Lord Antares

No you aren't. As I said before, sharing means providing some mathematics or evidence and then asking help. You are basically asking for help in writing science fiction. I AM helping you. Maybe my attitude isn't, but my central points are. If you were to ever pass this as a legitimate theory, you would need to answer my questions. Not because I'm any kind of authority on physics, but because every rational scientist would ask you the same questions. I said you have no evidence and my reasoning was purely logical. If you had evidence, you would have presented it alongside your OP. Why on earth would you have evidence and then not present it? Therefore, I deduced that you don't have evidence. I didn't say that, someonne else did, but I don't disagree with that statement. I said that the resources are the whole of physics. Or, not whole exactly, but you would need to profoundly study ALL of the forces involved independently, as well as some cosmology and quantum physics. I stand by this. You were offended by it, I guess. Were you offended because the answer was not what you had hoped for or what? Yeah, the grand unifying theory is something you think up while shitting on the toilet because you forgot to bring your cellphone. The point is, the issue is MUCH harder than you think it is. You cannot just THINK of a solution. You need to calculate it. You need to model it. You need to review it time and time again. So, you would enlist in the national swimming team and when the reviewer said you don't meet the qualifications, you would say ''WELL I CAN'T SWIM YOU ASSHOLE!''. That is exactly what you are doing here.

You have reduced yourself to spouting drivel. Have you got any mathematics or evidence for any of that? I thought your first post after the OP was signalling a rational discussion but apparently not. You didn't respond to my last post. Do you think you can overthrow thousands of pages of calculations, equations and explanations with a few sentences? If you were to present this to an actual peer-review environment, how would you actually convince them that this is useful and applicable? How would you answer their inquiry about evidence and mathematics?

The math is wrong. I don't see how you arrived at N^2. It's certainly incorrect. The odds that the coin will land vertically for ANY specific toss is (according to the statistic) 1 in 6000. Saying that the first toss is biased is unscientific and wrong. I'm slightly confused because I don't agree with anything you said. It should be reciprocal here. It's hard for me to understand this 100% but maybe you are talking about the odds of landing vertically UP TO a specific number? For example, the odds for the 1st toss are smaller than for UP TO 10 tosses. This is obvious, so I'm not sure whether you tried to include this or not. No there isn't. The odds for an unspecified number are the same as picking a specific number. I'm talking about single numbers individually, as mentioned before. Of course the odds that it will land vertically on any number of tosses other than 1 are substantially higher than it landing on the first toss, but the odds are the same for every individual number of tosses.

No, we're talking about the same thing. ?? Why would that be necessary? They could have flipped it 18 000 times (6000 x 3) and got 3 vertical landings, hence 1 in 6000. To assume that they have to be evenly distributed would be another fallacy. There is no reason they couldn't have gotten, for example, the 3577th, 15 321st and 15 328th tosses as vertical. If they all landed in perfect distribution, it would be remarkable coincidence! Of course, you would need more flips for more accurate results. I don't know how many they flipped. I'm just giving you an example. Of course there is lower probability of it occuring on toss 1 than any other toss COMBINED. Why is it even necessary to mention that? If you coloured every 7th ball instead, you will find that they will also come up more rarely than all others combined. There's nothing special about that. It goes without saying. Have you seen a coin being tossed around 6000 times? I will guess that you haven't, hence your comments about the first toss coming up more rarely. I repeat, there is NOTHING special about the first toss. There are equal odds for any toss individually.

No, you are very wrong. When have you seen it land vertically on exactly the 9th toss? What about 22nd? What about 741st? Never, right? Your problem is that you consider the first toss as ''special'', whereas you see all subsequent tosses as ''other tosses''. So, you take note when it lands vertically on the ''special'' toss and you don't take note of the exact number of tosses it took to land vertically on the ''other tosses''. This is something akin to the gambler's fallacy. To say that the probability is reduced for the 1st toss because you haven't seen it happen is a VERY flippant comment. Probability doesn't work that way. Also, as I mentioned, the odds were empirically shown to be about 1:6000 so that 1 person got it on the first toss is not only not unusual, but it is above expectation.

??? Are you trying to say that getting it to land on the rim on the first toss has a lower chance than on any other toss? What on earth would make you say that?

If you read the thread Swansont linked, you would have seen that the researchers empirically got the odds of around 1:6000, which is lower than I would expect, to be honest. I'm not sure why you're complicating the issue. I don't understand your last post. Do you need clarification with something regarding probability?

What does that even mean? Matter isn't ''entropy-contaminated''. Matter IS entropy as a part of a larger closed or open system. Then you are wrong. You don't need a picture for math. For example, how can we calculate the distances and forces at the event horizon without taking a picture inside? Then predict what exactly needs to happen in order to be able to differentiate your ''theory'' from the current one. What does it offer that the current model can't? Make some predictions. You aren't aware of how complicated modern physics is. There are thousands of pages on relativity, quantum mechanics, cosmology etc. There are many, many equations which are regularly used to confirm the applicability of the current model. How you can allow yourself to think that your mathless 5-line text with an unexplained picture can build upon this model is beyond me.

As mentioned above, it depends on the country. As I understand it, in the US waiters get payed a minimal amount, so tips are their actual salary. In this case, I agree that tipping is the ethical thing to do. However, it's not like this everywhere around the world. For example, in Croatia, waiters earn the normal pay amount, just like any regular job. You really don't have a reason to tip, yet it is still part of the culture. Because of this, waiters actually earn A LOT more money than other regular workers. I personally just leave some coins which I don't really care to pick up, but I wouldn't go out of my way to tip a high amount.

He is asking how the laser measures the distance and sends it back to the device. You are correct in your first assumption. It reflects the laser beam back perfectly as it reflects straight back if done correctly. ''The most common form of laser rangefinder operates on the time of flight principle by sending a laser pulse in a narrow beam towards the object and measuring the time taken by the pulse to be reflected off the target and returned to the sender.'' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_rangefinder

What's your point? I don't need math to vizualize pink elephants. You need math to prove it. It's not a ''requirement'' as such but only a physicist would have a chance at tackling this very complicated issue. I'm a fool for thinking you would be reasonable. How do we tell if your ''theory'' is any good if you don't show us your ''cards''? How do you think this goes? You say ''I have an amazing unifying theory which solves all problems'' and we say ''okay great''?

The rules of the speculation forum may be confusing, but rougly outlined, they say that you can eithe make claims of discovering a new theory or toy with baseless ideas for fun chatter. The latter has no requirements (other than not claiming it to be scientific) but the former requires you to answer my 3 questions to be accepted. Seeing how you are serious, I will assume that you want to go with the former. This is something that is frequently said but is wrong in principle. How can one consider one's hypothesis if they do not possess the adequate evidence and models to review it? It's like asking if it's plausible that there is mountain which is 5 km high on some planet we can't see. I don't know, is it? We do not possess enough information to answer that question. I hope the analogy makes sense to you. That is another problem. It is extremely unlikely that a layman would be able to come up with a unifying theory as it requires substantial knowledge. You would have to be a physicist, at the very least, to even consider investing your time into it. I'm not trying to bring you down, I want to make sure that you understand what you're tackling with. It's not enough, even if you think it's evidence. It needs to comply with the mathematics and specific predictions you should be making. I'm not sure what kind of experiment you are thinking about, but a scientific one would need to include the mathematics mentioned above. You will need to be specific and it will need to be observed and confirmed. I'm not trying to torture you on purpose. It is what EVERY scientific peer-review would ask of you. This is what you need to provide to the scientific world in order to be accepted.

It depends what you consider ''modern science''. The scientific method was only starting to be properly used AFTER the middle ages, meaning Galileo and onwards. By this definition, science has most certainly arisen in Europe and not Egypt, Rome, Ancient Greece etc.

Correct, but it won't work here. The problem is, actual scientific scrutiny will always include mathematics. Seeing how you haven't provided any, it's safe to assume that you don't have it. The first three questions you will always get are: 1) Do you have any evidence for this? 2) How would you calculate this mathematically? 3) What predictions or testifiable expeiments does you model provide? You cannot answer any of these and thus, the speculation is unfalsifiable and useless. Physics is very complicated, you can't make a genius unifying theory with a couple of words and a vague picture. Where are the variables? Where are the mathematics? How can we even test this model? How do we then know if it is correct? It looks like a feat of imagination to me.

Which is language itself. This makes no sense to me. What do you mean by ''defining the concept of understanding?''. You cannot define it. Or, how do you know that the other person understands your definition of understanding? It will not be understood by another person just by defining it. What does this mean? Can you be clearer? What is ''the problem'' you are talking about? Is it this understanding or is it something else? Is this philosophy? You should state your intentions clearly in the OP.

In other words, the correctness and usefulness of the theory is what decides if it will be used, not the general esteem of the author. To suggest otherwise would be an argument from authority fallacy.

What does ''genetically superiror'' mean? Less susceptible to disease? You quote research that you say proved that east Asians are the least susceptible to disease. Why are then people ''speculating'' about it if it has already been established? If the IQ score charts are to be believed, then yes, to an extent. I wouldn't say ''pre-disposition to being intelligent''. I think it's more accurate to say ''there's a higher chance of them being intelligent'', which is not the same thing. I don't know which data you're looking at, but the maps I've checked say that both east-Asians and European countries have higher IQ averages. So saying that these people are superior to Europeans is, as far as statistics go, wrong. Also, take note that different IQ studies differ. I am looking at 3 IQ maps and they are all somewhat different from one another. That is to say that there's a higher margin of error than in some other statistics, because IQ tests aren't 100% correct in determining what they are supposed to. That's a tricky one. It depends on how you define inferiority. If you mean IQ, then there's a great deal of evidence that some countries have significantly higher IQ averages than others. These are statisticis and they cannot be denied, whatever you would like to believe. If your inferiority had different connotations, point it out. This question doesn't really make sense to me. Each country has another country which is more closely related to them than other countries. For example, Slavic countries are mutually similar, so are some African countries, as well as East Asian countries etc. Citation needed.

I wanted to let the experts explain it to you, as it can get complicated when you go in more detail. The easy and simple to understand answer is that nothing can add to the speed of light. If someone is riding a train and pointing a laser forward, we know that the added velocity will still be c, whereas this is not true of anything that is travelling with a velocity lesser than c. Therefore, the speed of light is constant. Strange dropped hints about this very early on in the thread. As to why this is so is a different matter and I couldn't explain it to you fully. Maybe one of these links might help you: https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2ln4t5/why_is_the_speed_of_light_the_same_to_all/ http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae558.cfm I hope this helps. By the way, I don't think it's fair to accuse him of ignoring evidence, because he doesn't do it on purpose. It's not that he's unwilling (or at least it isn't clear that he is) to accept the science behind relativity, it is that he doesn't understand it. I can understand that he would want to accept it only after he has understood it. There is nothing wrong with that. There are other wrongs he is guilty of, but that's a different story.

They don't get banned by default; neither are you. You get your threads closed because you refuse to give adequate information or answer some of the expert members' questions. Sensible discussions can be lead, even when the OP is dead wrong. You cannot just spot a flaw as trivial as yours in something as complicated as GR. The correct procedure would be to phrase it as a question, rather than a claim. If you had opened the thread with ''Hi. I want to know how the speed of light can be measured as a constant everywhere if people from different reference frames measure speeds differently. Thanks.'' instead of ''here's why relativity is wrong...'' I guarantee you would have gotten more extensive and polite replies. It is always best to phrase things you don't know as questions as it leaves the possibility that you are wrong, whereas hard claims don't. I hope you can learn from this experience and realize that this isn't some sort of conspiracy against you. If you are willing to listen and be open minded, you can be helped.

I agree with the OP, as I have stated many times before. The sole definition of speculation implies that it should lack evidence. When you say that his speculation should be supported, it's like saying ''an unsupported claim should be supported by evidence''. If it were supported, it becomes a hypothesis and not a speculation. He is right in that regard. I firmly believe that we would get less of this if that sub-forum were renamed as ''hypotheses'' instead of ''speculations''. It's even more in line with what is sought by the rules of the forum. Of course, I disagree that his claims are valid. They aren't and are therefore, speculations! I wonder when people will realize this.

No, you got banned because you continued to misinterpret relativity through several pages of discussion. You made claims that simultanety was a fact. Look at Strange's answer. It is short and to the point. If the speed of light wasn't constant, then clocks could not be compared. The fact that time and speeds could be measured against a universal contant makes relativity true. Someone could provide you with details and mathematics in hopes that you will understand.

Sure, but those points are not refuted by ''stfu racist go away'', which is the kind of thing I usually see. If someone offers an extensive rebuttal and that person ignores it, then that's another matter alltogether. It may be tiresome to refute rehashed questions, but the person wouldn't have asked the question in the first place if he knew the answer to it. Instead, he walks away with only insults and no argument. If you're trying to argue that those kinds of people don't listen to logic anyway, then that is again, a different matter.

I don't really understand the OP. Can you be clearer?

This is true, HOWEVER, I feel like objectivity must be in the first place. Regardless of whether the OP is racist or not, the answer must be the same. Many of these inquiries regarding the genetics or psychology of different races get dissmised right away because of racism, even though a question or a point might be valid. I remember reading an old thread on this forum in which the OP was making valid points and asking valid questions which required elaborate responses, but he got nothing but flaming back because of his open racism. He deserved it, but those responses had nothing to do with his posts and questions. If the worst asshole made a valid point on something, you should consider that point seriously. I agree that continent and country should have been the focus of this specific thread, especially because the black people in Africa obviously live in much different conditions than black people in the US, so a generic statement including just ''black people'' makes no sense. I'm just making the general point that whether the OP is a racist asshole or a polite gentleman makes no difference to the point.

Almost all European countries up to several years ago, I would guess. A lot of them today, as well. For example, the white population in Croatia is well over 99%. I would guess between 99.9% and 99.99%. I would guess the same goes for the Czech Republic, Poland, Ukraine, Iceland etc. To be clear, I'm talking about countries where exclusively white people live, not where only whites are entitled to live, as zapatos pointed out.