Bignose

So, your prediction is that we must obey the known laws of optics. Ok, I'm sorry, but I don't find this very profound. I disagree with this. The real object is not replicated. Just the image of that real object. That's different. This is what I'd like to see. I'm not convinced of the deeper meanings of the reflections in the mirrors, but if they can lead to useful (that is, accurate) predictions on a universal scale, then I am willing to listen.

I again repeat what I wrote above. Math lets us turn your idea into specific predictions and gives us an easy metric to evaluate the accuracy of those predictions. Words are often far worse at this. And there is very, very little requirement that any equation or concept or idea need to be elegant or understandable by anyone. Accuracy of predictions is valued by far most greatly by science. And I guess, if you get a moment, I'd really like to see a citation for "There are equations written that even the so-called 'greatest' mathematical minds cannot comprehend." Because this just seems silly to me. Why would anyone create an incomprehensible equation? I'm hoping there is some kind of misunderstanding here, because I don't get it. It sounds a lot like a sly sound-bite to me, because I can't understand how such a situation could arise... I don't think anyone is stopping you. Let's see it. Let's see some actual predictions based on your idea.

There are an awful lot of will's and would's above, but this sentence right here cuts to the heart of the matter. In science, usefulness of an idea is largely based upon the predictions that idea can make, and how closely those predictions agree to what is measured. This is almost wholly and intrinsically a mathematical activity. For example, if idea A makes predictions that are 10% off from what is measured, and idea B's predictions are only 5% off, then idea B is favored. Because it is more useful. Furthermore, if you try to avoid math and only do words, you step into the very real problem that words take different meanings to different people at different times. Limiting yourself to only words is closer to story telling, not science. Trying to do science in only words is really trying to do it in 'hard mode.' This is why so very much of physics and indeed most science involves mathematics. I would highly recommend you get over your fear or boredom, and express your ideas mathematically, if only because it will be significantly easier for other people to understand exactly what you are predicting and talking about. So, with all those will's and would's and Einstein quotes, is there an actual tangible verifiable prediction? Something that says in conditions x, you predict we will measure y? Also, I really kind of hate this attitude about 'mathematics scares me or perhaps bores me' when the title promises 'new mathematical language'. Try not to promise one thing and then tell us you aren't going to do it in the middle. Also also, as a suggestion, you may want to work on communicating concisely. There is an awful lot of text in the last two posts. As noted above, good communication on a forum is usually short and to the point. Long walls of text are hard to read and typically end up just being ignored.

Even if we don't have a tool for the test, you need to propose a test for it. You need to make a prediction. For example, you should predict that effect x happens in conditions y..... and so on. If your idea is right, there should be some way of distinguishing between it and the null hypothesis. Even if a tool won't exist to actually measure x now or any time soon. For example, see the predicted power spectrum by the Lambda-CDM theory which were calculated many years before BICEP2 was actually able to measure them. http://bicepkeck.org/ Tell us what we should see first, and then we can discuss 1) what implications occur because of what you predict and 2) ways of possibly measuring for it.

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/fear-ebola-outbreak-make-nation-turn-science gasp! (I thought it was funny...)

I think you'll find, with a careful accounting of how much energy you actually did use to initialize the system, that this is not a true statement.

I think you'll find that the mods are fairly relaxed as it is in giving posters a chance in the speculations section. There are a lot of threads that are breaking a strict interpretation of the rules. I think what we've got set up here works pretty well. Can't please anything. What you're asking for here would be a lot more in place on a metaphysics, philosophy, or 'alternative' science forum. I like that we're grounded in the rules of science here and demand that ideas present at least some semblance of evidence supporting them. As Phi says, I think this is actually an easy thing for people to understand, if they would take a step back and actually read the objections instead of assuming they are personal attacks and that science is a cult protecting its members. If there is something to improve, it would be this. How to get the message across that we aren't just going to believe someone at their word and we need evidence to support their ideas.

So..... No demonstration, then. Just preaching at us that our math has no future. Got it. Until I see a demonstration, I'll stick with what we got. Because I think it has plenty of future. It has certainly been shown to be supremely successful at the moment, and nothing convincing above that it won't be tomorrow, too.

Joking about the number of super expensive super cars I own aside, how do you plan on just replacing the apparent presence of negative numbers in nature? Like say the positive and negative charges on ions? Which balance to zero when it is neutral. The current math has been supremely successful at describing this situation. Please demonstrate that your log-based scale can be similar.

Cool, if I integrate over it, watch out ladies!!!

With no zero, how am I going to describe how many Lamborghini automobiles I have stored in my garage?

This can be demonstrated by showing us that your coordinates make as good or better predictions than the existing methods. See my note above. Make predictions, not 'logic'. Show us that your idea is actually useful. Basically, you're asking us to drop something -- a something that is has demonstrated it can make really good predictions that agree very closely to what is measured -- to something that cannot make any predictions. Why would anyone do that?!? Why get rid of something useful for something that hasn't demonstrated any usefulness? "Hey, I'm going to chop off my hand because I've heard that a pointy stick is better. Sure, no one's given me a pointy stick yet to try, but I'm going to trust Billy Bob because he told it was true......"

Jeremy, this is a large scope question. In science, the main metric of how good an idea is: how accurate of predictions does it make. In many ways, it doesn't matter if the idea is based upon the wishing of fairies riding unicorns, the most perfect logic, or the most imperfect broken logic. If the idea predicts x, and we measure it as x.... then that idea is scientifically strong. On the other hand, if an idea predicts x and we measure y, then clearly there is an error of (x-y). Logic has failed us before. At one time, it was logical to think that earth was flat. x=flat earth. But, when we finally measured y=mostly spherical earth, then clearly the idea that predicted x was wrong. For us to believer your idea, appeals to 'logic' alone doesn't matter. Today, we measure y about the state of an atom. You are predicting x. Current best theory predicts z. We know what z-y is. Please show us what x-y is. Show us what predictions your idea makes. That is the most important thing right now. Appeals to 'logic' aren't going to get you any more support. If you want support, demonstrate that your idea makes really good predictions that agree with what is measured.

Far too often, the posters here are acting a lot more like prophets than scientists. First and foremost, in science, the evidence to support the statements are out there, publicly available to all. Secondly, a community like this one exists in no small part so that when someone does have a question, members volunteer to help. I should put a lot of emphasis on volunteer, because no one here is getting paid for this. Thirdly, the major problem is that despite the evidence being out there, and despite members here who volunteer to help, far, far too often people don't actually want to take any time to understand it. This is a major problem because it does take time to understand complex problems and situations and concepts. There are a few savants, but for the most part it takes almost all of us a good deal of time to learn something new. So, I think the real question, Relative, is to turn this back on yourself. Why do you find it so difficult to accept that a word as you use it, may be incorrect? Why do you find it so hard to accept that maybe, when you've presented an idea and gotten feedback on it, that maybe the feedback telling you that it doesn't work that way should be looked into more? As the other above have said, as a forum, we're actually pretty damn good about taking some time and talking things through. What we really bristle at, however, is someone telling us that their idea is right, but they can't even slightly discuss the current idea and show how their idea even compares to the current idea. That they are so willing to brush aside many tens and hundreds of thousands of hours of people who have put time into measuring things, coming up with ideas about them, coming up with mathematics models to make predictions, going back and re-measuring, going back and modifying those models, and repeating until we have the models we have today. Look, we know the models we have today aren't perfect. That's why there are still many people pursuing science. Because there are improvements to be had out there. But, you can't overturn the again many tens and hundreds of thousands of hours that has been put into making the models pretty darn good today. And in performing those many tens and hundreds of thousands of hours of work, there is a certain terminology that is developed, so that the people working on projects in the same area can communicate with one another efficiently. Just like there are accepted definitions of the words 'hour', 'model', 'terminology', 'efficiently', etc. that I just used in the preceding sentences. So, yes, there is scientific terminology. And, no, we don't expect someone to know it all. Frankly, there is so much today, I seriously doubt that any single human being can know even a healthy percentage of it all, much less all of it. But, we do expect that when someone is using it wrong, and is pointed out to be using it wrong, they that take at least some time and try to understand why they are being told they are using it wrong. We do not accept someone just telling us "I speak street, and use whatever words I want" and expecting us to conform to their definitions. We expect that if someone really cares enough about the subject, they would take some time and understand the terminology that has become normal use. If someone really has something brand new, then they can create whatever words they want. But something completely and totally brand new is very rare. So, again, I think it is completely fair to turn this question around and ask: if someone actually really cared about a subject, why wouldn't they spend some time and actually learn about a subject including the terminology that is used? I don't think that there is a single other subject where an outsider can bluster his way in and not learn the terminology. If you didn't know the difference between a fastball, a slider, a curve, and a knuckleball, why would you think that you could give a major league baseball pitcher throwing advice? If you didn't know the different between a 4-3, a 3-4, a nickel, or a dime, why would you think that you could give professional american football defensive players advice? If you don't know the difference between a planer, a router, a chisel, and a jigsaw, why would you think you could give advice to a woodworker? If you didn't know the difference between a string, a float, an integer, a property and an object, why would you think you could give advice to a programmer? If you didn't know the different between price to earnings, debits, beta, 50-day-average, or shorts, why would you think you could give advice to a financial adviser? I could repeat this on and on and on; every single subject has its own words and terminology that need to be learned and understood before anyone can talk about it in anything beyond a superficial depth. So, it comes down to if you don't know the difference between light, and gravity, and electricity, and magnetism, why would you think you could give advice to a physicist? In short, you really can't. Just like all the other examples above. If you are really interested in a subject, then you need to actually put some time into it learn the terms used. One would think that if you were really interested, this actually would probably be rather fun and interesting to do. Because you're really interested in it. I cannot understand this reluctance to learning about a subject that you've expressed an interest in, but it is very prevalent because we see examples of it every day.

I don't agree with this either. There are a lot of things I don't know about that I don't worry about. I don't know about terrorist plots. I don't know how many venomous spiders live on my block. I don't know how many drunk drivers I pass on my daily commute. Just like I am not assuming that the objects in the sky have intelligence, animal like behavior, or anything like that without more evidence, I am also not going to just assume they are a threat without more evidence. Any evidence that they are? Otherwise, why be on "red alert"? Not to put a label on it, but this sounds rather paranoid to me. You could very well be right, and they could be a threat, but without more evidence, I don't think that there is necessarily anything we should or could do. I also would rather spend public money on investigating terrorist threats and preventing drunk driving, to be honest. Unless there is more conclusive evidence on what these things are and what threat they are.

With no perspective and a grainy bouncing around video, how can I know that these aren't just two different pieces of reflective trash in two different air currents? Or two of these things just seen from far away: http://www.uapreporting.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/weatherballoon2.jpg There are just too many other things they could be that can't be eliminated from your video there. Define serious. You seem to take it to mean "agrees with my point of view". What would really strengthen your point is better evidence. Telling me to be serious about it but not allowing me to reject it really hinders any opportunity to actually look at it objectively, doesn't it? As you worded it here, it's the ultimate "heads I win, tails you lose". If I am serious about it and agree with you, then your point is strengthened. But if I reject it, then your point is also strengthened. Spoiler alert: this is about a far away from actual (dare I say serious) science as possible. Look. I agree. It does look weird. They are anomalies. I don't know what they are either. But, I'm not jumping to the conclusion that they show intelligence simply because they happened to be in the same area as one another. Again, your definition of hard facts must be different than mine. I guess, as I recommended above, I'd like to see more and better evidence. If that can be provided, I'll be first one to publicly tell you that you were right and was totally wrong. I'm not just willing to make the same leap you are based on what you've presented here.

My whole point in mentioning garbage island is that there is trash pretty much everywhere on this planet now. And that it doesn't take a great leap of imagination to envisions lightweight scraps of plastic lifted up by wind currents and being tossed around in the atmosphere. Here is the full quote: Note how by dropping the sentence "And mankind has made a lot of trash..." you change my whole quote into one where it looks like because there is trash in the water there must be trash in the sky, too. However, with the first sentence, my point about there being trash most everywhere makes a lot more sense. I'm hopeful you just missed that first sentence rather than deliberately cut it out to try to make me look like a fool. As a meta comment I notice that you've taken to the tactic of attacking me instead of, you know, actually trying to improve your quality of evidence. Pernicious name calling and thinly veiled insults don't change the fact that your grainy videos aren't very strong evidence. That's all I'm asking for, better evidence. I really don't care overall -- I don't have any preconceived notion. All I am asking for is better evidence before my mind is made up. Sheesh.

I guess I don't draw much of a distinction between "plasma" and "plasma-like". What is more "like" a plasma than plasma? So here is where you lose me. It is not 'crystal clear' to me that these aren't mundane. Again, several of the ones I looked through I was easily struck by how much is looked like a piece of plastic in the wind. That seems very mundane to me. And mankind has made a lot of trash that we haven't kept very good hold of. For example, there is a rather large garbage island in the Pacific ocean. I have no trouble accepting that there would also be large numbers of pieces of plastic that are in the upper atmosphere as well. The onus us on you to present overwhelming, extraordinary, clear cut, objective, statistically significant evidence that these aren't mundane objects. Just your saying so and showing some grainy videos isn't enough to convince me (and apparently many others). Please cite evidence of this "social deadlock" and its inability to handle a concrete problem. Because I would argue against this by pointing to the significant number of technological and scientific achievements that we've made in the very recent past. A very prevalent example, the ability for you and I to communicate from different parts in the world, via a storage medium sitting in a 3rd part of the world, in basically real time and using a tool that is now commonly available to many people in the 1st world. You know how they won these "fights" (a debatable term, BTW, but...)? They had evidence on their side. Good scientists, when presented with evidence, readily change their mind. The 'resistance' you are facing is because your evidence is not very strong. More and better evidence is needed. You even concede that science is conservative in the face of poor evidence, as it should be. All this seems very unsubstantiated to me and largely opinion. If you want to claim that there are 'deeper implications' then this too needs evidence to support it. But let's focus on the 1st part so far, which is demonstrating unequivocally that these objects are not just mundane.

Oh come off it. All scientific circles pervade ignorance? This is utterly ridiculous. Just thousands and thousands of pages of ignorance being published every month in the journals, eh? One could really rather easily turn this around on you. Because you haven't been able to produce anything more than a bunch of videos with blobs on them and you're accusing us of being ignorant when we don't accept simply your word that these are plasma beings?!? All we're asking is to discuss this scientifically. For you to provide more and stronger and more conclusive and better evidence than what you have. If this is real, then this evidence can be gathered. It isn't on all of science to do this for you. There are limited resources, and I'm sorry that no one else seems all that interested in spending their money on doing this for you. But that doesn't give you any right to call scientific circles ignorant. You don't get to force anyone to spend their resources on something else. You are free to spend your resources on whatever you want. If anything, us asking you for more evidence is trying to remove ignorance. Because we're trying to remove our ignorance by asking for more evidence that will clearly eliminate any other possibility. You are perpetuating ignorance by railing at us for not accepting your idea on what these are. So, let's get back to discussing this rationally, or quit discussing it altogether. Again, you are the one that joined a science forum, and the strictures of science are going to govern this conversation. Strange's point that so far all your evidence seems to boil down to "these look like plasma to me, ergo they are plasma" is valid. If these were really plasma, then we know all sorts of stuff about how plasma interacts. EM waves and interactions, for example, by definition. All we're asking for is more evidence before we just take your idea as more likely. This isn't meant to be taken personally; science is skeptical and conservative by nature. Your extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence to back it up.

I think this analogy fails. Because an object in a box doesn't have to have a fixed position. I.e. an object could be located at x=1.0 just as well as at x=1.000000001 just as well at x = 1.4 and so on. An infinite number of choices actually. However, a card in a deck has to be in an ordinal position from 1 to 52. Not an infinite number of choices. Usually things like "probability of finding a particle in a certain state" uses some kind of Liouville/Hamiltonian description. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liouville's_theorem_(Hamiltonian) You define terms in probabilities of finding particle 1 within the element of state space [math]d\mathbf{x}_1[/math], finding particle 2 within the element of state space [math]d\mathbf{x}_2[/math], and so on.

If you're going to be this standoffish, why are you bothering to come to a science forum, then? Where, despite your claims that your evidence is god enough, and that verifications have occurred many times over -- you cannot cite any clear-cut, objective, statistically significant evidence that unequivocally supports your idea? Maybe even more than the above, I don't get this attitude at all. Because I didn't ask for this thread to be open. What I read here is that you've come to this forum to preach to us about these objects. You've obviously made up your own mind about them. And that's fine if you're convinced. But on a science forum, we're not just going to accept grainy videos. (And yes, despite your claim that you didn't even bother to ask me about, I did watch through a good number of them.) I stick with my previous assessment, that a blob on a grainy video isn't convincing to me. You haven't presented any objective evidence that clearly shows us that they are plasma beings and not anything else. You've presented plenty of evidence that there is something there; again, I'm not objecting to that. I want to have more clear cut objective evidence before I can make a determination. And that's ultimately why I thought you came to a science forum. To talk science. To talk about the evidence you've compiled, and how meaningful it was to science -- which is naturally skeptical by the way. If you weren't open to critiques of your presentation, your evidence, or anything else, then you probably shouldn't have come to a science forum. So, ultimately, no, you did not make this thread for me. Because I am not all that interested. I just thought I'd try to be polite and talk to you in a rational way about the issues I thought would try to make your presentation more meaningful to others of a scientific bent. But, if you just want to snap at me and treat me like a chump, then I just won't bother anymore. I'm not sure why anyone else would, either.

Go grab a ruler and put it on a smooth surface. (Let's assume it is a meter stick.) Poke the ruler right on its midpoint a few times (if this is the assumed meter stick, this is right on the 50 cm mark). Note how when you poke the ruler on the midpoint, the whole rule slides away from you. Now, poke the ruler out on an end (again, if it is a meter stick, at the 20 cm mark or the 80 cm mark works well). Note how when you poke the ruler someplace that is not the midpoint, the rule rwill rotate. This is an example of torque. When you apply a force on an object that is not on that object's center of mass, this rotational force is called a torque. When you poked the center of the ruler, you poked its center of mass, hence no rotation. When you poked out near the end of the ruler, that was not the center of mass, hence you caused some amount of rotation about the center of mass. Further note that the same poke a small distance from the center of mass causes less rotation than the same poke near the end. The amount of rotation is a function of how far away from the center of mass the force of rotation (or torque) is applied. Another example of this is how much easier it is to open a door by pushing on the handle far away from the hinges, vs. the middle of the door, or right next to the hinges. Once you have that down, we can talk about the notation convention for how torque is drawn on a free body diagram.

Your diagram doesn't make a lot of sense. Two arrows, of different colors and sizes, both say electrons... and? Ion thrusters have been used for a while now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster They don't use electrons as the propellant, usually Xenon, but they charge the propellant and then use electromagnets to accelerate them. Is that what you're aiming for here?

I don't think that anyone is arguing that there aren't anomalous things seen in the sky. Because there are. No one is claiming that every single video is faked, and people do indeed see weird things in the sky. But, we're questioning whether the conclusion that they are living 'plasma-based' creatures is truly supported by the evidence as well as all the other probable candidates eliminated by the evidence. A video tape of something shiny and wiggly in the sky could be a plasma being, or it could just be a piece of reflective plastic moving in the air currents. Grainy videos alone cannot distinguish between them. I do wish you good luck in making your devices to gather more evidence, because that it was it needed to discuss this in a scientific manner. You need to show how your idea is undoubtedly the most probable because all other ideas are eliminated with solid, objective, clear-cut, statistically significant evidence.

Seems very homeworkish. What steps have you done to attempt it?