Bignose

units of mass do not equal units of energy/temperature any more than particles of dust equal dollars or miles equal barrels of beer. You have to have units right before anything else. There has never been a successful equal that has the wrong units. If you don't correct this, there is no point in talking about anything further, because being dimensionally correct is paramount. Apart from the fact this is is a significant change from the previous equation (so which one do you really want, are you just totally spitballing here?), these are also dimensionally incorrect as well.

Calm down there, Einstein. Let's make a single testable prediction before we make such ostentatious claims. As I said above, all you're doing here is telling stories. If you wish to start being taken seriously scientifically, you need to start presenting predictions made from your idea and measurements that agree with them. So far, you've failed pretty miserably at this with your prediction of a fractal universe, and now you have a prediction that particle is entropy. "Only after a particle is observed does it's speed and direction become tangible, before that it's just entropy." Please explain how a particle, which can be described by lots of units like its mass, or its charge, becomes entropy, which has units of energy/temperature? The units here don't work at all. This is like claiming the mileage in my car can be described by bananas per Batman. Or that my next paycheck will be paid in bits of string instead of dollars.

And what if an alien invasion fleet had attacked in the 5th hour of the experiment? What is all the investigators in the research project has suffered simultaneous heart attacks? What if the King of Siam has gone around punching all the test subjects in the nose when wearing the inverting glasses? There are countless what if's that could be brought up here... Sure, LR, anything could have happened. And there are stubborn people in all walks of life, even a few scientists. The point of bringing this up is that the flat generalizations made earlier were debunked. The people can indeed see changes even under unusual circumstances.

As Fuzzwood said, you can believe whatever you want. But your ideas don't have have evidence to support them. The earth's core has fission reactions, as confirmed by the types of neutrinos coming from the earth's core: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/07/18/nuclear-fission-confirmed-as-source-of-more-than-half-of-earths-heat/ Whereas the neutrinos coming from the sun are know to come from fusion reactions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_neutrino Until your 'belief' can explain this apparently vastly different reaction energy in the sun's and the earth's core, it is nothing more than your personal story. If you want to discuss these things scientifically, you need to not just write whatever flight of fancy comes to your mind, but understand that your ideas need to fit into the data that as already been measured.

... which makes it almost useless scientifically. If you can't falsify a statement, then you can't even test to see if it is true or not. Syn5, it is obvious you have a creative mind. But if you wish to channel that creativity to scientific pursuits, you're going to have to put some of your energy into learning what it means to actually do science. Right now, all you're doing is telling stories. Stories are useful, powerful, interesting, and can be very pleasing overall. But, they are rarely scientific. On this forum -- a forum devoted to talking about science -- you need to learn what is actually scientifically meaningful. Specifically, you making predictions and then seeing how closely those predictions agree with what is actually observed.

citation needed! Who defines it this way? This would not be my definition at all... this seems to be just another case you choosing the define words how you see fit. something that you need to back up with more than your story telling to date if you want anyone to take it seriously.

The real problem here is that all the way back to the very second line of your opening post there is an error. Because experiments can be done. There is a whole field devoted to it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_archaeology Not to mention the even simpler experiment of "I think x was very important to the culture of this people, and when we dig up the next site, we should find more figures depicting x." You may not think it is, but that is also an experiment because you make a prediction and then you see if it is accurate. ------------ Now, let's look at this very last post: "Such a lifting device appears all through the culture and written record"... presented with absolutely not corroborating evidence. You just state it. Well, I'm sorry, but in science, that isn't good enough. How can anyone check this statement of yours? It is all opinion and your interpretation. Can you cite 3 or 4 translators that agree with this translation? Can you cite 3 or 4 records where this is mentioned? Etc. More of these narratives you are posting aren't going to convince anyone because it isn't evidence. It is just you telling a story. You aren't doing science here.

if you think so, then the onus is on you to demonstrate how your idea can be turned into accurate predictions. No one else's. And don't expect anyone in the scientific world to be interested until you do.

That's not the metric for scientific discussions, however. The main metric in science is how well do predictions agree with measurements. So, really, what prediction does your 'fractal universe' make? "And as you keep zooming in or out you notice a pattern that repeats." Yes, ok, superficially, things look similar. I will agree that a planet orbiting a sun does indeed look very similar to the exceptionally flawed Bohr model of an electron orbiting a nucleus. Now, let's look at this in more detail. 1) we know that electrons don't actually orbit nuclei on a given path. Electrons around a nucleus don't seem to have any kind of fixed trajectory. Hence our best models are probabilistic. 2) we know that the force holding the electron to a nuclei is not gravity 3) there is no analog for moons that orbit planets that orbit a sun in the atom 'fractal' model 4) the distribution of matter is completely wrong (as Strange pointed out above) 5) and so on... I get why this has appeal to you. You're not the first one to think of this, (I think there have been at least 2 other threads on this exact topic in the last few months), and I'm sure you won't be the last. But when you use the tools of science and start to ask what predictions this model makes, it really breaks down. Aesthetic appeal aside, and it is quite aesthetically pleasing, its downright rotten scientifically. When predictions don't agree with observations, then a model is rejected, not matter how not "logically impossible" or aesthetically pleasing it is. Science is about accurate predictions.

In contrast, please review http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.7377 This is a 113 page review of all the most current experiments and how closely they agree with the predictions made by the theory of general relativity. Spoiler alert: really well. What I really don't get is why we're now talking about General Relativity. I thought we were talking about photons going through things?

Wow, confrontational much? What scientists really like is predictions and agreement with measurements. If you can demonstrate that your idea makes better predictions than their models, you will get a bunch of attention. If you come in all angry about the 'bull headed' people, then your rudeness will be responded to in kind. So, in short, I'd advise you to drop this confrontational attitude and focus instead of turning your idea into specific testable predictions and comparing them to known measurements. I'd also drop all the quips about politics in your delivery, too. For example, if you can use your idea to recreate the map of where dark matter is concentrated, http://www.space.com/14176-dark-matter-biggest-map-unveiled.html, your idea would receive quite a lot of attention.

Then why would you say that? If you already knew it, why would you deliberately post something that you already knew was wrong? Can I ask you not to do this again? What you are looking for the absorption of photons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_(electromagnetic_radiation) It has been studied extensively, but I am not intimately familiar with all the details on it. There appear to be many texts and articles written about it, though.

So then, this is easy. Shine a floodlight on a brick wall. Use a photon detector to measure the number of photons in front of the wall and behind the wall. Your idea here says that they will be equal, because the photons go right through the wall. Go perform this experiment and come back with the results.

No it isn't. This has nothing to do with the instinct on how to row a boat. This goes all the way back to: Where you tell us that 'modern language' is what is preventing us from doing science as well as we ought to, but you can't actually cite anything to back that us. That you feel you are 'probably right'; that you know it in your bones. This is the baloney I am calling you out on. Quit trying to change the subject, or dither away from what you've stated in your own posts. I want you to support your claim about how modern language is holding us back, or admit that there is no support and that your 'knowing it in you bones' is just your personal faith and of no use scientifically whatsoever.

It's not a question about Egypt. That belongs in a separate thread. It is a question about how you can think that knowing something "in your bones" is any more valid than flipping a coin, reading chicken entrails, or consulting a tarot card reader. Again, science has moved past this nonsense. Science accepts clear-cut, objective, significant evidence. Knowing something "in your bones" doesn't fulfill any of that.

Baloney. Science absolutely can study this question. You can get a bunch of people together who believe something 'in their bones', get a bunch of other people who believe something based on being presented evidence, and see which group is more right. You seem to just prefer thinking your ideas are right rather than actually exposing them to the rigors of science. You seem to prefer to wax on about ancient languages and modern languages and obfuscate what you're really talking about in the hope that no one dissects the gossamer and peers inside. You seem to prefer to play the role of the persecuted genius who is clearly so far ahead of everyone else but just can't get anyone else to see your genius. 'If only those curmudgeons could understand my ancient language, then they'd recognize my brilliance!!!' If you really cared about sharing what you think is your insight, you'd spend just a wee bit of time using our oh-so-primitive language and methods to help us poor underdeveloped chumps out. Well, again, I'm sorry, but real science has moved on. If what you say is correct, the science of today in our 'modern' language can study it. And determine if you are right or not. But that would destroy the illusion you've build around yourself. It really appears to me that you don't have any interest in actually discussing your idea, because you know in your bones you are right, and how dare anyone question such a fundamental and obviously right belief. You want to know what is really obscene about all this? Science actually HAS studied these questions. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10626367 http://www.csulb.edu/~cwallis/382/certainty/overconfidence/The%20Role%20of%20Individual%20Differences%20in%20the.pdf http://psych.cornell.edu/sites/default/files/90%20JPSP%20constual.pdf and so on and so on. If you'd get your head out of the sand and actually look at some of the work that has been done, you'd actually find that a lot of people have tried to answer questions like this. And study why people 'believe something in their bones'. Just because you're ignorant of the research that is out there, doesn't mean you can claim that science can't even begin to address it.

http://bit.ly/UTkc4E

The problem is that this has lead people to wrong ideas. That's why science sticks to the dispassionate, objective, clear-cut, statistical significant difference between measurement and prediction. A good example of this is N-Rays. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N_ray Basically, some top French physicists were a little jealous of the the people who discovered X-Rays, electrons, etc. So, in their desire to discover something new, they basically fooled themselves into seeing something that wasn't there. They knew it in their bones that they had discovered something. It wasn't until years later that someone reported seeing N-Rays when a sample wasn't in the device that the truth was discovered. Besides, how does one measure whose bones know something stronger? I may feel in my bones that there is a grand unification theory out there, but you don't. Exactly how do you really decide what is right? I know a guy who lost 2 fingers in an accident. My theories always trump his because I have more bones. But I lose out to the guy that was born with an extra rib. Who know who really wins? Babies. Babies are born with a lot more bones than adults have. We really should be capturing what babies know in their bones because they have so many more than the rest of us, right? I'm sorry, but science has moved on past such foolishness. I am sure there were people who felt in their bones that the earth was flat, the moon was made of green cheese, heat was a fluid called phlogiston, and so on. But objective measurements took all of this down. Fervent belief in something, by one person who 'feels it in their bones' or in many thousands or millions of believers are still far weaker than objective, scientific evidence.

One surely can, but if one wants to be treated scientifically, then what they say won't just be accepted because they said it. It has to be backed up by evidence. That is at the very core of what science means.

As I said above, the details of this should be move to your own thread, but if you re-read the long posts you've put here, you told us an awful lot about your personal interpretations of things like the pyramid texts, but as far as concrete evidence, there is very little. Yes, this will take quite a lot to actually post evidence in thorough detail. But, I'm not just going to accept your interpretation of hieroglyphics just because you say it is right. But, again, please reserve this detailed work for your own thread. If you want to defend your notions about how our 'modern language' doesn't let us science as well as you think we should be able to, that belongs here. Le Repteux, this is kind of interesting because this goes back to what I wrote above. That evidence as presented is examined thoroughly. That what at first glance can seem strong, can sometimes be found to be weak. A lot of times people use logical fallacies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies to make their evidence sound better, but once you learn to spot these, you can see whose arguments are weak and whose are strong.

I agree with Strange above. The number of people who believe in something doesn't really change whether that evidence is truly strong or not. One could argue, this is actually the single most important thing that science has accomplished. That science has said that the quality of evidence is based on how well the measurements agree with the predictions. And nothing else. Nothing about popularity or prestige or commonality or bloodlines or number of degrees anyone has etc. Just simply how closely measurement and prediction agree. I mean, there once was a time that many people thought the world was flat or the moon was made of green cheese. You can't tell me seriously that because so many people believed that, that at one time that would have been strong evidence? There are a lot of people who still don't get this. They will commonly say things like "well, Einstein once wrote this....". The point is that it doesn't matter if it was Einstein, Newton, swansont, Strange, me, or my 3 year old niece who wrote it. It is only valuable if what they wrote is backed up by clear-cut objective evidence.

Definition of evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. Now, evidence itself can be questioned. If I use a broken thermometer that always reads 10* low and use that data to try to support an idea, the evidence really doesn't support my case. Same thing with the Patterson Bigfoot video. The video is not real clear and so as a piece of evidence in support of the existence of Bigfoot, it is pretty weak. In a scientific setting, evidence is usually inspected very thoroughly. And as swansont noted above, people are always trying to improve on it. That's why we make sensors and scopes and detectors with improved accuracy. Not necessarily because we're rejecting previous evidence, but because we're just trying to eliminate any possible questions about that evidence. In short, I don't think that your definition is really the commonly accepted one. I've never seen it used in that way, personally, though to be fair my incredulity on that matter is pretty weak evidence because it is only anecdote. I think the 'usual' meaning is the one in the dictionary I quoted above.

cladking, you've presented your Egypt stuff before. You've had your own thread on it. I really thought this monumental paradigm shift that was about the current paradigm that apparently limits our ability to do science. That's what this whole thread has been about, the ability to do science and how new ideas are accepted. If you want to discuss your Egypt stuff, then it belongs in a different thread. So, then, how about providing some evidence that the way we think is limiting us. Specifically, I want you to support these statements here: This was about how our modern language is a factor in limiting us in our ability to do science. I am befuddled about how the first statement says there is no alternative, but in the second you think you are right. Somewhere in here you drifted to thinking we were talking about your personal Egypt theory, but I want to know how you can support your statement that another form of language is better for science than our modern ones. That's the heart of the matter of this thread.

What 'perspective' lets you write such a ridiculously self-contradictory statement?!? Sheesh. I just don't know what to say anymore. If this is right in your mind, then I think I'll never see your 'perspective' or your language or whatever you're on here. Look, if you want to convince us your idea is right, then you need to translate your 'ancient language' into something we can understand. And use terms as we all use them. And not write self-contradictory sentences and paragraphs. It may make sense to you, but it really doesn't to me. I'm trying here. I'm trying to give you a chance. But I can't understand these things when you say one thing and then seemingly say the opposite, just a few sentences or in the case of the quote above, just a few words later. You may have all the evidence in the world, but communication is also an important skill. If you can't communicate these ideas and evidences well, then you just aren't going convince anyone.

Ok. This is a bold claim. Let's see it. If it is that damn easy, just post it. Let's quit with all the vainglorious self-aggrandizing about how quickly you grokked it all up.