated.

 

 

but I'm not certain anyone can disprove it

 

Then it isn't science. And "this is a science forum, and speculations are still to be discussed in that context", from the guidelines.

 

 

I recently posted a fairly out of the box speculation, which got shut down.

 

None of the threads you started appear to have been shut down.

 

What is the point of this topic anyway?

 

It is a venue for people to present their ideas and have them vigorously tested - like a gentler form of the scientific process.

 

It also keeps nonsense away from the serious parts of the forum.

[andreasjva]

I understand that, but the fundamental idea does have mathematical evidence to support it. The work was done by a fairly well known theoretical physicist, although it has not been peer reviewed. I came up with the idea independent of his theory, and I have expanded on the idea much further. I can see where it fits many things in nature.

 

Isn't that what science is all about?

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "objective to discuss".

[Strange]

I understand that, but the fundamental idea does have mathematical evidence to support it.

 

Then present the evidence in your thread (not here).

[elfmotat]

I understand that, but the fundamental idea does have mathematical evidence to support it. The work was done by a fairly well known theoretical physicist, although it has not been peer reviewed. I came up with the idea independent of his theory, and I have expanded on the idea much further. I can see where it fits many things in nature.

 

Isn't that what science is all about?

 

I don't know what your idea was or which thread you're talking about. I was just explaining why posts are usually moved to the trash can.

 

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "objective to discuss".

 

Something along the lines of, "if my idea is correct then we should expect to see a value of X upon measuring such and such a quantity." Or, "this fits known data, as shown here." Something to tell us whether or not your idea is wrong, objectively.

[andreasjva]

Wow, you are correct Strange. I suppose I just got a warning or something from the moderator. I thought the thread was killed and turned off my computer.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

A modtip was placed in the thread asking you to read the rules of the speculations forum.

 

Your thread is here

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/87253-infinity-hypothesis/#entry845911

 

But it will be locked if you don't attempt to answer the questions asked and formalise the theory.

 

I am moving this to Suggestions and Support as that is a more natural home for this question.

 

[swansont]

I recently posted a fairly out of the box speculation, which got shut down.

 

What thread would that be? I only find one other thread you've started, and it's still active. And, as has been pointed out, a link outlining what we mean by speculation was provided to you.

I'd like to post it again in slightly better format, but I'm hesitant. Are you guys going to kill the thread before it gets started?

 

Yes, probably. You have an open thread. You can post any clarification there. If it does get shut down, re-introducing the topic is not going to go over well, unless you are expressly told that it's OK.

[Phi for All]

I am a little confused about this topic category.

 

There are tons of places on the web where you can talk about ideas in a kind of wild west, free-for-all style where evidence isn't necessary, and you can make all the wild guesses you want. At SFN, we want a more rigorous approach to posing them for serious consideration. We want to productively discuss hypotheses, not opinions or guesses, so we need to follow the methodology more closely.

 

We're not trying to be harsh about it, and everything said should be about the idea instead of the person having the idea. A loose basic peer review where a blend of pro, semi-pro, and amateur scientists can apply critical thinking to a rough hypothesis. We want intellectual honesty to prevail. If an idea is flawed from the start, best to point it out and save everyone some time.

 

Again, there are plenty of places on the internet to talk about your ideas without jumping through all OUR hoops. They can be fun if that's what you want. We want discussion HERE to be scientifically meaningful, and we assume that everyone posting in our Speculations section feels the same way. We assume that everyone who starts a Speculations thread has read the rules, which covers all this nicely, especially when they're specifically asked to.

 

We should be able to assume that, right? That's not unreasonable, is it?

[ajb]

The general point is that a speculation should not be some random made up sh*t. Their may not be hard evidence that the speculation is correct, but for sure there should be some evidence for why the speculation was made and how it might in principle be tested. This will require some understanding of what is known.

 

Most of the post in the Speculations Section fail on the above points.

[Strange]

The general point is that a speculation should not be some random made up sh*t.

 

Can we have that added to the rules?

[Phi for All]

 

Can we have that added to the rules?

 

Oh great, more technical jargon to define....

[swansont]

And the inevitable semantic argument: "My posts isn't random sh*t. It's arbitrary crap, and there's a difference!" (Besides, I worked on it for 20 years and I feel it's true in my gut, so there)

[Delta1212]

And the inevitable semantic argument: "My posts isn't random sh*t. It's arbitrary crap, and there's a difference!" (Besides, I worked on it for 20 years and I feel it's true in my gut, so there)

That is where most sh*t comes from.

[ajb]

I am sure I have said it before, but in science and mathematics people speculate all the time. And more often than not they are wrong. However, although speculations require some degree of imagination, you are lead to them by understanding what is already known. You don't just create random ideas. Even those ideas that are wrong can be useful when you really show they are wrong. This adds to your overall understanding.

[Phi for All]

I am sure I have said it before, but in science and mathematics people speculate all the time. And more often than not they are wrong. However, although speculations require some degree of imagination, you are lead to them by understanding what is already known. You don't just create random ideas. Even those ideas that are wrong can be useful when you really show they are wrong. This adds to your overall understanding.

 

It seems like people well-grounded in the math can make these calculations and detect fairly easily whether their ideas have merit, whereas we spend pages trying to figure out what people mean using only words.

 

While it seems reasonable to do-it-yourself when it comes to most plumbing jobs (please bear with me), most handy folks know you should trust a professional if your pipes need a high degree of work. I can unclog a toilet, but I should trust a pro to put in a water heater. For some strange reason though, amateur scientists often think they can come up with a TOE that has eluded the rest of science for a century. They want to tackle GR using words, and claim they don't need math to do it, but can't make anyone else understand what they see. Worse still, when another member does do the math to show why an explanation isn't right, it gets dismissed because "you don't get it, I'm thinking outside the box here".

[StringJunky]

 

It seems like people well-grounded in the math can make these calculations and detect fairly easily whether their ideas have merit, whereas we spend pages trying to figure out what people mean using only words.

 

While it seems reasonable to do-it-yourself when it comes to most plumbing jobs (please bear with me), most handy folks know you should trust a professional if your pipes need a high degree of work. I can unclog a toilet, but I should trust a pro to put in a water heater. For some strange reason though, amateur scientists often think they can come up with a TOE that has eluded the rest of science for a century. They want to tackle GR using words, and claim they don't need math to do it, but can't make anyone else understand what they see. Worse still, when another member does do the math to show why an explanation isn't right, it gets dismissed because "you don't get it, I'm thinking outside the box here".

All you need is intuition!

[Phi for All]

All you need is intuition!

 

Don't forget logic! If it makes sense to me, it must be logical.

[StringJunky]

 

Don't forget logic! If it makes sense to me, it must be logical.

...and: It must wrong because I don't understand it.

[ajb]

All you need is intuition!

Intuition helps lots.

 

But remember that intuition is built on experience. If someone has little experience of working with, say quantum mechanics, then how can you trust their intuition on the subject? Intuition is not the same as 'common sense' as used in the everyday meaning.

[StringJunky]

Intuition helps lots.

 

But remember that intuition is built on experience. If someone has little experience of working with, say quantum mechanics, then how can you trust their intuition on the subject? Intuition is not the same as 'common sense' as used in the everyday meaning.

I agree but most peoples' 'intuition' is based on macro-world commonsense but my main point was that it is vastly overused and never spoken of in conjunction with relevant experience. I use cameras intuitively, without thinking and just know what I need to do to get the effect I want, but it took thousands of hours reading, learning and practicing the technicalities before it became second nature.

Edited January 17, 2015 by StringJunky

[ajb]

I use cameras intuitively, without thinking and just know what I need to do to get the effect I want, but it took thousands of hours reading, learning and practicing the technicalities before it became second nature.

And making plenty of mistakes along the way...

[StringJunky]

And making plenty of mistakes along the way...

In photography, mistakes are effects that we don't want at that particular time but might prove useful later; postive thinking. Do you see surprising effects in your maths when you punch in the wrong values or operators? I think it's very important to try and glean something useful from each cock up and not beat oneself up for failing that time.

[ajb]

Do you see surprising effects in your maths when you punch in the wrong values or operators?

Yes, you can get surprising results from looking at specific example. This can then help you understand the general setting.