Chat Room Wed. Night 10 pm ET

LloydLloyd Posts: 35
edited April 2020 in Off-Topic & Archive
Chat Room Wed. Night 10 pm ET
That's Eastern Time. Go to http://us9.chatzy.com/94568710066994. You don't need to register or anything, just sign in with a username of your choice.

Topic: Best Theories & Better Science Process
If you like, you may list your favorite theory/ies and the main points and arguments;
And/or you may discuss ideas to improve science.
Let's hopefully not discuss theories much, other than listing them and the supporting arguments.

Process
I suggested to Charles to start a Ratings section on his QDL site for evaluating theories and publishing to the onsite Library. I also said this:
. Allow anyone to read it, but restrict posting to qualified Team members.
. Have four Parts in the Ratings section.
. First could be a List of names and authors of well-developed theories.
. Second could be lists of the main points and arguments of those theories.
. Third could be evaluations of the points and arguments.
. Fourth could be the Science Library, a list of points and arguments of theories that are rated highly.

We're trying to develop a process for better science, so we can discuss ideas like this in the chat room tomorrow too.

Semi-Weekly Chats
I'm thinking of having similar chats once or twice a week in the same chat room or on Charles' site.
The times may be:
- each Wed. at 10pm ET
- and each Sat. at noon ET.
If anyone else would like to host a regular chat at another time more convenient for you, we can work that out, or you can do it independently.

Post Theories
I started a RATINGS folder at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=13639 where anyone is welcome to post favorite theories, their main points and best supporting arguments. Top rated points and arguments are intended to be posted in our onsite Library.

Comments

  • LloydLloyd Posts: 35
    edited April 2020
    Chat Record
    L = Lloyd; A = Airman; C = Charles.
    Chat Topic: Favorite Theories & Better Science Process
    Time: Wed. 10 pm ET - Jun 4
    At 10pm, please give your first name, city, country & occupation.
    - Favorite Theories. Then give the name of one or more of your favorite theories and the name/s of the author/s. You're welcome to mention the main points and the supporting arguments, if you like. Or you may post that info at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=13639 where we can then rate them.
    - Better Science Process. And/or you may discuss ideas to improve science, such as the process above, which is meant to make it easier to find and rate the best theories so as to increase scientific progress.
    - I'll try to post this chat at the above link by tomorrow. I'll delete any private info.
    L: By the way, it's normally better to click on "Join Chat", rather than "Write Message". I wrote the above message after clicking "Write Message", but for this I clicked "Join Chat". 12:27 AM
    WowGoHere.com joined the chat 12:44 AM
    WowGoHere.com: Must See - http://www.WowGoHere.com 12:45 AM
    WowGoHere.com: Gravity is absolutely pushing us down onto the earth ! 12:46 AM
    wilhelmus joined the chat 8:54 AM
    L: It's almost time to start. I'm in Illinois across the river from St. Charles, MO. My occupation is labor, but I do a lot of writing online. 8:57 PM
    A: Hi Lloyd 8:59 PM
    L: Hi Robert. 8:59 PM
    C: I'm in Baltimore, Maryland. I'm a computer programmer. 9:00 PM
    L: I invited over 50 NPA members and left some TB forum messages, but it looks like they may not be coming tonight. I left a message on the Ethereal Mechaincs forum too. 9:00 PM
    L: Hi Charles. 9:00 PM
    L: I checked out the website above that someone listed last night here. It has some interesting material on it. 9:01 PM
    L: I wanted to see if people would come at this time. It's not a good time in Europe, but it's a decent time in east Asia, though not many NPA members are likely from there. 9:03 PM
    L: But arranging chats worldwide, you have to take that into consideration sometimes. 9:04 PM
    A: Hi Charles. I'm Robert, I live in Yuba City CA (north of Sacramento), and I'm an Air Force Civil Engineer, but I already read that on QDL. 9:04 PM
    L: I'm thinking of trying this twice a week, but may use the QDL chat room most of the time. 9:05 PM
    L: I consider my efforts to find better scientific process a loose scientific experiment. 9:07 PM
    L: Have yous noticed the process I'm working on? Getting main points of theories and their main supporting arguments? 9:08 PM
    A: You are dealing with a lot of inertia. How would you describe Ethereal Mechanics? 9:08 PM
    L: I plan to post some of my ratings of some Eth. Mech. points on Charles' site soon. 9:09 PM
    C: Robert, have you reviewed any of the docs on the proposed method for evaluating theories, and if so, what are your thoughts? 9:08 PM
    A: I believe the process you are proposing is quite democratic. 9:10 PM
    L: Would you guys both like to see all the well developed theories listed with the main points and supporting arguments? Or do you think more or something else is needed? 9:11 PM
    L: Airman, do you have a favorite theory, besides Mathis'? 9:12 PM
    A: My first enlightenment was due to RBuckminster Fuller. 9:13 PM
    L: And Charles, would you like to list the main points of any of your theories and the supporting arguments? Or do you want someone else to do that for you? 9:13 PM
    C: Before we can evaluate theories, I think that the main points need to be identified, and then the criticisms should be listed under them, and the rebuttals listed under the criticisms. 9:14 PM
    C: I have been listing my theories, along with others, in the Science folder. 9:15 PM
    L: You haven't boiled them down to just the main points and main supporting arguments, though, have you? 9:15 PM
    L: I noticed today, posting my list of some of MM's main points, that listing the main arguments will probably be a lot of work. 9:16 PM
    L: So my experiment seems to be finding that not many people will want to bother with this process, unless it's made much easier or offers some reward. 9:17 PM
    C: I'm not listing just the main points of each theory per se — I'm listing the assertions of each theory with regards to each thing that it tries to explain. A theory that tries to explain a lot of stuff could have a lot of points listed. But it groups assertions together, which is valuable. So you see the EU explanation of sunspots, alongside CC's, Mozina's, etc. 9:21 PM
    L: Oh, yes, Charles, I remember what you're talking about now. 9:22 PM
    A: I applaud both your efforts to improve the "scientific" process. Lloyd, thank you for already improving discourse. 9:17 PM
    L: Thanks, Robert. I guess you mean by finding key points of a theory and rating them at the TB forum? 9:18 PM
    A: This is my first time in participating in an online chat, it's a bit tough on my finger. Lu are listing each and every point5, and the discussion is much clearer 9:19 PM
    L: Robert, 2 years ago, Charles and I and 2 other friends started a team effort on the electric sun issue and we learned quite a bit from that effort. I thought it was very productive for a few months, then we got to where no one could explain things any further. 9:21 PM
    L: Robert, you're using an iPad or something? 9:21 PM
    A: I'm very suspicious of rating. I am working harder to be more prepared. A tablet. 9:22 PM
    L: Robert, the ratings have to be done in order to find the weak and strong points of a theory. The ratings are meant to be approximations for the rater only. If a rater is objective, then the ratings should be too. 9:24 PM
    A: Anyone can contribute to the rating, and interpret them for one's self 9:26 PM
    L: Yes, the idea is to get several people rating the same thing, then the ratings are averaged. The ultimate raters would need to prove their qualifications. In the mean time I'm experimenting with amateur raters. 9:28 PM
    L: Charles, do you have an outline of points and subpoints that you can link to? 9:32 PM
    L: Charles, if you ever get ready to try your Deliberatorium thing, I'm ready to work on that for practice any time. 9:34 PM
    C: Most of the stuff in the "QDL / Topics / Science / Astronomy" folders is organized as points, with sub-points, sometimes being criticisms, and sometimes with rebuttals. 9:41 PM
    C: http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=4741-4760-507... 9:41 PM
    A: There are so many lists I don't know which is which. Create a guide or directions or scavanger hunt 9:42 PM
    C: So instead of rating a theory as one monolithic corpus, this method breaks the assertions into categories, where they can be compared with the contentions of other frameworks, and specific criticisms can be lodged against each one. The "ratings" come later, once it can be determined which theory(ies) can stand up to the criticisms. 9:43 PM
    L: Can you give an example of a scavenger hunt? 9:43 PM
    A: Make a goal. leave clues. have a prize 9:44 PM
    L: I see "scavenger hunt" is explained in Wikipedia. 9:46 PM
    A: We wouldn't be looking for objects, but ideas. Not so esoteric as to lose anyone, but for motivation 9:47 PM
    C: Here's an idea — find all of the EU tangents, and your brain blows up. 9:47 PM
    L: The EU tangents would probably be another wikipedia. 9:48 PM
    L: How about the top ten EU tangents? 9:48 PM
    C: I'm still thinking that the literature can be boiled down to an outline. Sure, it will be a big outline, but at least each point will only be listed once, where it logically appears in relation to other points. And you'll be able to navigate the outline. 9:53 PM
    A: I wanted to say that TB strikes me as very orthodox in its own way 9:24 PM
    L: Yes, Thornhill follows Ralph Sansbury's ideas quite a bit, but he differs somewhat from Sansbury. 9:25 PM
    L: And Talbott seems to accept most of Thornhill's ideas. Cardona on the other hand is more skeptical of some of Thornhill's ideas. He doesn't think electric discharges do as much as Thornhill says. 9:26 PM
    C: I think that we're not ready to do ratings yet. [smile] First, we have to lay out the logic. What continues to amaze me is how much depth there actually is to these topics. For example, I've been studying EU literature for 10 years, and I've never heard of Ralph Sansbury. 9:26 PM
    L: Charles, Thornhill talked a lot more about Sansbury on his own website. The TB TPODs occasionally refer to Sansbury, I believe. 9:30 PM
    C: There is a lot of redundancy in the literature, making it harder to get through all of it. And then buried in there are tangential points that you miss. This is where I think that an outline of the points and sub-points will make it easier to follow. 9:27 PM
    A: The Saturn idea is mythical to me. I'm embarrassed by it. Am I wrong? 9:29 PM
    L: No. The Saturn theory is well-founded by comparative mythology findings. 9:29 PM
    L: I meant, yes, Robert, you're wrong about the Saturn theory. 9:31 PM
    A: Wrong? I really have no opinion. I just avoided it. 9:32 PM
    A: Lloyd, do you have a favoritr 9:33 PM
    A: favorite - reccommended Saturn work I might start with? 9:34 PM
    L: I have a few older threads on the TB forum about the Saturn Theory. 9:35 PM
    L: I'll look up some links. 9:35 PM
    L: "Cardona Interview on Saturn Theory" is a good introduction. 9:37 PM
    A: OK, outside of TB. I remember reading Velokofsky (?) in High School. 9:38 PM
    L: The main EU tangent is probably the Saturn Theory, though actually EU was a tangent of Catastrophism, since Velikovsky mentioned that he thought the thunderbolts of Zeus etc seemed like electrical effects. Velikovsky also originated the Saturn Theory, but he only had Earth as a moon of Saturn. He didn't care for the idea that Saturn originated outside the solar system. 9:56 PM
    A: Charles, I'm impressed with your tornado motivation. I think we are very close to the answers 9:36 PM
    L: The theories I followed 40 years ago haven't fared well. The more recent ones seem to be much better, though they're founded on the older ones. 9:52 PM
    L: I favored EU theory till about 2 years ago, when I rated Charles' theory better, more thorough etc. 9:53 PM
    C: It's still electric, though it's more electrostatic, while the EU is more electrodynamic. 9:54 PM
    A: Why electrostatic? 9:55 PM
    A: Is that the most important component to tornados? And filaments? 9:56 PM
    L: EU would have the electricity on the Sun and Earth and other planets coming from the galaxy, but Charles has it coming locally.
    A: Locally? As in Miles' emission field? 9:58 PM
    L: Charles starts with Debye cells in space, which lead to accretion, then to CFDLs, current free double layers. 10:00 PM
    A: Another reading assignment. I've yet to hear an objection to Charles' ideas. 10:01 PM
    C: Why electrostatic? In tracing EU assertions back to prime movers, I (of course) found that currents start with electric fields. But the currents in the EU didn't seem to have plausible fields. So I looked for other things to supply the fields. This resulted in a different conception of the driving forces, and thus the currents. 10:04 PM
    A: That's right on the tip of my understanding. 10:06 PM
    C: OK, I'm about done too, but Robert, please feel free to review my work, and supply criticisms as appropriate. My tornado theory is the most detailed on the work that I've done, and it's provable. 10:06 PM
    L: Charles' solar, Earth and galaxy models are well-developed too. 10:07 PM
    C: http://vixra.org/abs/1401.0133 10:07 PM
    L: Well, do you guys have anything more to discuss? The experiment is concluded for tonight. I wanted to see if I could entice NPA members to discuss favorite theories here, but they didn't. 10:03 PM
    A: I hope you aren't too disappointed in the turnout. 10:04 PM
    L: Experimenters are happy with whatever results they find. 10:04 PM
This discussion has been closed.

About Cookies

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website.

Learn more: https://www.cookiesandyou.com/