Note to the moderators

[dimreepr]

‘Ihcisphysicist’, the bad news is, you are suffering from Dunning-Kruger syndrome; the good news is the cure is simple; all you have to do is understand why.

[Ihcisphysicist]

I am not against the "oh so realistic anti-matter" okay, so get off this case. The other thing is that I am not here to out do myself in quantum mechanics. My thesis is beyond quantum realm in case you didn't get it while you were only finding points to criticize in the worst way that didn't even relate to the actual concept I was stating. So why just ask me about anti-matter and annihilation, is that the only argument? Why not ask me about Hugs Boston and string particle mechanics.

 

My thesis was about the Final Matter so if you have really no clue about what I am possibly stating then take your smartness and degree to another place where you can prove yourself that you are just a late pioneer of the science that exist now because I envision that by 2035 there will be a drastic development in Science and things will be seen from a very different and unexpected perspective. It will be a collision of physics and mysticism and instead of Science people will depend on defined metaphysics.

‘Ihcisphysicist’, the bad news is, you are suffering from Dunning-Kruger syndrome; the good news is the cure is simple; all you have to do is understand why.

Or it could be You too!!! You are dim reaper after all.

Edited June 23, 2016 by Ihcisphysicist

[Strange]

I am not against the "oh so realistic anti-matter" okay, so get off this case.

 

 

I think the reason that is brought up is because you appeared not to know anything about it. Which is a bit bizarre for someone claiming to have a theory "beyond the quantum realm".

 

 

 

My thesis is beyond quantum realm

 

That is irrelevant. While you have no evidence or other support, it is NOT science.

 

And this is a science forum. If you come here with made up stories, with no basis in reality, then you will get a hard time.

[StringJunky]

I am not against the "oh so realistic anti-matter" okay, so get off this case. The other thing is that I am not here to out do myself in quantum mechanics. My thesis is beyond quantum realm in case you didn't get it while you were only finding points to criticize in the worst way that didn't even relate to the actual concept I was stating. So why just ask me about anti-matter and annihilation, is that the only argument? Why not ask me about Hugs Boston and string particle mechanics.

 

My thesis was about the Final Matter so if you have really no clue about what I am possibly stating then take your smartness and degree to another place where you can prove yourself that you are just a late pioneer of the science that exist now because I envision that by 2035 there will be a drastic development in Science and things will be seen from a very different and unexpected perspective. It will be a collision of physics and mysticism and instead of Science people will depend on defined metaphysics.

Or it could be You too!!! You are dim reaper after all.

Google 'science fiction forums'

[Bignose]

... I envision that by 2035 there will be a drastic development in Science and things will be seen from a very different and unexpected perspective. It will be a collision of physics and mysticism and instead of Science people will depend on defined metaphysics.

Hey, congratulations, you've made a prediction. Kind of like real science.

 

Too bad the same hasn't been done with metaphysics. But really, feel free to try to prove us wrong. Just demonstrate useful, correct predictions and you'll get people's attention. That's what you're missing. Science is wholly about usefulness, where usefulness is correct predictions. Just show us how your ideas make predictions as well as current science. Otherwise, people will continue to use the most useful things, which is the current physics. In the end, it really is that simple.

[fresh]

we are not scientist ，any new theories will be closed and banned， it is what i learned from the rule of this forum.

What is the new theory? The new theory Is the one no scientists study it.

How the normal people prove their new theory?

Copy&paste other scientific websites' theory? Mission impossible!

Some simple proof is just doing our own investigation,(doing questionnaires or interviewing the subjects)which seems not a proof to moderators.

[Ophiolite]

we are not scientist ，any new theories will be closed and banned， it is what i learned from the rule of this forum.

Would you think it reasonable for someone who was not a medical doctor to propose a new surgical procedure? Would you treat there suggestion seriously if they admitted they new very little about anatomy? Do you think they should be free to discuss their proposal from a position of ignorance?

[imatfaal]

we are not scientist ，any new theories will be closed and banned， it is what i learned from the rule of this forum.

What is the new theory? The new theory Is the one no scientists study it.

How the normal people prove their new theory?

Copy&paste other scientific websites' theory? Mission impossible!

Some simple proof is just doing our own investigation,(doing questionnaires or interviewing the subjects)which seems not a proof to moderators.

 

You misunderstand - it is not necessary that you be correct but you must follow the rules.

 

If you provide testable scientific ideas, answer questions, and don't try to rewrite good well-tested ideas on the back of a hunch then the threads will stay open. The stream of "why so and so is wrong", "something or another properly explained", "new proof for this and that" is just an exercise in futility unless founded in either experimental data or in the current canon of knowledge.

 

and what Ophiolite just said.

[swansont]

we are not scientist ，any new theories will be closed and banned， it is what i learned from the rule of this forum.

What is the new theory? The new theory Is the one no scientists study it.

How the normal people prove their new theory?

Copy&paste other scientific websites' theory? Mission impossible!

Some simple proof is just doing our own investigation,(doing questionnaires or interviewing the subjects)which seems not a proof to moderators.

 

 

Most people "prove" a new theory by publishing the results of their theoretical and/or experimental work in a scientific journal. Discussion here is less rigorous than that.

 

New "theory" threads are closed if they do not present sufficient rigor. But really, these are nothing like scientific theories. They are typically vague conjecture.

 

As far as being banned goes, that happens when the poster violates the rules. It depends on the nature of such violations, but they generally are offered more than one (and usually much more than one) chance at showing that they can act within the rules.