dna_man, I think we agree on most of that. I would amend your all inclusives: “ONLY written work was suitable” and “And that only DATA (not anecdotes, not opinions) that is measurable can be used as criteria”. There are, of course, discussions that lend themselves to scientific thought but not data collection. If good subjective data were always available, we would have no need for Occam’s razor and other critical thinking tools. Stick around, I’m sure you will see what I mean. Welcome to the boards.
BTW: I can see why you would feel the need to state your qualifications, but it isn’t necessary, or even relevant here. If you will take some friendly advice [and I do intend it as friendly]: Don’t risk accusations of * Argumentum ad Verecundiam*, rather let the quality of your ideas speak for themselves.
You can find a collection of his articles here: www.soulinvitation.com
I never claimed to be a scientist, I am merley trying to create awareness about this perspective on a “Unified field theory”.
My goal is to establish the truth, not to live in some new-age daydream, that is why I hope you will look at the numbers instead of the opinions, and hopefully we can all learn something.
If that is indeed the case, if you indeed seek to establish the truth, then you must do what you have been called upon here to do, and defend your assertions with hard evidence.
I don’t know about the others, but for me, that evidence need not necessarily be experimentation since, as precedence shows, it is not always possible to test an hypothesis when its revelation has preceded the technology required to test it. However, you must at least show a deductive process, either by mathematics or formal logic, that will take us from a set of undefined terms that you have clearly contextualized, a set of defined terms, a set of axioms that may be experientially confirmed by reasonable people, and a chain of premises, each following from its predecessor, until you have reached a conclusion that does not restate any prior axiom or premise.
Until you have done that, you are merely chattering like a monkey.
Hiyruu: Please elucidate; what was the purpose of that last post? Are you supplying more support with those links? I’m not seeing them as relevant, you will have to be much more specific. Or are you admitting that your real goal is to spread the Gospel according to Winter? In either case, It is my belief that coming back to say “I hope you will look at the numbers instead of the opinions” when there must be a minimum of a dozen outstanding questions on your formulas, calculations, and scientific definitions that you have blatantly ignored, is not merely disingenuous; it is downright rude. To this observer, this type of response in the face of questions is very telling about your motives here.
If you don’t wish to “live in a new-age daydream”, here is some sincere advice: pick up some beginning to mid-level physics texts and master the fundamentals. I’d advice you to divorce yourself of whatever affiliation you have with DW, but perhaps it is better that you learn enough to arrive at that conclusion on your own terms.
Lib: Depending on the degree of acceptance, it is my belief that experimentation is not always necessary at an early stage. e.g. You can turn your premise into a hypothesis merely [not to imply it is necessarily easy] by demonstrating that your proposed hypothesis is derived from factual information and adequately explains existing observations through research, math, proofs, etc. Your hypothesis needs to lend itself to testing, but needn’t have been tested yet to discuss. If it were to survive testing, peer review, and corroboration, it would then be worthy of the term theory. A degree of testing that shows a theory to be invariable under certain stated conditions is considered a law. The OP’s premise has not yet been shown to adequately explain anything nor do I believe it is derived from known facts. It was presumptuous of him to call it a theory.
First of all, I quit smoking after 15 years about 2 weeks ago, so if I sound like I’m being a jackass, I probably am, but I don’t really mean to. Sorry. (Part of the reason I type so much – I need to keep my hands busy)
Waverly: I felt the need not to cite my credentials, but rather my experience in analyzing and interpreting data. Also some posts above were asking for the production of credentials and citations so I assumed it was that type of bunch. Since I was speaking with some authority on the subjects of data interpretation (also General Relativity), I felt it polite to mention that I had some experience with it. I also wanted to point out that I am not, in fact, a physicist, so I am not an expert on Relativity. In reality, I do not take the OP seriously. Partly because no experienced physicist would. Which leads me to this…
Argumentum ad Vericundum (claiming credibility for your argument because you are, or you are citing, an authority on the subject) is an interesting issue here, since that is precisely the logic Hiryuu is using to ‘prove’ the validity of his hypothesis. (He’s quoting experts from fields other than physics even.)
Perhaps I should create a new thread for discussing this issue, but I think that experience (more so than credentials) does matter… that is, I disagree that argumentum ad vericundum is always a fallacy. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn’t. I believe experience is way more important than any credential, since I know (from experience) that there are many people who are qualified on paper that don’t know a damn thing about the subject. Speaking with authority and not citing sources or credentials is becoming an extremely common problem on the internet, to the point where you can’t believe anyone and you can’t tell the experts from the idiots.
Whole bunch of pretty pictures and not much more, I’m afraid.
You can start by defining the term “life force”.
Winter is based in the Netherlands, so I have to wonder if English is his first language.
Besides the atrocious spelling and syntax, there is a big error here: Eggs don’t store electrical energy, they merely conduct it in this example. Eggs are not nature’s batteries!