/x/ - Paranormal

That said, this thesis is, for the moment, non-falsifiable in and of itself. Nevertheless, it seeks to reconcile seemingly contradictory elements of known physics and introduce new concepts. My objective is to provide the scientific community with a new groundwork upon which further study might be done.

Like so many good ideas, this one came about as I was watching Star Trek: The Next Generation. The particular episode I was watching didn’t deal with the topics of this thesis, but there is something about that program seems to help get the creative juices flowing. Firstly, I would like to address an emerging field of quantum mechanics: Neutrino gravitational theory. The currently prevailing theory suggests that objects with mass (such as celestial bodies) somehow attract neutrinos in such massive quantities that, despite their ultra-low mass, the sheer quantity of neutrinos passing through our bodies are what anchor us to the ground. In the opinion of this author, this theory is correct, and merits further study. After analyzing the concept of neutrino gravitation, I have proposed a possible explanation for this neutrino bombardment relating to the concept of the ‘quantum leap.’ A quantum leap is defined as the behavior of electrons when they pass from a state of higher energy to lower energy, or lower energy to higher energy. Rather than gradually moving into a higher or lower orbit around a nucleus, electrons do something quite different, something so different that it was universally recognized as incredible upon its discovery. The electrons disappear and seemingly instantaneously re-appear in their new energy state. Is this a form of quantum teleportation? The answer is no. When it comes to neutrino-based gravity, my hypothesis is this: Mass is of course, relative to the composition of an object (how many protons/neutrons.) The more protons, the more mass. The more atoms, the more mass. By the same token, the more protons an atom has, the more electrons it must have, with the exception of isotopes. Isotopes are not stable and can “decay” over a period of seconds, days, or hundreds of years. A paucity of electrons causes an atom to shed its excess protons and neutrons slowly over time. This much is clearly understood. Similar to the process of isotope decay, I postulate that all electrons, in and of themselves, have a half-life. Furthermore, I postulate that the impetus for the Earth’s bombardment by neutrinos is electron decay. Electrons must constantly be replenished, and a sufficient density of neutrinos converging on single point can result in the formation of an electron. Thus, gravity is caused by neutrino bombardment, and neutrino bombardment is caused by electron decay. This hypothesis explains why gravity is always directly proportional to the number of electrons in a body.

Neutrinos and their newfound relationship with electrons fascinated me and led me to an additional deduction, this one concerning temporal mechanics: That since, 1.) The human brain is fundamentally electrical in its operation and 2.) Electromagnetism is a single force i.e. it is impossible to create an electrical field without generating a magnetic effect, then: Electrons and neutrinos are fundamental to the phenomenon known as precognition.

Human beings have a thoroughly documented ability to utilize senses other than the five primary senses of Sight, Hearing, Touch, Smell, and Taste. Understanding the physiological underpinnings of these abilities, precognition in particular, is essential to creating a reliable artificial mechanism for achieving precognition. Mastering the navigation of time itself is surely the most ambitious scientific goal ever pursued. In one particular experiment conducted at a neutrino accelerator in Italy, it was believed that neutrinos had been successfully accelerated to beyond the speed of light i.e. they became tachyons. However, it was quickly discovered that the perception of faster-than-light neutrinos was the result of a computational error. The notion that neutrinos fired in a particular direction would necessarily re-integrate upon dropping below the light-speed barrier in the place you would expect is absurd in this author’s opinion.

First, we must endeavor to understand exactly what it is in nature that is capable of accelerating a subatomic particle such as a neutrino to speeds in excess of light-speed. In my analysis, a phenomenon known as a skyrmion, first described in 1961, provides the key. If we accept that precognition is a phenomenon that occurs in nature and that it is a function of the human brain, then we must conclude that all of the tools necessary to make a “Time Machine” can be found within the human brain. In this case, all we are talking about is a primitive communication system that is capable of sending information to a point in the past, across what has been called the 4th dimension. We already know that the universe is composed of many more dimensions than the three we have a full understanding of. Time can be thought of as a 4th dimension, and quantum entanglement can be thought of as a 5th. Whether there are more than five, we cannot be sure, but there are certainly five at minimum.

Owing to the construction of the human brain, electrical signals are sent in parallel down hundreds of thousands of pathways. The twists and turns that neuronal pathways take through the brain, combined with a differential in conduction speed may lead to the creation of rotating magnetic fields known as skyrmions. Within these fields, decaying electrons converted back into neutrinos are accelerated in much the same fashion as a spacecraft using the gravity of a planet to propel itself into deep space.

Where things take a truly bizarre turn is in the way that tachyons interact with the universe at large. Many theories exist about how they may interact, and whether they exist within a universe where actions are either pre-determined, or one where they are governed by free will. This debate is almost as old as The Chicken and the Egg conundrum. Any cosmological model of temporal mechanics must also take care not to conflict with the Grandfather Paradox. Furthermore, it must take into account that time is a human construct as much as it is a dimension.

How can we have a universe where effect can precede cause without having a physical temporal dimension? If the future isn’t a hill we can climb down and the past isn’t one we can climb up, how then, can we account for the very real temporal phenomena that has been widely documented? I propose the following: Since 1.) An object’s mass increases exponentially as its speed approaches the speed of light and 2.) Any object traveling faster than the speed of light must then, therefore have infinite mass, then: All objects, including and especially the ultra-light neutrino, when they become tachyons, have a mass that actually slightly exceeds that of the entire universe. The only way in which these tachyons can interact with our universe is temporally. These tachyons have the potential to ‘drag’ the universe in the reverse temporal direction. This can be illustrated as the gear of a clock running in the opposite of the normal direction or a tape being repeatedly rewound and played forward. When tachyons lose their excess speed, they re-integrate with the visible universe at a point we perceive as being in the temporal past. This model of temporal mechanics does not create paradox, as the tachyons only need to be ‘sent’ once. Both the reality from whence the tachyon originated and the one in which it re-integrates are in fact, the same reality. What is more startling is that if this model is correct, then these ‘rewinds’ must occur a nearly infinite (but not infinite) number of times per second. Since natural biological processes only run in one direction, we only perceive the forward aspect of that movement, which we experience as a single, smooth motion. If we could perceive the backward movement as well, then we would perceive the same moment repeatedly, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

Taking this into account, we must re-evaluate the nature of our existence and the possibility that technologies are already being employed by particular entities that facilitate communication with the past. Even if this is not the case, it is human nature to continue to push the boundaries of science. Even if we are not already living in a world where certain individuals have a metaphorical crystal ball, we can be assured that one day, we will be. When that time comes, it will change the human race irrevocably, for better or worse.

>>48406

>>48407

>>48408

>>48409

I'm not a scientist, but doesn't it take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate a particle up to the speed of light? And you're suggesting that this kind of event happens regularly within the human brain?

I'm sorry but that Tony the Tiger cup is really distracting me.

>>48411

Excellent question. The only explanation I can come up with as to why neutrinos are sometimes allowed to break that rule is that if they are pushed over the limit abruptly enough, they don't acquire all of that extra mass until after they make the transition and go out of phase. Somehow these rotating magnetic fields allow them to cheat the laws of physics (as we previously knew them) and break the barrier, and it is only after they do so that their mass becomes changed.

There's still a lot we don't know about it, it's one of those things where we'll know that it works before we know precisely how.

>>48419

Eh, I think you want to re-check and re-think your hypothesis, it was okay up to the point that anon noticed that there are no effects from neutrino processes on the brain you previously described (I wanted to point out that, too). Your follow-up is "it just works"-tier.

Though my explanation would be that the effect actually exists without breaking any "laws", it just that it gets dampered very fast by surrounding particles (possibly dark matter? or, most likely, right-handed anti-neutrinos?)

Shit like brain seizures actually happen when everything goes wrong and the dampering happens too late. Almost same for brain cancer, cells respond to the stress caused by the newly created neutrinos that are dampered fast enough only not to cause immediate damage.

OP here, I actually have an update for the /x/ community…

47 days after my post, on 6/3/19, a scientific journal called Nature featured an article in which scientists from the Yale Quantum Institute claim to have discovered that "Quantum leaps do not happen instantaneously…"

https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-leaps-long-assumed-to-be-instantaneous-take-time-20190605/?utm_source=pocket-newtab

Of course in my post, I was very clear about that.

>Similar to the process of isotope decay, I postulate that all electrons, in and of themselves, have a half-life. Furthermore, I postulate that the impetus for the Earth’s bombardment by neutrinos is electron decay.

>After analyzing the concept of neutrino gravitation, I have proposed a possible explanation for this neutrino bombardment relating to the concept of the ‘quantum leap.’ A quantum leap is defined as the behavior of electrons when they pass from a state of higher energy to lower energy, or lower energy to higher energy. Rather than gradually moving into a higher or lower orbit around a nucleus, electrons do something quite different, something so different that it was universally recognized as incredible upon its discovery. The electrons disappear and seemingly instantaneously re-appear in their new energy state. Is this a form of quantum teleportation? The answer is no.

I know that many of you will conclude that I am a time traveler or some hocus pocus, but this is actually a clear-cut case of plagiarism. I never expected Yale students to be so desperate for ideas as to rip off 8ch and /x/. Someone should bring this to the attention of the media as it would be sure to create a scandal at Yale.

>>50976

At least the second time this has happened https://www.rt.com/news/442388-4chan-solution-math-problem/

>>50976

I have now read both the OP's posts and the article and call bullshit on the whole fiasco.

>/x/ anon

>Proposes that electrons decay are replaced by new electrons via neutrinos, thus explaining gravity

>Therefore, electrons are not teleporting when changing to a higher energy level/orbit around an atom's nucleus, but decaying into quantum particle and being replaced by a newly formed electron in an outer orbit about the nucleus

>Yale experiment

>Proposes that quantum teleportation is not instant as is currently believed

>Performs an experiment that proves it takes time, and can even be reversed midway

I'm not entirely sure if they also proved it isn't teleportation.

THE ONLY THING THESE HAVE IN COMMON IS THAT ELECTRONS MOVING TO A HIGHER ORBIT AROUND A NUCLEUS IS NOT INSTANTANEOUS

ＴＨＩＳ　ＩＳ　ＮＯＴ　Ａ　ＮＥＷ　ＩＤＥＡ

Physicists and scientists in general have disliked and challenged the idea of quantum teleportation ever since it seemed necessary to explain quantum phyics since the very concept seemed ludicrous. The idea that it's not instantaneous for whatever explanation has been around since the controversial discovery of the so-called "quantum leap". And you're explanation for that idea isn't even the one in the article.

>>50983

Forgive the typos.

>decay are

decay and* are

>And you're explanation

your*

>>50976

> but this is actually a clear-cut case of plagiarism

It is, is it? Explain, in no uncertain terms, how this is so obviously a case of plagiarism. I just used the word plagiarism in my post, did I plagiarize that from you? Did you know the concept of calculus, not the first nor the last to do so, was discovered/created independently by exclusively different people? Explain how your comments are so absolutely specific enough that it's beyond reasonable doubt to assume it's not plagiarized, because pardon me, but "electrons don't teleport" doesn't sound to me like some groundbreaking ingenious concept that you and only you could have possibly conceived. Come the fuck on.

Like if the article was just rephrasing your entire spiel, I'd be with you on this. But they mention a single simple, generic physics concept, and you scream foul play; their article has fucking nothing in common with anything you said other than that one basic concept. This is grasping at straws mate, but I'll wait to hear your side of this argument.

>>51000

>>50983

Interesting… The same guy who pooh-poohed the idea right after it was posted and stole the idea is now posting in both /x/ and /b2/ claiming that he didn't do it.

https://www.zlatko-minev.com/

This is the guy who took credit for stuff he found on 8chan and is using it to gain stardom at Yale. I wouldn't be surprised if all of his work is plagiarized. For some reason, he has a cheap imitation of the Seal of the President on his own personal website… do all physicists borrow totally unrelated symbols to try to boost their credibility, or only the ones from the piss-poor Slavic countries?

No one in the Physics community was questioning the fundamentals of quantum leaps until this past month, and now you are talking about it like it was always in question. Good luck ever trying to get this thread removed, it is already archived and serves as lasting evidence of the fact that Yale apparently harbors plagiarists for fun and profit.

We will be watching for you guys to claim to have made a breakthrough by proving what causes Gravity, which is another of the main tenets of the OP post.

Stay classy, Yalefags.

>>51007

I require a higher standard of evidence for "this person did X" than "it can't be coincidence, I said so." I said explain in no uncertain terms. You know what that means? It means tell me exactly what was plagiarized and precisely how it was done so, and how you know for certain it was plagiarized. You bumped your own thread to shout about injustice. It means quote the exact parts of the article, of which there should be many, that are plagiarized, and explain how you know that it absolutely must be plagiarism because it'd be perverse to think otherwise. If I went to Yale I wouldn't be a shut in NEET who wound up here by someone in the /v/ GG thread yelling about a happening, which I was excited to come check out, and I see this shit.

This isn't convincing, and this post you just made makes me even more suspicious, because there's no meat to it, just misplaced self righteousness and no argument other than the highly debatable "nobody was talking about this." That's your proof? You bumped your own thread because you want to convince people you've been ripped off. Convince me then, because this sure as shit isn't doing it. Break it down for me. This is like claiming the kid next to you copied your test because 2 out of the 30 questions had almost the same simple answer. I'm here on /x/ asking for a proof of a claim, and what do you do? Double down with accusations and assumptions without answering the question. You're two steps away from having a persecution complex for fuck's sake.

>>51008

>who wound up here by someone in the /v/ GG thread yelling about a happening

Wew. Same here. Glad to see another GG anon not listening and believing. It seemed like those in the thread who replied to the post about this were eating it up without verifying anything.

>It means tell me exactly what was plagiarized and precisely how it was done so

I mean, he basically did as best he could. He pointed out the only thing the posts and experiment had in common. It's just that's it not a new idea.

>>51011

Really, I'm only here because I enjoy arguing on the intertubes like a fag, but I never ever do it unless I'm confident in my position. Can I say for certain it's not plagiarism? No, that'd be retarded, but that's not how burden of proof works, and credible claims of plagiarism require demonstrable evidence of commonalities; the greater the commonalities with higher specificity, the greater the incidence of alleged copying. But this here is almost nothing to me, which is why I'm asking OP to provide support for his claims. I shouldn't be meeting resistance on that.

>I mean, he basically did as best he could. He pointed out the only thing the posts and experiment had in common.

Having something in common is only half of it though, the other half is specificity, like I said. If you and I both write stories about what we did last summer, and we both write about taking our dogs to the park, that's a low bar for plagiarism. But, if the method in which we did so is described almost the exact same way, that's when your eyebrow gets raised. If yalefaggot had either A) copied the electron thing word for word or close to it in his article, or B) essentially rephrased all of OP's posts in aggregate, then we'd really be onto something. But that's not what I'm seeing here, it's just "electrons don't magically blink from one spot to another." And OP is focusing on this one aspect because it's the single commonality (confirmation bias) while ignoring that 90% of the rest of the article has jack shit to do with what OP was discussing.

It just fucking irks me man.

>>51014

Not an argument.

>>51015

If you don't think there is validity in the claim of plagiarism, then why respond at all? Why not simply let the thread die? Guilty conscience much?

>>51016

>then why respond at all? Why not simply let the thread die?

Because a bunch of anons in the GG thread are believing it and trying to spread it. Trust but verify is a mantra there and I don't like seeing them eat shit up and potentially spread disinfo without careful scrutiny. Also I'm a NEET with too much time on my hands.

>>51017

>I am a vampireish Yale grad student making six figures

fix'd that for you

As expected, it was an attempt to stir things up for nothing. A real shame, as I was ready to spread up this happening everywhere I could, starting from 4pol.

>>51016

>always let spurious contention go unchallenged

>if you think there's no validity in the moon landing why challenge it

>if you think there's no validity in a flat/round earth why challenge it

Really? You post this on /x/ of all places?

The thread was dead from back in late April. OP bumped it to cry foul. I wouldn't even know this existed if it weren't for other anon listen and believers spreading it around saying "look look a yalenigger copied an anon theory." Now that I'm here, I'm doubly annoyed, both that my time was wasted and that I believe OP is just fucking wrong about his claim of plagiarism. Eventually I'll go away, because it doesn't look like he's going to be intellectually honest or answer my requests for further evidence or explanation, and also because I doubt much would come of this at all. But speaking personally, when I think someone is wrong and there's a chance they can argue in good faith (I'm on the fence for OP on that), I'm going to challenge it if I see it.

>>51020

>>51019

Doesn't Yale have gentile thots chained up in the Quadrangle for you guys to amuse yourselves with? I am happy to discuss science but I am increasingly suspicious of your incredible dedication to debunking my claims. Unless you're personally affected, why such a high level of interest? I am discussing the scientific aspects in the /b2/ thread if it's really science you want to discuss, but I think you're more interested in protecting yourself.

>>51021

>Unless you're personally affected

I was. Pay attention.

>>51009

>You really disappointed me too. I read the OP and the following post and got real fucking excited because I thought that the Yalefag performed an experiment proving electrons decay and are replaced by new ones made by neutrinos. I thought fucking ＧＲＡＶＩＴＹ was solved. Then I read the Yale experiment and the light in my eyes faded as their experiment had almost nothing to with OP's posts other than that electrons don't teleport, an entirely old concept.

>>51022

The Yalefags claims of having the ideas about quantum leaps not working as Bohr described them in the 20s is only the tip of the iceberg. They are still mining the ideas posted here for their potential and I suspect they or will publish the results of additional experiments over the coming months and years, all of them based upon the theory laid out here.

>>51021

>I am happy to discuss science

He says, as he declines to once again give me a detailed explanation of how he knows its plagiarism. It's a simple request, right? Why do you keep deflecting? You keep making this about you the underdog theorist (it's not a theory in the scientific sense, of course) versus the illuminati yale shills or whatever it is instead of giving me the reasoning for your claims I keep asking for. This isn't hard, you wrote text walls about a physics idea you had, backing up your copying claims is an easy thing in comparison.

>why such a high level of interest?

The fuck? I just answered that question in the post you goddamn responded to. I'm not a physicist, and it's probably one of my weakest subjects right behind advanced math, but if this is your level of critical thinking, then neither are you.

>>51024

>One person publishes idea on one date

>Another person publishes the exact same idea over a month later

Hmm… How do we know that one person had the idea first, what sort of evidence is there… The survivors of abortion and the byproducts of inbreeding are going to have a tough time with this one…

>>51025

I'm truly doing my best to refrain from concluding that you have horrendous reading comprehension or are arguing in absolutely bad faith.

>How do we know that one person had the idea first

Refer to my earlier analogy about bringing my dog to the park. Plagiarism raises the questions of: 1) how common is the plagiarized concept, 2) how specific is the concept described, 3) how substantive is this concept in the larger scheme of the subject as a whole, 4) is the specificity detailed in much the same way as a previously established statement by someone else on the subject? If we both write "I took my dog to the park," you have no credible substance for claiming copying. If we both wrote "I walked my dog past Uncle Bill's house, down two blocks, and then took him to the park," then there's copying going on.

So, for the third time, substantiate your claims with specific references to the article. Quote the pieces that are copied. Put them next to the pieces that come from the OP. You go "okay, look at this, now look at this, and realize that this part which came first is way too specific for this part that came later to have simply accidentally copied it word for word or close to it." I keep repeating myself, but you're ignoring the fact the whole article has nothing to do with OP's posts at all other than a singular, simple idea in common. It just isn't enough to go on, I keep asking for more and never get any.

At this point you're almost literally bitching that I'm not listening and believing. I don't mind being proven wrong, but prove me wrong first. This is /x/ right? Where everyone is supposed to be skeptical? Like all the fucking time about everything? No, this case of plagiarism is a special exemption from such skepticism. If I don't immediately jump on the bandwagon I must be some subversive. No, you want to complain that I am being skeptical. This is not overwhelming evidence, give me that. Like I said I'm not a physicist. Spell out the case for plagiarism.

holy shit phreaks, this is a lot of movement for one thread.

I smell something in the water here.

>>51034

>this is a lot of movement for one thread.

Well the thread was linked on /b2/ and the GG thread on /v/. I'm honestly surprised it's not more active. There's some neat ideas to discuss.

>>51036

Speaking of which OP was/is convinced that me and the other anon that first objected are both the yalefag and thinks he's in this thread; I really doubt that, but I thought for a minute maybe I should reach out and ask him specifically. My physics background is pretty shit, so I can't poke holes in anything OP says regarding his "theory" as I don't have the requisite expertise (mine is biology), so I wondered how yalefag would respond not only to the accusation but to OP's whole text buffet at the start of the thread.

I'm pretty leery of doing this, because I never point outsiders to hatechan under any circumstances, but OP's convinced he's already here so why the hell not? He thinks he's ripping ideas directly from /x/ so actually pointing him here makes no difference right? Perhaps then he could actually take a look at OP's ideas up top as a whole and provide "this is/isn't bullshit" feedback.

The irony is this: imagine yalefag doesn't know anything about any of this, and I point him here, and then after reading the shit up top he DOES plagiarize it. How fucking hilarious would that be? At least OP would be correct then, even if only by a self fulfilling prophecy of circumstances.

OP is your name Bill and your last name starts with an M and you live in Texas by any chance? I might know you.