Join CNPS, Improve Science & Science Discussion Here

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Join CNPS, Improve Science & Science Discussion Here

Unread postby Lloyd » Tue Apr 12, 2016 10:42 am

JOIN CNPS at http://naturalphilosophy.org
CNPS Conference is scheduled for July 20-23, 2016 at Maryland Universary. NPS is the Natural Philosophy Society which used to be the NPA. Some members of this forum already are members of CNPS. But the more the better. Anyone may submit papers to CNPS and may be allowed to speak at the conference. I'm not sure what their criteria are for speakers.

PLAY
Learning requires Play, which is called Experimentation in Science. Games help to organize play. Maybe we can develop good games here. Fun is an important factor in Play. Eventually, Play in places like this will help develop online games that will make the internet increasingly Fun & thus Educational (if we're lucky).

ADVANCED 5-STEP SCIENTIFIC METHOD
(http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=7608):
1. Observe; 2. Experiment; 3. Replicate; 4. Publish; 5. Use (for good)
The Advanced Scientific Method includes checking for & removing errors at all 5 stages.

PROPOSED METHOD FOR SCIENTIFIC DISCUSSION
1. Choose a theory & state what is the most crucial statement of the theory.
2. Other participants then choose to:
a) agree with the statement;
b1) request explanation, or proof;
b2) someone give explanation, or proof;
b3) others choose (a or b); or
c1) propose a modification of the statement
c2) others choose (a or b) for the modified statement;
3. Step 2 is used for all subsidiary statements;
4. The theory is then organized & published.

EXPERIMENT: EDUCATIONAL GAMES
DOES ANYONE KNOW OF ONLINE EDUCATIONAL GAMES? IF SO, ARE THERE ANY THAT WE COULD PLAY HERE? OR SOMEWHERE ELSE ONLINE?

WHO'S CREATIVE ENOUGH TO HELP INVENT AN ONLINE EDUCATIONAL GAME?
WHO'S WILLING TO DISCUSS ONLINE GAMES HERE?

CAN SCIENTIFIC DISCUSSION PROCEDURE BE MADE INTO A GAME?
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4120
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

FIRST GAME: DOUTERY

Unread postby Lloyd » Fri Apr 15, 2016 9:32 am

The Game of DOUTERY
Goals: Enjoy reducing naivete'; Enjoy improving critical thinking; Enjoy developing a template for creating effective Games & improving Science.

Rules:
1. Name and briefly describe a popular science theory.
(Note: Variations can also be agreed to. It doesn't matter if a theory is considered to be a Law or absolute fact, this is just a game to find the best evidence against it anyway. There's always reasons to doubt almost anything. And the game can improve critical thinking and overcome potential problems with groupthink.)
2. Each player gives a reason for doubting the theory, but may take more than one turn, with a different posting for each turn.
3. After 20 posts, judges rank each reason given.

GAME BEGIN NOW
1. Submitting a popular science theory: Big Bang
2. Submitting a reason to doubt it: Big Bang's expanding universe theory is based on redshift of light from quasars and some galaxies, where redshift is thought to be due to very high velocity of the objects, but the redshift is due only to high velocity of electrons in bi-polar jets of the objects.

Now is the next poster's turn.

I guess I'll post this invitation on a few other threads.
Play Games with Me. I invite you and others to my new thread on improving science and science discussion at http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16278&p=112941#p112941. I started a game there, called Doutery. Its purpose is to improve critical thinking and science discussion. I want to practice the game with other critical thinkers and improve the game enough to perhaps have an effect on improving science. The game will have to be FUN in order to succeed. To me it will probably be fun already, but for others it may need tinkering with to make it much better. So I hope you can take a little time to post there for a while, like for a few days or weeks, if you like. I submitted Big Bang as a theory for Doutery, but feel free to submit other theories, even including your own, if you like. We're not trying to disprove any theory, but only to find the best counter-evidence to theories. That should help improve critical thinking, which science greatly needs, I think. Right?

Note: Another that we may try afterward is the Game of SUPERVIEW.
Goal: Enjoy increasing holistic knowledge; Enjoy getting better acquainted.
Rules: 1. Each person state a little known fact of interest.
2. After 20 posts, judges rank each fact according to must useful for dissemination.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4120
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Join CNPS, Improve Science & Science Discussion Here

Unread postby Chickenmales » Fri Apr 15, 2016 3:40 pm

I hope I'm playing the game right.

There is no evidence that all redshifts across the galaxy and the universe are due to receding objects, there could be another reason. To really be sure of this we'd need to actually measure the velocity of galaxies and compare the results to their redshifts.
Chickenmales
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2016 1:51 pm

Re: Join CNPS, Improve Science & Science Discussion Here

Unread postby JouniJokela » Sat Apr 16, 2016 7:21 am

This redshift can be caused from various reasons. Ie. Light bends in "Gravity",,,

Image

But I think this above is rubbish, though I've made the pic myself,, First we need to understand the photon emission correctly.
- If the photon is allways emitted to the opposite direction compared to movement, then light it's practically always "redshifted".
- As this emission causes exactly the same impulse as the absorbtion of photon;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure
then the velocity of the object is always increasing.
- Then this increasing velocity Simultaniously Increaces the photon emissions >= energy loss -> accelerated decay of material and increased redshift.
- Finally the material have decayed completely, but the energy of the material are returning back; it's just extremely redshifted as it's whole energy is turned to velocity.

For me this Expanding-Redshift is just the proove about the radioactive decay of material. This is supported by the observation data; ie;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_line

This is my short answer. The whole stuff is explained here;
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/294535112_QED_explanation_for_Gravity_and_Radioactivity_Theory_of_Everything
JouniJokela
 
Posts: 92
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2016 6:34 pm
Location: Swiss

Re: Join CNPS, Improve Science & Science Discussion Here

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Sat Apr 16, 2016 8:05 am

The redshift is the only "direct evidence" for the big bang.

To understand redshift, we first need to look at the observations.
Please correct me.
1) As I understand, there is no redshift within galaxies, only outside galaxies.
2) The redshift refers to the shift of the emission lines, and the shift of the absorption lines. These lines refer to each known element. What is shifting? How accurate are these measurements?
3) For some (or all?) measurements these emission lines and absorption lines become fuzzy, so statistical methods are used.
4) Using the method of redshift=distance we get huge empty space between the galaxies.
5) We do no see redshift in the rotating frequency of pulsars.
6) we can see high redshifts in "quasars" that are near low redshift galaxies.
7) Light loses energy on the way from the source to earth, due to interstellar plasma. What effects does it have?

1. would proof lambda (speed of expansion) is not a constant related to space.
3. statistical methods introduce a certain confirmation bias.
5. shows that pulsars do not follow expansion.
6. shows that quasars might create their own "redshift".

But all this depends on the actual observations.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 720
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Join CNPS, Improve Science & Science Discussion Here

Unread postby Lloyd » Sat Apr 16, 2016 9:57 am

NEW RULES OR NEW GAME?
Thanks you guys for joining in.
Does everyone agree that the rules need improving?
Do you agree that it's too hard to state good reasons to doubt a theory briefly enough to be understood well?
Are long explanations too hard to understand clearly in a game setting?
Is the game too little fun because of this?

NEW RULES
1. Each player names and briefly describes a popular theory, then the player may, if inclined, state in 50 words or less evidence against the theory.
2. Each player states in 50 words or less other evidence against any of the theories discussed in this game.
3. After 20 posts, judges decide which evidence seems best.
4. Players suggest rule changes to improve the fun of the game.


Here's my next submission.
1. Popular theory: Same as my last post: Big Bang; Evidence against it: Same, i.e. velocities measured are electrons in jets from objects, not the objects themselves.
2. Evidence against other theories mentioned here: I await other players' further input.
3. ...
4. Suggested rule changes: Done.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4120
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Join CNPS, Improve Science & Science Discussion Here

Unread postby upriver » Mon Apr 18, 2016 2:01 pm

Lloyd wrote:NEW RULES OR NEW GAME?
Thanks you guys for joining in.
Does everyone agree that the rules need improving?
Do you agree that it's too hard to state good reasons to doubt a theory briefly enough to be understood well?
Are long explanations too hard to understand clearly in a game setting?
Is the game too little fun because of this?

NEW RULES
1. Each player names and briefly describes a popular theory, then the player may, if inclined, state in 50 words or less evidence against the theory.
2. Each player states in 50 words or less other evidence against any of the theories discussed in this game.
3. After 20 posts, judges decide which evidence seems best.
4. Players suggest rule changes to improve the fun of the game.


Here's my next submission.
1. Popular theory: Same as my last post: Big Bang; Evidence against it: Same, i.e. velocities measured are electrons in jets from objects, not the objects themselves.
2. Evidence against other theories mentioned here: I await other players' further input.
3. ...
4. Suggested rule changes: Done.


Hi Lloyd,

Maybe we can come up with a list of stuff that we can start with or pick from...

One of the ideas that I am working on right now is the definition of electricity.
I agree with Maxwells idea that electricity is Momentum and Charge..
To break this down even further, Momentum is speed with a vector. And charge is another vector of Kinetic energy. So you can throw away the vector if you are just trying to find energy in joules to make a valid comparison.
Speed times mass gives you kinetic energy in Joules.

The kinetic energy of the electricity is related to the force applied by the electricity and the work done..

I would argue that this energy is sourced from a "kinetic Aether" better known as the "field" or the "electric field".

We can see from previous posts on momentum locking that kinetic energy may be the prime mover.
I am reminded of a rotary snowplow, where the electron moves forward and the curl magnetic field is at a right angle vector...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frBh5vO_2g0

A model that expresses forces and work in terms of kinetic energy may be more useful than current models that do not source the energy for work done...
upriver
 
Posts: 542
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 7:17 pm

Re: Join CNPS, Improve Science & Science Discussion Here

Unread postby Lloyd » Mon Apr 18, 2016 7:47 pm

Thanks, Brant. Feel free to provide more details on your suggestion, if you like. I guess you were talking about one or more people making a list of theories to choose from for a game. I gave up on the first game so far. It's always possible that someone will think of a way to make the game more fun, but in the meantime, I'm offering another game to play. Brant, if there are any little-known facts in the information you mentioned above, feel free to mention it as part of this next game.

The Game of SUPERVIEW.
Goal: Enjoy sharing and increasing holistic knowledge etc.

Rules:
1. Each person state a little-known fact that's of interest to you, but not a well-known fact.
2. State the source of the information and/or give a link to a source.
3. After 20 posts, judges rank each fact according to most useful for dissemination.


My Submission: Anti-Desertification
1. Deserts can be restored to productive grasslands via concentrated grazing of herd animals for brief periods each year.
2. A source is: http://www.savoryinstitute.net/current-news/current-news.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4120
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Join CNPS, Improve Science & Science Discussion Here

Unread postby comingfrom » Tue Apr 19, 2016 5:50 pm

The Big Bang theory postulates that everything sprang from nothing.
Seems to me, this breaks the fundamental laws of physics on the conservation of energy.
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: Join CNPS, Improve Science & Science Discussion Here

Unread postby Lloyd » Wed Apr 20, 2016 5:18 pm

Looks like it won't be so easy to get a productive science game going here.

What's fun in science is learning new info that may improve some aspect of society so life will be more fun. So I thought it would be fun for members to share little-known facts here. But it seems it would take a major advertising campaign here on this site to get members interested. It would also take some major engineering to determine how a game would be fun and productive for a lot of members. So this is another pipe dream.

Making gaming videos etc seems more likely to be fun for more people, but we can't do that here either. So I may try that or something similar elsewhere.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4120
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Join CNPS, Improve Science & Science Discussion Here

Unread postby Chickenmales » Thu Apr 21, 2016 2:28 pm

Maybe we don't need lots of people to play. What about making it 5 posts instead of 20?
Chickenmales
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2016 1:51 pm

Re: Join CNPS, Improve Science & Science Discussion Here

Unread postby Electro » Fri Apr 22, 2016 1:23 pm

Thought I'd do my part. Here goes... :D

SUPERNOVAE:

We all know what they are according to mainstream astronomy...

According to EU and other plasma cosmologies, there are no thermonuclear bombs powering the stars.

So, do supernovae even exist? What are we really seeing? What if they were something else? What about a collision between two giant objects like planets or stars? At 100 000 km/h, a collision between two large rocky planets would definitely release a tremendous amount of energy? It would also account for the elements they're detecting inside those giant clouds... Don't you think?
User avatar
Electro
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: Join CNPS, Improve Science & Science Discussion Here

Unread postby comingfrom » Fri Apr 22, 2016 2:27 pm

I think, supernovae are exploding double layers, in EU theory.
When a double layer becomes unstable, all the energy contained in the circuit is released at the point of instability.
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: Join CNPS, Improve Science & Science Discussion Here

Unread postby Electro » Fri Apr 22, 2016 3:07 pm

comingfrom wrote:I think, supernovae are exploding double layers, in EU theory.
When a double layer becomes unstable, all the energy contained in the circuit is released at the point of instability.

That makes sense too.
User avatar
Electro
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: Join CNPS, Improve Science & Science Discussion Here

Unread postby Lloyd » Fri Apr 22, 2016 6:04 pm

Chickenmales wrote:Maybe we don't need lots of people to play. What about making it 5 posts instead of 20?

It's okay with me, but no one else is following the rules. They're stating theories instead of facts.

Rules:
1. Each person state a little-known fact that's of interest to you, but not a well-known fact.
2. State the source of the information and/or give a link to a source.
3. After 5 qualified posts, judges rank each fact according to most useful for dissemination.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4120
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Next

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests