Author Topic: CNPS Plans  (Read 308 times)


  • Administrator
  • Newbie
  • *****
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
CNPS Plans
« on: August 30, 2017, 03:21:52 pm »
[b]BN-LK Detailed Discussion[/b]:

[b]BN-LK Discussion Highlights[/b]
__« April 22, 2017, 01:20:31 pm »
Major Unexplained Science Facts & Alternative Models
LK Ideas for Organizing a Wiki
1. Plans to Improve the Scientific Method
2. List Major Fields of Science
3. List Major Science Facts & Flaws for Main CNPS Wiki Topics
(See Sample Wiki thread.)
Paraphrasing Bruce's Forum/Wiki Ideas
a. Tell readers the goal is to produce one or more papers and Wikis.
- Ask readers to submit other flaws &/or alternative theories
b. To structure the topic put it into the forum as 3 co-located threads.
- Create an outline of the local discussion & put it in your “coordination” post.
- Use Mark’s MIT MAP concepts: Questions ( ? ),  Ideas ( lightbulb),  pros and cons (thumbs up and down ) etc.
Aether Lattice Holes Theory
__« April 23, 2017, 11:37:33 am »
Invite: TB Members possibly interested in helping Improve Science:
bdw000, BirdyNumNums, Brigit Bara, Chan Rasjid, chut, Cubit32, D_Archer, dd6, Elder, fractal-geoff, GaryN, GenesisAria, Grey Cloud, jacmac, JCG, JeffreyW, JHL, jimmcginn, Keith Ness, Kuldebar, Melusine, philalethes, Phorce, phyllotaxis, Pi sees, Plasmatic, pln2bz, popster1, RayTomes, Roshi, Rushthezeppelin, saul, seasmith, Solar, Sparky, StefanR, trevbus, Webbman, Zelectric, ZenMonkeyNZ, Zyxzevn
__« April 23, 2017, 11:50:36 am »
__« May 07, 2017, 12:08:53 pm »
<BN: Phone
Catastrophism Topic
Expansion Tectonics
So, a way to find people for your ideas is to post a request on that forum
A second way is to compose an article for the monthly newsletter
getting the newsletter, send a note directly to David de Hilster
Third, there is a blog on the main website
Re sedimentary rock strata, first do some literature analysis on the history of this topic
LK's List of Topics
I put a new forum in there for you: The Scientific Method.
The list of facts and flaws is one of the issues I wanted to talk to you about directly.
__May 8, 9AM
do a test right here on FUNDAY
__« May 11, 2017, 05:14:55 pm »
Message to Dave Talbott re Wiki
I started a thread called, Need Data to Help Create Alternative Science Wiki
I have gotten a Catastrophism board and E.U. boards etc at the CNPS forum.
__Postby Lloyd » Thu May 11, 2017 4:06 pm
Initial preferred topics for discussion are:
Catastrophism: Ancient Global Cataclysm
Mythology: Ancient Myths
Earth Sciences: Global Tectonics
Astronomy: Solar Science
__« May 21, 2017, 01:56:44 pm »
>BN: the CNPS Wiki a collection of alternative science papers
would help to establish a system for evaluating them
Making the list of essential elements of each theory or claim
then a process for evaluating each element
CNPS could publicize the best theories
__Sunday, May 21, 2017 2:45 PM
<Bruce: find me ANY MM reports
system for evaluating is my next TOP priority
publishing a summary of what elements of ALL the papers were good breakthroughs
reward great Peer Reviewers
Peer Review Guidelines [from web search]
__5/23/17 8:50AM
>Bruce: date on the threads
experiment with "peer reviewers"
__« May 23, 2017, 09:21:11 pm »
"sticky" function
date labeling
email string
"probable" reviews would give a theory a high place in a WIKI
summary reference to the dissents
many theories submitted
PHOTON; challenge this definition
__5/23 9 PM
>Bruce: date labeling
P.U.T structured format
invite members
Space Lattice Theory
rate P.U.T.
__Wednesday, May 24, 2017 4:38 PM
<Bruce: suggest a better title
membership fee
Lattice Theory
rating a few P.U.T. Elements
__5/24 7:33 PM
Hi Bruce: discussion thread
I started 3 threads for "theory rating"
I included the reasons for my I-ratings
__« May 26, 2017, 07:28:59 pm »
<BN: Inviting members
"discussion summary" as a "status report"
"coordination": coordination of the discussion
"external inputs": to focus or promote the discussion
Possible solution
__May 26, 2017, at 12:55 AM
>Bruce: Why wouldn't each topic in the forum have a Working Paper thread?
__Friday, May 26, 2017 10:39 AM
<Bruce: multiple purposes for the structured forum
break down disagreements among members
structure to improve all discussions
separate resolution
member recruitment, CNPS marketing, promotion of papers, and expansion of conferences
coordinating scientific research
cover the needed structure issues
__5/26 7:11 PM
Hi Bruce: your structured forum goals
A. Attempt to resolve disagreements among members:
B. Set up bibliographies to reduce newbies' questions:
C. Each section develop goals, like doing experiments, writing papers ... :
D. Improve & promote CNPS & scientific research:
CNPS forum survey eventually
1st - purpose, status report & assignments
2nd - wiki working paper
3rd - bibliography & important outside viewpoints
discussion section
__Saturday, May 27, 2017 5:33 PM
<Bruce: Important threads; using a "sticky" function
bibliographies < many forums making a few contributions each
8. Definitions
__Wednesday, May 31, 2017 7:25 AM
<Bruce: I can't do the rating without details
I don't find value in the a simple rating scale
help locate interested people
__5/31) 11AM)
>Bruce: "help locate interested people
encyclopedic list of good alternative theories
PUT rating I, which was helpful
__6/1 - 11AM
>Bruce: let members start their own threads in any of those 9 sections
let moderators request moderator-controlled threads
consulted with any forum experts?
__« June 02, 2017, 09:55:43 pm »
Hi Bruce: start one or two threads in section 1
your critique of my 8-point scientific method
repeats of the MM experiment
5-part idea
Store raw data
Self-organize teams to rectify false media claims
corporate greed
__Monday, June 5, 2017 1:45 PM
<BN: Members can post new Threads, but not "forums"
email notification
MM experiment repeats
raw data
__« June 09, 2017, 02:29:14 pm »
__Friday, June 9, 2017 10:00 AM
<Bruce:  I ratings vs P (probable) " ratings
guide a number of members to review them in depth
be published by CNPS + indexed
__Fri 6/9 2:23PM
>Bruce: look for fellow reviewers?
essential elements of P.U.T. that most interest me
« Last Edit: August 30, 2017, 03:32:09 pm by Admin »

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter


  • Administrator
  • Newbie
  • *****
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
« Reply #1 on: August 30, 2017, 03:25:36 pm »
[b]LK's Wiki Planning Outline[/b]
The purpose of this thread is to discuss and help plan the CNPS Wiki for Science Improvement.

[b]Plans for Organizing a Wiki[/b]
1. Plans to Improve the Scientific Method
2. List Major Fields of Science
3. List Major Science Facts & Flaws for Main CNPS Wiki Topics

[b]1. Plans to Improve the Scientific Method[/b]
The Scientific Method involves:
1.1. making accurate observations of reality;
--- [I just happened to notice that reality even includes things like imagination too.]
1.2. making a hypothesis to attempt to explain observations;
1.3. testing the hypothesis by experiment, using accurate and relevant measurements, using logic and, if needed, math as well, and taking relevant, accurate notes of all procedures involved, to determine if the hypothesis is contradicted;
1.4. revising the hypothesis and the experiment, if contradicted [during testing];
1.5. publishing the experiment;
1.6. getting 2 or more unaffiliated parties to replicate a successful experiment;
1.7. publishing the hypothesis as a probable fact and a scientific discovery, if all experiments are successful; and
1.8. using the discovery to increase control over nature for the purpose of improving the conditions of society.
Common errors that undermine the Scientific Method are:
1.1. making inaccurate observations of reality;
1.2. making an untestable hypothesis;
1.3. misusing logic or math in the experiment;
1.4. recording false or inaccurate data, or taking inaccurate notes;
1.5. suppressing potentially useful experiments;
1.6. failing to replicate an experiment by unaffiliated parties;
1.7. publishing false or misleading statements about experiments or experimenters; and
1.8. misusing scientific findings for the detriment of society.
Human imperfection results in many experiments being done improperly, or reported on inaccurately, or suppressed unfairly. Sociology needs to study these problems and devise means to prevent abuse of science.

[b]2. List Major Fields of Science[/b]
Cosmology, Astronomy, Physics, Chemistry, Geology, Catastrophism, Paleontology, Archeology, Mythology, Biology, Neurology, Psychology, Sociology, Parapsychology

[b]3. List Major Science Facts & Flaws
(This is a Suggested Wiki Outline)[/b]
(Give priority to flaws, shown with asterisks.)
3.1- Universe
-Origin: *BigBang +*Creation +Eternal;
-Motion: *Expansion +*SteadyState +*Relativity +Spinning +Indeterminate
-Formation of 3.1-3.7:
*Gravitational Electric +*Magnetic +Radiation
3.2- Uniweb (universal web of strings of galaxy clusters) +GreatVoids
3.3- Galaxy Clusters
3.4- Galaxies
3.5- Galactic Bulge: InterstellarMedium +GalacticHalo
3.6- Star Clusters: StarSystems +GasClouds
3.7- *Black Holes +*Worm Holes +Stars +Ringstars +*NeutronStars
..... +Planets +Moons +Asteroids +Comets +Meteors
3.8- Dust: Matter +Ions +ElectricDischarge +Magnetism +Radiation +*DarkMatter +*DarkEnergy
3.9- Space +Time +Motion +Aether
[b]3.10 Earth Local Science:[/b]
Geology: *Uniformitarianism +Catastrophism +Paleontology +Archeology +*Mythology
3.11- Life - Biology
3.12- Consciousness - Neurology
3.13- Intelligence - Psychology & Philosophy
3.14- Society - Sociology
3.15- ESP - Parapsychology


[b]3. List Major Science Facts & Weak Theories[/b]
(This is a Suggested Wiki Outline)
(Give priority to explaining why Weak Theories are weak)

3.1- Universe:

-Universe Origin: [b](Weak Theory)[/b] Big Bang -Motion: [b](Weak Theory)[/b] Expansion:
__[X]Disproof: High redshift quasars in front of or connected to low redshift galaxies prove that redshift does not equate to distance and the quasars are not receding faster than the galaxies. If the universe is expanding, it is not expanding rapidly. There is no solid evidence of a Big Bang.
Quasar in Front of Galaxy:
Quasars Nearby:
Fingers of God:
__*Best Alternative Theory: High redshift quasars and galaxies likely have bipolar jets and it is ions moving inward in those jets that cause the high redshift, rather than a recessional velocity of the quasars and galaxies.

-Universe Origin: [b](Weak Theory)[/b] Creation:
__[X]: There is no evidence that anything can be created from nothing.

-Universe Origin: (Best Alternative Theory) Eternal:
__*: The universe is eternal, has always existed, but not in the same form.

-Universe Motion: [b](Weak Theory)[/b] Steady State:
Comparing distant galaxies to closer galaxies, it is apparent that the universe has been changing, so it is not in a steady state.

-Universe Motion: [b](Weak Theory)[/b] Relativity:
Time and space do not expand or contract, but their appearance does.

-Universe Motion: (Best Alternative Theory) Spinning:
Gravity may be a centrifugal force in a spinning universe.

-Universe Motion: (Best Alternative Theory) Indeterminate:
There is not enough data to determine if the universe is slowly expanding or contracting, but it is not doing either rapidly.

-Universe Formation: 3.1-3.7: [b](Weak Theory)[/b] Gravitational:
Gravity is not the primary force of structure formation in the universe.

-Universe Formation: (Best Alternative Theory) Electric:
The electric force is the primary force of structure formation.
Astrophysics & Geophysics:

-Universe Formation: (Best Alternative Theory) Radiation:
The electric force is caused by photonic radiation.

3.2- Cosmic Web:
(The cosmic web is the universal web of strings of galaxy clusters)
Great Voids:
List & Map of Voids:

3.3- Galaxy Clusters:
List & Map of Galaxy Clusters:

3.4- Galaxies:
List & Map of Galaxies:

3.5- Galactic Bulge:

Interstellar Medium:

Galactic Halo:

3.6- Star Clusters:

Star Systems:

Gas Clouds:

3.7- [b](Weak Theory)[/b] Black Holes:

[b](Weak Theory)[/b] Worm Holes:

[b](Weak Theory)[/b] Stars:
List & Map of Stars:
List of Element Abundances:

(New Theory) Ringstars (Exotics) & [b](Weak Theory)[/b] Neutron Stars:
List & Map of Ringstars:

Planets, Moons:
List & Map of Planets:
List & Map of Moons:
List of Element Abundances:
List of Mineral Abundances:

Comets, Asteroids, Meteors
List & Map of Comets:
List & Map of Asteroids:
List & Map of Meteor Streams:
List of Element Abundances:
List of Mineral Abundances:

3.8- Dust:
List & Map of GasClouds
List of Element Abundances:

(New Theory) Matter Formation:
List of Elements & Isotopes:




Electric Discharge:



[b](Weak Theory)[/b] Dark Matter:

[b](Weak Theory)[/b] Dark Energy:

3.9- Space:




[b]3.10 Earth[/b]
[b](Weak Theory)[/b] Uniformitarianism:




[b](Weak Theory)[/b] Fantasy Mythology:

3.11- Life - Biology:

3.12- Consciousness - Neurology:

3.13- Intelligence - Psychology:

3.14- Society - Sociology:

3.15- ESP - Parapsychology:
« Last Edit: August 30, 2017, 05:00:42 pm by Admin »


  • Administrator
  • Newbie
  • *****
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
« Reply #2 on: August 30, 2017, 03:41:37 pm »
TB Members possibly interested in helping Improve Science:
bdw000, BirdyNumNums, Brigit Bara, Chan Rasjid, chut, Cubit32, D_Archer, dd6, Elder,  ElecGeekMom, fractal-geoff, GaryN, GenesisAria, jacmac, JCG, JeffreyW, JHL, jimmcginn, Keith Ness, kodybatill, Kuldebar, Lucien_Beckmann, lw1990, Melusine, Metryq,  mikie1999cr, philalethes, Phorce, phyllotaxis, Pi sees, Plasmatic, pln2bz, popster1, querious, RayTomes, Roshi, Rushthezeppelin, saul, seasmith, skittl3s17, Solar, StefanR, trevbus, Webbman, Zelectric, ZenMonkeyNZ, Zyxzevn

Online scientific discourse is broken and it can be fixed
Scientific bias prevents scientific progress
Chris Reeve's et al Ideas to Improve Science Discourse
« Last Edit: May 08, 2017, 10:54:27 am by Admin »


CIA World Factbook


PDR Health

« Last Edit: August 30, 2017, 09:12:17 pm by Admin »


  • Administrator
  • Newbie
  • *****
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
« Reply #3 on: August 30, 2017, 03:44:11 pm »
NPA Contacts
(from )
Arteha, Sergey N. (Dr.) ==
Beaty, William J. ==
Chukanov, Kiril B. (Prof.) ==
Hayden, Howard C. (Dr.) ==
Intini, Francesca (Dr.) ==
Johnson, Claes (Prof.) ==
Jonson, Jan Olof ==
Nichols, Bill D. ==
Nott, Ronald ==
Osmaston, Miles F. ==
Taylor, Helen Look-Yat ==
Tombe, Frederick David ==
Treat, Michael R. (Dr.) ==

Brady, Terry O. ==
DeWitte, Roland ==
Gold, Thomas (Prof.) ==
Guy, Bernard (Prof.) ==
Haberle, Julie Ann ==
Khaidarov, Karim Amen (Dr.) ==
Kolasa, Pawel ==
McCarthy, Dennis J. ==
Nahhas, Joe Alexander (Prof.) ==
Osmaston, Miles F. ==
Scarborough, Alexander A. ==
Setterfield, Barry John ==
Taylor, Helen Look-Yat ==
Wachspress, How ==

Big Bang: Akinbo Ojo, Bruce Nappi, Lloyd Kinder, Phil Bouchard
DarkMatter: Akinbo Ojo, Bruce Nappi, Lloyd Kinder, Phil Bouchard
Relativity: Akinbo Ojo, Phil Bouchard, Viraj Fernando
Gravity: Akinbo Ojo, Bruce Nappi, David Tombe, John Fiala, Lloyd Kinder
Radiometric: John Fiala, Lloyd Kinder,,,

Intini, Francesca (Dr.)
Jonson, Jan Olof
Nichols, Bill D.
Nott, Ronald
Tombe, Frederick David
Treat, Michael R. (Dr.)

Email String;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;


  • Administrator
  • Newbie
  • *****
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
« Reply #4 on: August 30, 2017, 04:38:04 pm »
August 25?, 2017
BN: If it's OK with you, let me jump in and try to create this organization. I'll do it in Word as a separate document. If you agree with it, you can post the needed documents to implement the organization.

Yes, invite people from the email string. You can run etherpad sessions with anyone. I think you can start your first debate right in the Forum using your role as facilitator. For example, In the Tasks & Request for Volunteers, number 1.4 is Organize focused discussions related to the "open" questions with a goal of finding answers. Add a new item in the Open Assignments list: 4.2 Hold debates on specific open questions. Then assign yourself as the Team Leader. I'm attaching a suggestion for how to run the debate. We can set up a time to discuss via etherpad.

[b]CNPS Cooperative Debates[/b]
Bruce Nappi, August 2017

1. To improve the understanding of a disputed viewpoint
2. To teach participants a method and value for Cooperative Debate

1. Select a lead facilitator
2. Set out the disputed viewpoint as a pro statement for one side. This establishes a pro-con issue.
3. Explain the debate structure.
a. There will be 4 teams
b. Each of the teams can have any number of members
c. Teams 1 and 2 will be the conventional pro-con teams
d. Team 3 is the “off axis” team.
e. Team 4 will be part of the “facilitator” team, led by the lead facilitator.
4. Preparation:
a. Each of the teams is instructed to prepare for the debate with a document submission deadline.
b. Teams 1 and 2 research the literature and develop i. support for their particular position and ii support against the other teams position.
c. Team 3 researches the literature and searches for support for positions that are not consistent with either the pro or con position.
d. Team 4 researches the literature for critiques already conducted of both the pro and con positions
5. Documentation:
a. Each of the teams submits their documentation.
b. Team 4 reviews the documentation and makes a judgment as to the viability of moving the topic forward if the gathered knowledge is debated by the members assembled. This is a balance of the content of the knowledge and the skill level of the team members.
c. If the judgment is positive, the facilitator posts the documentation in an easily accessible format.
6. Launch:
a. The facilitator determines a time period available for the participants based on the complexity of the topic. This can be a single day event, or extend to months.
b. The facilitator publicizes the debate stating: topic, length of debate; start date, coordinating url.
7. A Forum Debate:
a. At a prescribed start time, the facilitator opens the debate with a new set of forum threads. The debate rules, debate topic, team participants, and document citations are presented.
b. Team 4 will “moderate” the debate for applicability and academic respect.
c. Team 1 presents it supportive position.
d. Team 2 presents it supportive position.
e. Team 1 presents it defensive position – i.e. arguments why the other team is wrong.
f. Team 1 presents it defensive position – i.e. arguments why the other team is wrong.
g. Team 3 challenges all 4 team 1 & 2 positions with alternatives
h. The debate is open to all comers to add pros and cons for all previously presented positions or challenges to any presented position. This step remains open until all positions are established. Resolution of lack of agreement may not occur.
i. Teams 1-4 now suggest any theoretical research that can improve ANY position.
j. The facilitator decides if any of the research can be done in a practical timescale – math analysis for example. If so, the research is entertained and completed.
k. The debate is open to all comers to pose as described in step h.
l. Team 4 summarizes the debate. Any person who achieves Goal 1 of the effort shall be so recognized.
8. Follow-on Publications:
a. If any occurrences of Goal 1 have been achieved, the facilitator organizes any willing members to produce a publishable paper and relevant Wikis related to the discoveries.


[b]Educational Games[/b]
_1. Discussions follow template to complete Wiki papers best theories or best essential elements of theories. 2. Q&A could then be reorganized/recategorized, if needed for further Discussion.
_1. Dungeons and Dragons moving from one room to another requiring players to answer a question correctly to go to the next room or follow the facilitator template rules at: [url]
_try the game with me; invite members to try it;
_contact teachers to ask them to invite students to try such games.
_Augmented Reality Development Lab
Manipulate handheld images in 3D.

[b]LK: Games for Science & Education[/b]
I'm wondering if a game setup like Dungeons & Dragons might provide enough fun to help the Forums. Here's an example (using my facilitator template), which could be played on a Forum, using an etherpad for drafts before posting to the Forum.

To get to the next room, R, (something like the following rules would be posted at the door to each room) the players must:
R1. agree on a science topic (plus best credited image);
R2. name the 7 (or so) best theories that attempt to explain that topic & rate them;
R3. name 5 (or so) major topic features that each theory should explain;
R4. write 5 (or so) important questions for the first theory;
R5. " for the second;
R6. " for the third;
R7. " for the fourth;
R8. " for the fifth;
R9. " for the sixth;
R10. for the last;
R11. determine the 3 most crucial questions for each theory;
R12. find answers to the 3 questions for the first theory;
R13. " for the second;
R14. " for the third;
R15. " for the fourth;
R16. " for the fifth;
R17. " for the sixth;
R18. " for the last;
R19. rate the answers, maybe including the reasoning;
R20. be rewarded with recognition for finding answers in rooms 12-18 and for doing the best rating in room 2 & 19, with results published in the Wiki.

If room 19 finds no theory to be a clear winner, the elements of theories that get the highest ratings could still get Wiki pages, as I think you suggested. For anyone who wants to continue the game longer, there could be an additional room/s that require/s categorizing the questions (as you request) and organizing the room/s to attract future explorers.

I mentioned an image for room 1, because I think the game would be more enjoyable if there were relevant images in each room, though I didn't mention images for other rooms yet. The rules could include posting an appropriate image in each room. The spaces between dotted lines below simulate rooms. I found that it's pretty easy to post images on the Forums and is an easy place to upload images to get links to post to the Forums.










[b]DIY Focus Groups[/b]
Tips for Do-it-yourself Focus Groups
2. Be careful not to get customers talking about topics that you either can’t or don’t plan to change.
3. If you aren’t paying your customers to attend, perhaps you can offer another incentive, such as a gourmet meal, or the chance to expand their professional network.
4. call it a group discussion, a customer feedback meeting, or a voice-of-our-customers event, not a focus group. four to six is a good number
5. discussion should feel like a kitchen table conversation
6. Listen for emotions as well as facts
7. Don’t take the opportunity to sell something
8. Use extreme caution when interpreting what you hear

« Last Edit: September 01, 2017, 03:30:33 pm by Admin »