Bignose

Ok, just know that this is an impossible standard. The Theory of Gravity isn't 100%. The Theory of Sound isn't 100%. Newton's Law's aren't 100%. The Laws of Thermodynamics aren't 100%. 100% is never achievable in science. Because we aren't ever going to do 100% of the cases, because there are literally infinite cases. For example, we aren't going to test a 1.4578g mass in a gravity field, then test a 1.4579g mass, then test a 1.45785g mass, then test a 1.4579124g mass, and so on. What science does do is have a tremendous preponderance of evidence. We have studied a lot of masses in a gravity field, and the predictions we make have been shown to be very accurate, so we have extreme confidence in the Theory of Gravity. But it isn't 100%. There is always the possibility that someone will find a case where it is wrong. Hence, nothing in science is 100%. So, in the case of Bigfoot or any other creature, 100% is frankly an impossible standard. Until you can see literally every square foot of the earth at the exact same time, you can't eliminate a hiding place. And then, unless you can go back in time and do the same observation for all time, you'll still be able to argue that "oh, well, there USED to be be Bigfoots" In short, as Arete laid out, we have established criteria for establishing what science considers a species or not. Arguing about these lines are fine, and arguments still exist about these lines today. But, it has to be admitted that at the moment the evidence for Bigfoot isn't even close. It isn't just a matter of perspective. The total lack of tangible evidence is awfully powerful. Science naturally takes the skeptical position that until tangible evidence can be provided, it isn't considered mainstream. Sure, it will never ever be 100% sure that Bigfoot doesn't exist, as above that is literally an impossible standard. But it is pretty sure today because of the total lack of physical evidence.

Yeah, and I'm sure there will be no problems in getting all 99% to agree what we want each Congressperson to do.

This thread too! I was ignored all the way back on post #92 .

Please explain the Hafele-Keating experiment then. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele–Keating_experiment Why do otherwise identical clocks tick at different speeds when they move at different velocities? Why are the time corrections necessary on GPS satellites? Look, I've written this many times now. And as an engineer, you should directly appreciate this: If you don't like the currently accepted idea, just propose one that makes better predictions. The one we have right now, it actually pretty good. It is a link I post a lot, but it is good: take a peek at http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2014-4/. It is a review paper demonstrating just how accurately the predictions agree with what is measured. So, as an engineer, you know that the model that makes the best predictions is the one that gets used. So, just show us that your idea makes better predictions. Publish a paper blowing the one above out of the water. And receive just gobs and gobs attention. I guarantee a lot of people want to read your paper if you can make better predictions.

You know what, Scotty, this is actually extremely easy in science. No, really, it is. All that has to happen is publish a paper with the new idea that makes even better predictions that relativity. See, for example, this paper http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2014-4/ that is a pretty good review of all the predictions relativity makes compared to what has been measured. So, when can we expect that paper? If it can be done, I guarantee an awful lot of people would like to read it. On the other hand, if nothing is forth coming, then please review that linked paper, because it shows just how darn good relativity is. Before you declare "relativity is make believe", just look at how accurate its predictions really are. It may be "make believe" or "hogwash" or any other "generic scoffing phrase here"... but it makes really quite excellent predictions that agree with what is measured. And ultimately, that is what science is about, getting the most accurate predictions. So, back to my very point. Just show us more accurate predictions. More accurate predictions is all it takes to rid everyone of ides you don't like. Very, very simple in concept. Almost never ever lived up to in practice. The currently accepted idea is the currently accepted idea because it makes the most accurate predictions.

It's phrases like this that lead to negative rep. "speed of C". Firstly, the nomenclature is usually a lowercase c. Secondly, it is the speed of light. Light != c. But both of those are very minor compared to the next two I've got. Thirdly, you can't use a speed in the place of energy. length per time (speed) is not the same as mass times length squared over time squared. Fourthly, you can't use a speed or an energy for acceleration. Neither length per time nor mass time length squared over time squared is the same as a length over time squared. All of the rest don't really follow either. You didn't actually clarify. You repeated a lot. The link between sqrt(2) and E = mc^2 seems little more than the fact that they both have a 2 in them. The supposed fact about 49 reflections is easily disputed (someone brought up fiber-optic cables as an easy counterexample). You just chose to ignore them in your other thread. All of the above maybe follow logically in your mind, but the skipping around does come across as, said above, rambling. You need to fill in a lot more steps if you expect us to take something meaningful from it. I will say, however, that I am pleased to see this written. A very rigorous and objective test would be much appreciated. Objective evidence would help support what you're saying, and probably would help clarify exactly what you mean as well.

This. This was better written than what I could express, and exactly what I mean with my example above.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/27/us/politics/kochs-plan-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-campaign.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1 We may very well find out in 2016. Maybe this will finally be the impetus for campaign finance reform. I won't hold my breath on that, but this will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Yeah, and I think that this reflected in the number that comes out every so often about how another $10k when making $20k or $40k is huge, and leads to much more happiness (or lack of stress, or other similar emotions), but another $10k when making $80k just isn't that much. That's what leads to the numbers like "after making $80k, you don't get any happier with each raise." In a great deal of this country, if you are making $80k, you won't be hungry if the car breaks down. ... apart from the people that do it to themselves. I see far too many people who buy too much home, buy a new car every few years, and they wonder why -- even when making $80k -- they are living paycheck to paycheck. So, I go back to my original thesis, that these people need to learn it isn't stuff that makes them happy. They would be equally happy in a home with 25% less sq. footage. They would be equally happy with a car that is more than 3 years old. That they would probably be happier knowing that they were putting 10% of their salary into retirement savings so that they won't have to worry about paying for their golden years. They would be happier spending time with friends and family rather than buying another 72" 4k TV.

I guess I don't know what exactly you want from us, then. Because without a model to make predictions with and to compare them to measurements, all you really have is a story. Without specific testable predictions, we just have to go by what your story says, and I am not sure that science really has anything to say about stories about wormholes just yet. Scientifically, there are equations that seem to not forbid entities like this, but those equations certainly aren't confirmed and I don't think there is any physical evidence to support those interpretations just yet. Sure, they lead to some interesting story telling, but that's just about all at this moment.

There are flavors of string theory proposed that appear to use 11 dimensions. But, none of these are really confirmed as string theory itself isn't really confirmed. We have to be very careful about talking about counts of dimensions, because I am not sure that the count really means anything. For example, if I look at a single particle (particle here is a very generic term, not a 'particle' as in particle physics, but more a lump of something we are looking at) as it moves in time, I have 1 dimension time, t. And it moves in space, so now I have 3 space dimensions, x, y, z. But, as it is moving, I also have a velocity, v_x, v_y, v_z. Velocity is independent of position (i.e. the particle could have the entire range of speeds no matter what its position), so each of those 3 are dimensions, too, simply because they are independent of the other dimensions we have defined. In the same way, if those velocities change, we have accelerations, a_x, a_y, a_z. So now we're up to 10 dimensions. Just on a single particle. There is almost no limit to this game. 1) we can keep talking about changes in the derivatives of position... e.g. changes in accelerations are jerks, changes in jerks are jounces, etc. 2) we can start adding more than 1 particle... a 2nd particle would double the number of dimensions less 1 (time). That is, a 2nd particle would have a position, velocity, acceleration, and so on. 3) The above assumes each particle is identical, we can start talking about different particles and introduce more dimensions that way, such as with measures of the particle size (like volume, or diameter), particle shape (sphericity, roughness, etc.), make up (density, chemical composition, etc.). A particle could even have its own time, such as an age if our particle was a cell, or how much a chemical reaction has occurred. There are even infinite dimension dimensions such as a chemical composition profile in the particle where function spaces need to be used. In short, there can be a heck of a lot of dimensions, even in some very simple systems. I think how many dimensions a mathematical description uses doesn't mean nearly as much as how accurate that mathematical description is. So, I wouldn't get hung up on how many dimensions a certain flavor of string theory has. I am not aware there are any physical evidence of the 'curled up' dimensions used by these theories, anyway. If someone has an example, it would be appreciated if it were posted.

I think that biggest thing is that mankind as a whole needs to mature beyond the point where acquisition of material wealth is such a driving force. It has been known for some time that there is a number out there where people don't report being happier despite an increase in money earner per year. http://www.fool.com/personal-finance/saving/why-rich-people-really-arent-happier.aspx The number changes every so often. I seem to recall the most recent one being $75k USD/year, for example. And it obviously is a little different per individual. But my main point is that it isn't the things we have that makes us happy. This is mainly spelled out in Gregg Easterbrook's book The Progress Paradox. Basically, he shows that despite by every objective measure -- number of cars a family has, size of the house, amount of college education, number of TVs in the house, etc. -- America is better off than we've ever been. But, we're reporting that we're unhappier, too. In short, it isn't stuff, wealth, and material goods that makes us happy. It is things like friends, and camaraderie, and community, that do. Once mankind matures enough to actually understand and accept that, the acquisition of wealth doesn't see quite so important anymore. In my opinion, this really addresses the root cause of this gap between rich and poor.

Look, I agree that there are a lot of dumb people who do dumb things like build in flood pains. I lived near the Mississippi during the flood of 1993. People learned their lesson about that flood all of 6 months. And government not disincentivizing construction in those areas is very annoying. But using a very strong word like mandate when there isn't is at least mildly intellectually dishonest. Rather than appeal to emotion about 'look what the government is making us do !!!1!!', why not just state the fact that they choose to ignore reasonable predictions about future flood likelihoods? Even your last post has more 'hyperbole' in it. Of course there is still more than one choice. People don't have to build in flood areas. They certainly may choose to do so, and the government isn't making it very difficult to do so, but there is obviously still a choice. I'm not even going to waste my time to find someone who filed for a building permit not in a future flood area, because obviously that is still happening. I guess my request here is to minimize the drama, hyperbole, exaggeration, whatever you want to call it. Because the story doesn't need it. And worse, when someone finds out it was an exaggeration, it becomes very easy to dismiss the rest of the message. And I don't think you want that. As I write above, in general I think your message is correct, you just don't want to open yourself up to criticisms like this unnecessarily.

Sure, sure. Where is the mandate ("an official order or commission to do something") to make "cities expand into the coming flood plane [sic]"? All the above says is that flood insurance rates can't change. I don't see how this is an official order to do anything.

So, which resolution was this exactly? I don't think congress controls any city, except maybe d.c. to a limited extent. I don't disagree with your overall post, but the part quoted above seems pretty unreasonable, so please cite the bill the was passed that you think controls where cities expand.

It's not that 'theoretically' a point cannot stretch and so on. It's just using definitions properly. Once you 'stretch' a point, it isn't really a point anymore. By definition. Really you're asking "if you chance the definitions of mathematics, what does mathematics say?" and the answer is "well, since you changed the definitions, mathematics really doesn't say anything..." So, yeah, It isn't really a questions for mathematics, physics, or anything else. If you change definitions this radically, why stop there? You can say anything you want. Doesn't mean it is actually scientific or mathematics.

Here's a pretty relevant paper "The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment" 113 pages of just how closely the predictions from GR agree with what is measured. http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.7377 Science and philosophy are certainly intertwined and interrelated. However, "why" is typically not a scientific question. Science is typically more about making predictions that agree with measurement. "Why?" is much more philosophy.

Little worried about the middle stuff because there is an elementary matrix algebra mistake here... [math]\det(-\mathbf{A}) = (-1)^n \det(\mathbf{A})[/math] where n is the dimension of the matrix, in this case n=4 so the determinant of the negative of a matrix is the determinant of that matrix. In your nomeclature [math]Det[A_i] = Det[A^i][/math]. Not sure where you use the stuff in the quote, but if you did, there is a mistake.

You're still using a great deal of words without defining exactly what they mean to you. "The universe cannot possess a value of 1, because that would imply a state of equality." -- I don't get this, because to me a state of equality would mean that the left hand side and right hand side of an equation were equal. It typically doesn't really matter what the actual value of each side is, because normally that value is almost wholly determined by the units that were used. And I certainly don't see an equation here. "No rational number can ever resolve an irrational value without becoming infinite." -- How does one number "resolve" another? "An irrational number can determine a rational value, and that value must be considered virtual because the universe cannot be simultaneously 1 and infinite, or rational and irrational." -- How does one number "determine" another? "Therefore, the expression -∞/+∞=-1 is true. " -- The "proof" you've laid out here certainly lacks rigor. I know that you're not well versed with the scientific and mathematical literature. But the word choices you make to communicate your idea has implications. There is terminology well established that you can use, or if you want to use other words, you need to define it so your audience can follow along. Such as the questions above. Please assume we know nothing and define every single term along the way. Thanks.

“It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out.” ― Carl Sagan All I am asking for is some evidence to support what you're saying. Is that really so hard to produce? So, the calculation went from "seriously doubt you or I are capable of reviewing it though" to "fairly routine". Which exactly is it? Look. I am trying to keep an open mind. I am trying to understand what you're saying. But you're not really giving me much to go off of, are you? I mean, you are telling me I should agree with your idea because some supposedly reputable dude did some calculations (of indeterminate difficulty, apparently), and we should just all assume they are correct. I want to read more. But you aren't providing any more. I am just pointing this out. If you can't or won't provide more, then I guess I do have my answer. I would have thought that if you cared enough to actually discuss this idea that providing evidence to it wouldn't have been that onerous of a task. But, I could be wrong.

I concede that science in a human endevour, with human failings. However, none of the above changes the fact that you still are asking us to believe in something because of a logical fallacy via appeal to authority and without presenting any supporting evidence. If I told you that Stephen Hawking has some math that was "reasonably safe" showing I had an invisible dinosaur living in my garage, would you just assume it was correct? He's got credentials. And this statement above has as much supporting evidence as you've given to date. Do you see my point?

No, no, no, no, no, no, no. That's not how science works. You assume and idea is incorrect until a preponderance of evidence matches the predictions made by the idea. An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. The agreement between measurement and prediction makes an idea correct. Not how reputable the idea creator is. If this person is truly as reputable as you say, they should agree completely. What you need to do is demonstrate how correct an idea is by demonstrating the predictions the idea makes and them showing up how closely those predictions agree with what is actually measured. No "I seriously doubt you or I are capable of reviewing it", no "so we'll just have to assume it is accurate for now". This level of handwaving and dodging is not science.

Hmmm. It used to be intuitive to think that the moon was made of green cheese, the earth was flat, and heat was a fluid called phlogistan. If only there was some way of checking intuition... So, quit telling us it is wrong, and I don't know, actually demonstrate something. Like maybe answering the question I asked above. Show me how to remove time from the wave equation.

Show me any equation with time in it replaced by your method and demonstrate it works. If you need an example, how about the wave equation: [math]\frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial t^2} = c^2 \nabla^2 u[/math] There is a clear dependence on time in there. And, in fact, this equation works perfectly fine whether you go forward or backward in time. And it is verified accurate a very large number of times. Show me how your idea is better than what we have now.

So, just like the sacred numbers thread, you're here to tell us that science sucks, tear down some walls, but not be bothered to help build them up in any meaningful way. What pleasure does this give you? You act like you care -- you cared enough to tell us the science is a scam -- but you don't care enough to actually show us any evidence of this scam or give any clues about anything actually specifically wrong. What use is this? If you are going to be this differential, why even bother? If this is going to be your contribution -- to just troll the forum -- just don't bother posting again. "Tsk, tsk" at us, shake your head, and feel sorry for us if you must, but if you're not going to contribute anything meaningful, just don't bother. If you're looking for a reaction from us, you got it. Huzzah.