0
   

Does anyone read a science magazine

 
 
Reply Tue 26 Feb, 2013 12:59 pm
In other threads, for instance

http://able2know.org/topic/209179-1#bottom

I discuss with knowledgeable folk such as Z, Max, and Con subjects theoretic like physics and relativity, am hoping one of you fellas (out of 99,997 other participants) can help me out here: I intend to write an article discussing my supposedly new theory of relativity, which however doesn't dispute Einstein but permits his theory to be looked at in a slightly different way to dispatch "time-at-a-distance" as well as the various peculiar and even seemingly paradoxical transformations supposedly taking place in a moving object. I call it "relative relativity"

So I'm wondering if anyone hereabout knows of or subscribes to a science magazine to whom I might submit the article on speculation and if so provide me a link. Preferably they'd accept a ms in "email" form

Of course I had considered Popular Science but my theory might be ever-so-slightly advanced for its typical reader

Yeah I know I ought to consult Google but you fellas might save me some time scrolling through 53 million hits

Thanks guys
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 0 • Views: 1,833 • Replies: 26
No top replies

 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Feb, 2013 02:02 pm
@dalehileman,
I deny the anonymous insinuation that I'm a bot, I haven't posted this at any other forum

Howevcer that does remind me, as much as I love a2k its participants aren't for the most part deeply into some of the things I like best, and so I'm open for a link to one concerning itself with sci, philo, lang., psych, etc
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Feb, 2013 02:03 pm
@dalehileman,
I deny the anonymous insinuation that I'm a bot, I haven't posted this at any other forum

However that does remind me, as much as I love a2k its participants aren't for the most part deeply into some of the things I like best, and so I'm open for a link to one concerning itself with sci, philo, lang., psych, etc
0 Replies
 
Sturgis
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Feb, 2013 04:35 pm
@dalehileman,
Quote:
I discuss with knowledgeable folk such as Z, Max, and Con subjects theoretic like physics and relativity,
Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing
Discussion would mean you'd have to contribute something at least vaguely resembling an intelligent set of words.

Quote:
So I'm wondering if anyone hereabout knows of or subscribes to a science magazine to whom I might submit the article on speculation and if so provide me a link.


I wouldn't want to subject any more of the world to your nonsense; so, even though I have information on a myriad of magazines relating to the field of science, I will not be supplying them to you.

Quote:
Of course I had considered Popular Science but my theory might be ever-so-slightly advanced for its typical reader


Your imaginary theory wouldn't even be too advanced for Highlights Magazine.



On the other hand, you have an amazingly good grasp of locating your past threads and inserting them into 'new' threads (as in your endless 'revisited' threads). Interesting ability for a person claiming to be in the throes of Alzheimer's whenever he runs into a problem.

farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Feb, 2013 05:37 pm
@dalehileman,
I would urge you to reconsider about your "hypothesis" until you can develop and verbalize a convincing mathematical or evidentiary train of thought. You may feel that you "have something" but from what Ive been reading of your posts, you do not.
You seem to be convinced that c is somehow a variable "c
onstant'. We have so many applied gizmos out there that depend on a
C(c), yet you seem to ignore that fact.
Im not trying to bandwagon here but Id truly urge you to try to think it out further and then try to, say, convince the board herein that youve got a poin worth debating. There are several people on the board who are trained in theoreticalor applied physics and I dont hear any large echos of support from them.t.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Feb, 2013 05:42 pm
@Sturgis,
Quote:
at least vaguely resembling an intelligent set of words
Yes I do try to arrange them at least in grammatical order

Quote:
…. though I have information…..I will not be supplying them to you.
I can well understand. If they discover how I learned of them, after reading my article they might send an agent to set your house on fire

Quote:
Your imaginary theory…...
Actually Stur it's not imaginary. An imaginary theory wouldn't exist whereas you make reference to it suggesting you must have some familiarity with it and therefore it must exist

For example, a real tiger would be found in a zoo and if you stick your hand into its cage you could lose it, persuading you he's indeed real. However an imaginary tiger for example might be found as a character in a children's book perhaps explaining your familiarity with the publication you cite

Quote:
…..wouldn't even be too advanced for Highlights Magazine.
Specifically what aspect of it do you find childish and in what way
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Feb, 2013 05:44 pm
@Sturgis,
Quote:
at least vaguely resembling an intelligent set of words
Yes I do try to arrange them at least in grammatical order

Quote:
…. though I have information…..I will not be supplying them to you.
I can well understand. If they discover how I learned of them, after reading my article they might send an agent to set your house on fire

Quote:
Your imaginary theory…...
Actually Stur it's not imaginary. An imaginary theory wouldn't exist whereas you make reference to it suggesting you must have some familiarity with it and therefore it must exist

For example, a real tiger would be found in a zoo and if you stick your hand into its cage you could lose it, persuading you he's indeed real. However an imaginary tiger for example might be found as a character in a children's book perhaps explaining your familiarity with the publication you cite

Quote:
…..wouldn't even be too advanced for Highlights Magazine.
Specifically what aspect of it do you find childish and in what way

But you seem petulant and I am wondering why
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Feb, 2013 06:12 pm
http://whyfiles.org/108mad/images/storymap.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_science_magazines
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Feb, 2013 06:24 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
I would urge you to reconsider about your "hypothesis" until you can develop and verbalize a convincing mathematical or evidentiary train of thought.
I gather, Man, that you didn't find my summary very convincing so if it's no trouble I'd appreciate learning specifically what aspect of my theory troubles you

Quote:
You may feel that you "have something" but from what Ive been reading of your posts, you do not.
Alas, alack

Quote:
You seem to be convinced that c is somehow a variable "constant'.
Sorry if I gave you that impression. Of course c is the speed of light, about 186,283 mps. But specifically what was it in my summary that conveyed that impression and what's a variable "constant'

Quote:
We have so many applied gizmos out there that depend on a C(c), yet you seem to ignore that fact.
Forgive me Man but I'm not familiar with the abbreviation nor the meaning of "applied gizmo," and I hope you might explain specifically to what fact you have reference and if it's no trouble I wonder if you'd mind explaining exactly how I seem to be ignoring it

Quote:
Im not trying to bandwagon here
Now, "bandwagon" is a noun

http://onelook.com/?w=bandwagon&ls=a

……though a noun can often be used as a verb and so I must presume you're saying, "My idea or activity, not in politics nor business but relating to Einsteinian relativity, or to a recent discussion about this subject in which I'm now engaged, has not suddenly becomes very popular or fashionable." But why would anyone think it had

Forgive me Man, and no offense, but you might rephrase some of your assertions in such a way as to preclude misunderstanding

Quote:
but Id truly urge you to try to think it out further
But again, in what particulars do you think my Id should concentrate

Quote:
and then try to, say, convince the board herein that youve got a poin worth debating.
I presume you're referring to paricipants in this hread but judging from the sae of mind of some, why do you think they migh prove helpful

I hadn't considered i necessary to debae my poins but I'd be most happy to explain or elaborate upon any ones I'm asked abou

Quote:
There are several people on the board who are trained in theoretical or applied physics and I dont hear any large echos of support from them.t.
Alas neiher do I.t.

Forgive me Man, couldn't resist but why is it you seem so fractious this afternoon
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Feb, 2013 06:28 pm
@dalehileman,
……., so many a2k'ers seemingly so terribly indignant at all times about almost everything, Why
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Feb, 2013 06:32 pm
@Butrflynet,
But, thank you, you've restored the rest of the afternoon that was so torn from me by some of the others
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Feb, 2013 06:51 pm
@dalehileman,
Quote:
so if it's no trouble I'd appreciate learning specifically what aspect of my theory troubles you
Nothing "troubles me", I just fail to see ANYTHING that can be considered a theory in your last several threads
You seem to want to have a much higher "C" with no regard to any limits or reasons for samne. Youve not given any examples of how your consideration of a higher "c" even meets physical worlds limits that allow us to use the present c very nicely (See Im an applied guy and we keep throwing mokey wrenches into theory)


Quote:
But specifically what was it in my summary that conveyed that impression and what's a variable "constant'
Your very opening statement has a final sentence that states quite clearly that you have a c of a higher velocity. Remember?


Quote:
186,283 mps
really??


Quote:
explain specifically to what fact you have reference and if it's no trouble I wonder if you'd mind explaining exactly how I seem to be ignoring
. I did, in another thread that youve conveniantly forgotten
GPS surveying is a technology that uses radio signals from several satellites , the locations of which, on the geoid, are constantly being re-corrected and providing mesurements to x,y, and z coordinates on the surface of the earth. The accuracy of gps mapping is highly dependent upon a radio wave (c) being a constant of ONE value (it doesnt vary.

We can survey using GPS down to a tenth of a centimeter (X,Y,Z) There are quite a few other techniques in physical sciences and applied engineering that use a constant c of a fixed velocity in order to work. (radar, x-ray flourescence and diffraction, GCMS tech ) there are others that, when you get familiarized with them you have to admit that theyre pretty elegant and simply elegant.


Quote:

Forgive me Man, couldn't resist but why is it you seem so fractious this afternoon
Im not fractious at all. Im actually smiling at your published inability to recognize how little real thought youve given to the subject. We periodically have many folks show up and provide us with claims of "new and exciting theories on just about everything". Usually theyre just someone 's "virtual narcissis"

Id suggest you read that book I recommended about how the components of E=mc^^ were physically developed. Its popularly written and is a great intro to one small aspect of Einsteins several theories.


"bandwagonning" or "bandwagon piling' are infrequently used as verbs. i just eschew the commonplace in English usage
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Feb, 2013 07:22 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
…..what aspect of my theory troubles you

Quote:
Nothing "troubles me",
Its just a feeling I get reading your postings. Maybe I should have said, "raises your hackles" or "suggests indignation"

Quote:
I just fail to see ANYTHING that can be considered a theory in your last several threads
Sorry, here it is

http://able2know.org/topic/187876-1

Quote:
You seem to want to have a much higher "C" with no regard to any limits…...Youve not given any examples of how your consideration of a higher "c"…..that allow us to use the present c…...See Im an applied guy…...
It's explained in that OP

Quote:
….. that states quite clearly that you have a c of a higher velocity. Remember?
It's also explained quite clearly (so I think)

Quote:
186,283 mps
Quote:
really??
OOPS Man, I apologize most profoundly, my mistake, forgive me, how could I have done that, it's terrible


Should be 186,282 mps


Quote:
a radio wave (c) being a constant of ONE value (it doesnt vary.
No, Yes, Farm, I fully understand that. I presume you mean a radio wave's velocity but I think my position will become clear when you read the summary

Quote:
you have to admit that theyre pretty elegant and simply elegant.
Yes Einstein's relativity is very elegant. Mine too as you will learn if you read it

Quote:

Forgive me Man, couldn't resist but why is it you seem so fractious this afternoon
Quote:
Im not fractious at all.
No, yes, sorry, forgive me, neither am I. Not a bit. I'm not angry at all. I'm not, I tell you, I'M NOT

Quote:
Im actually smiling…...how little real thought youve given to the subject.
Alas alack, I like your mother too

Sorry Man, couldn't resist

Quote:
We periodically…….with claims of "new and exciting theories…….Usually theyre just someone 's "virtual narcissis"
That's me, hopeless narcissist

Quote:
Id suggest you read that book I recommended
Thank you again for that link, again you've strengthened My Id

Quote:
"bandwagonning" or "bandwagon piling' are infrequently used as verbs. i just eschew the commonplace in English usage
Tsorai
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Feb, 2013 07:27 pm
@dalehileman,
My excellent No. 2 Son asks, "Why you bother I'll never understand"

I replied, "Me neither"
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Feb, 2013 09:42 pm
@dalehileman,
Quote:

Should be 186,282 mps
No youre still way off.

If its velocity can be mesured and limited, its not "infinite'

You seem to be describing derived properties of limit "c" not infinity.

the rest of your post Ill just dust off as someone who, when being critiqued, will try to defend his world view .


I believe that "theory" (as we know them in science), doesnt fit your "hypothesis"


Quote:
It's explained in that OP

It does NOT withstand scrutiny .
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Feb, 2013 10:09 pm
@farmerman,
you are more involved with paradoxes rather than "theory"

eg Mott's paradox --spherical wave functions describe linear particle tracks
or in your case

"In order to obey Einsteins theory, you must disobey it"(this is mine just so you understand where Im coming from).

you are trying to have some things all ways and the universe may not allow it.
If you look up the Eistein-Podolsky-RosenParadox in quantum space events at all Radii from each other influence each other instantaneously.

Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Feb, 2013 11:34 pm
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:

But, thank you, you've restored the rest of the afternoon that was so torn from me by some of the others


It was a self-inflicted wound, ma. Look at all the futile typing you did instead of just clicking a few words into a Google search yourself like you advise newbies to do when they ask a similar type of question.

Hope the list is helpful and keeps you occupied for many days searching for the right publication to bless with your article.
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Feb, 2013 04:33 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:

Should be 186,282 mps
Quote:
No youre still way off.
Oh sorry, it s/b 186,282.457712 mps

Quote:
If its velocity can be mesured and limited, its not "infinite'
Yes, by conventional means it can be measured as finite

Quote:
You seem to be describing derived properties of limit "c" not infinity.
I'm providing an alternate view, another way of looking at it, that satisfied the intuitions's craving for an explanation of such peculiarities as time-at-a-distance and the changes that seem to take place in a moving object

Quote:
the rest of your post Ill just dust off as someone who, when being critiqued, will try to defend his world view .
Of course, tho I attempt explanation rather than defense

Quote:
I believe that "theory" (as we know them in science), doesnt fit your "hypothesis"
Of course, neither did Albert's "theory" fit the "hypotheses" of the time. Hitler called Einstein's theory "Jewish science"

http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&sugexp=les%3B&gs_rn=5&gs_ri=psy-ab&cp=12&gs_id=6b&xhr=t&q=Hitler+called+Einstein's+relativity+Jewish+science&es_nrs=true&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=Hitler+called+Einstein's+relativity+Jewish+science&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.43148975,d.cGE&fp=4b383276d0887489&biw=1264&bih=768&bs=1

Sorry, Farm, you just left yourself wide open, couldn't resist

Quote:
It's explained in that OP

Quote:
It does NOT withstand scrutiny .
Alas, alack
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Feb, 2013 04:35 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
the Eistein-Podolsky-RosenParadox in quantum space events
Thank you Man most kindly for that link
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Thu 28 Feb, 2013 07:31 pm
@dalehileman,
A "theory" in science is a well tested and evidenced explanation for a phenomenological system. Within a theory ALL the data supports the explanation and NO EVIDENCE refutes it. Theres where you are wide open. You have neither evidence nor anything but a "neat way of looking at stuff".

That aint a theory sir, maybe you should choose another term.



PS your units of c were in meters per second miles are mi, and besides, standard speed of light is in cgs where it would be kilometers per second.
 

Related Topics

Love you Lola - Question by dalehileman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Does anyone read a science magazine
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/28/2022 at 09:24:20