Bignose

Wow, (please don't take this as name calling...) you are lecturing us about how science should work in your mind, but you don't even know what evidence is? I'm rather flabbergasted at this. In short, evidence is measurements that agree with the predictions made by someone. Strong evidence agrees very closely to predictions. Weak evidence doesn't agree very closely. Good evidence is clear-cut, objective, and statistically significant when measured.

So, to sum up. You are quite sure you're right, but there have been no tests to confirm or deny it because there is no alternative. This is called faith. Not science. You believe something without evidence for it, ergo faith. When you can present evidence for it, bring it to a scientist. But science is not interested in your faith. Wait, what? You just told me there wasn't any evidence. And, you've completely misunderstood science. Science doesn't have to prove you wrong. (Farcical example: "I have an invisible dinosaur I keep as a pet in my garage. Prove me wrong!") You have to provide a preponderance of clear-cut, objective, statistically significant evidence to support your idea. So, which is it? There is no evidence because "there is no alternative to modern language", or "the evidence all agrees with me" in which case, it should be easy to provide clear-cut, objective, statistically significant evidence.

I hope you have another bullet in that gun. Because [math]E=mc^2[/math] has been shown to be correct a great many times. Care to try again?

No, the root is the lack of evidence they provide, or the lack of their acknowledgement that evidence that has already been collected is contrary to their idea. Strong evidence in science, statistically and objectively strong, is usually pretty language independent. I.e. if a ball takes 2.3 s to hit the ground, it doesn't really matter if you call it a ball, a bola, a bal, a μπάλα, a pila, or a castle. If you're going to claim that language is limiting our ability to do science, then just like any other idea here, you're going to have to provide evidence of it. There was another member here who fervently believed that our use of the words 'theory' and 'law' were major determiners in the way they were used. He wasn't ever able to provide evidence for it. It is my hope that you can provide evidence you your idea (probably in a separate thread, this one is pretty cluttered as is).

Jokes don't translate well on a medium like this. This is a good attitude, I think. No one has said you have a time limit. Science normally takes time, and it is not unusual for it to take a lot of time. And if you have questions, that's what the forum is for. Just review what has been posted above, and if you need us to clarify our criticisms, then again just ask. Because what was pointed out above are pretty big hurdles to jump from what you've presented so far to something scientifically useful.

Well, I'm sorry to hear that. Resource acquisition is a challenge for almost everybody in science. The fact is that there are limited resources available, so it gets split up. But that fact that you can't afford resources to get more and/or more conclusive evidence is not evidence that all of science is blind to evidence. In fact, without knowing anything about what you're talking about here, the fact that you admit that you don't have any conclusive evidence means that any new idea is going to be tough to swallow. That doesn't make the people who don't accept it bad or wrong in anyway. Just skeptical and conservative. Not necessarily bad things. Basically, if you want people to believe in it, you need to keep presenting evidence that supports your idea. If it is truly the best idea, eventually they will come around. None of this supports the broad blanket statements about scientist's unwillingness to accept something you were making earlier, though. As swansont pointed out, you're extrapolating your experience and lumping all the scientists together. Your broad statements about the entire population of scientists isn't right as best evidenced by the fact that science find new things all the time and continues to progress.

Then you need to gather more evidence and/or stronger evidence and/or demonstrate that the existing evidence fits your idea better. If what you say above is true, then you just need to keep doing it. Sure, it won't be easy, but in the end, evidence is what wins out. Disparaging all scientists based on your lone experience here isn't going to win you over any friends, though. As you say yourself... it is all perspective. YOUR perspective is that scientists don't want to listen despite the evidence. But that doesn't ring true for all of us. I know and have known many very observant and very open to new evidence scientists. And, as swansont pointed out, the simple truth that science has continued to advance debunks your claims here.

... and lack of evidence. Why do we keep forgetting that, cladking? Strong evidence can be presented no matter what 'perspective' anyone has.

Just a word of advice. The above sounds awfully smarmy and condescending. If that was how you intended it to sound, then I'd ask you please don't. If it wasn't how you intended it to sounds, then please be aware of the word choices you use and how they come off on a medium like an internet forum. Even bigger than that is that the onus is on you to support your claims. It doesn't matter if it is all over all our heads. Science is by its default nature skeptical of any new claim. It is up to the supporter of that claim to provide evidence, whether that evidence is supremely basic or extraordinarily advanced, if you want to convince people. And to sum up what you've presented to date... I see no reason to believe your idea. Sorry, but you just haven't backed it up with anything. Whether what you've presented has been over my head or not, you can decide for yourself. I, for one, would like to see an extraordinarily basic derivation of how 1 + x = 2 can be turned into anything useful. Newton's third law was suggested above. F = ma. How to calculate the area of a circle. Anything at all. The door is wide open.

Then it should be easy to provide evidence for this new perspective. That is what this all boils down to. Provide evidence.

But, this isn't supported by the many paradigm shifts and large unexpected discoveries that have come from scientists.... What you are essentially saying then is that, in your opinion, paradigm shifts and large discoveries don't happen often enough? Scientists are indeed human. There are politics and jealousy and sometimes nasty behavior. There are people who lie about results. It does happen. I don't see how any of this changes the fundamental stance that before anyone should accept something, there should be corroborating evidence to support it. And scientists are naturally trained to be a little tougher to judge the evidence and ask for more evidence than the average person. The needing evidence to support an idea doesn't change whether that evidence is easy to see, or difficult to see, or whether that difficulty is due to time, money, equipment, or psychology.

It is really ironic to me that you two guys are huzzahing and congratulating each other in putting scientists in a box of "no change" when the thrill of discovering something new and known and major changing is exactly what most scientists got into the business for in the first place. What do you guys think they are publishing in those journals each month? Copies of the same stuff?!? Well, here's a hint. Journal articles are new and original research. It's basically all new. It's basically the complete and total opposite of your opinions here. Furthermore, the way science operates these days, if you aren't publishing a steady stream of articles -- a steady stream of new and original work -- you don't get funding, ergo you don't get paid. Do you guys really think people are paying these guys to sit around and not try to learn something new? Sheesh. Might want to double check that here...

I wanted to comment on this, too. Maybe there has been a tiny bit of ridicule. I would call it more a little bit of cynicism because you are not the first person to log in, tell us you have the answer to unification, and then further tell us that we don't need math for it. I strongly suspect you won't be the last. Maybe even more to the point here is that what you call 'ridicule' I'd call something different... because words are inexact, fungible, and open to interpretation depending on different points of view. There is certainly disbelief. You are making extremely extraordinary claims without presenting extraordinary evidence. Of course we're going to start with disbelief. You'd start at disbelief if I claimed I had a trillion dollar bill, hit 5 grand slams in a baseball game, ran a pool table 28 consecutive times, fostered a baby stegosaurus in my basement, or I split an atom with the powers of daisies and daffodils. Science by its very nature is conservative. As I wrote above, please don't take it personally. Every single claim is treated with disbelief until a preponderance of evidence is presented to support it. This is what you're missing - evidence. Lastly, you've gotten a lot of criticism. In my personal opinion, almost all of it is constructive. It is my sincere hope you take it to heart and try to address it. As swansont notes, this thread has gone on quite a while with very little actual discussion of your idea to date. The evidence of what you've posted so far seems you're more here itching for a fight to tell us how we won't understand your genius and we're a religion of math-wielding scientist that are trying to suppress the truth of the universe. Look. We're open to new ideas. If we weren't, firstly, there wouldn't be any science at all. All of science progresses with new ideas. However, secondly, we only accept new ideas supported by evidence. It really is that simple. We're not going to accept your idea simply because it makes a lot of sense to you. It has to make sense to us too, and to do that you just need to show us a great deal of evidence so that it does.

You can claim this, but no one is going to accept it without demonstrating it. Demonstrate how 1 + x = 2 can turn into any "larger standardized result". Wow, if it really easy enough for an average high schooler to get, then I really look forward to it.

Are you assuming here that graphics aren't based on math? Because, if so, you are grossly mistaken. From the whole post, I feel that you have not understood my lengthy posts above. I urge you to please re-read them. Note where I explicitly said that mathematics are not an absolute necessity, but demonstrate how they make objective, clear-cut, significant prediction and comparison with measurement supremely easier. Basically, you may think that math is hard. But trying to express objective, clear-cut,. significant physics without math is even harder. Doing physics without math is 'hard mode'; why wouldn't you want to make it easier for everyone else to understand exactly what you are saying with the perfect-for-this-job tool of mathematics? Shakespeare wrote "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet". It is beautiful poetic imagery. But it is not scientific. A scientist would need to quantify what are the units of sweetness? What are the controls? What are the ambient conditions? Shakespeare conveyed a powerful message using just words. But he didn't convey a scientific message. If you want to convey a scientific message, then I cannot urge you enough to learn how to use math to help you do that. Ultimately, it is your choice. And if you only want to do words, then that is fine. Just expect a lot of people not understanding what you mean, a lot of people reading into words differently than what you mean (Phi's reply above demonstrates this), and without specific testable predictions, a lot of people not being very interested. But, again, it is your choice.

Yeah. In fortran d makes the number a double instead of a single precision number. If you use e in exponential notation, the number is a single.

seleha, if you don't know what a do loop is, you don't just need FORTRAN help, but introduction to programming. A do loop is a relatively basic building block that is in most general languages to allow you to repeat execution of lines of code. Answering this question is beyond the scope of what a forum is intended to do. You need to start with an introduction to programming class. Some examples of many: http://www.stat.tamu.edu/~jnewton/604/chap7.pdf http://www.lrsm.upenn.edu/~vitek/courses/f77intro/f77intro.pdf There are many other books and online resources available. Search "introduction to programming" and "introduction to fortran"

I hope this it true as opposed to 'bowing out' as the bit about this quoted bit says. It is no shame in not knowing the math. None of us knew it when we started. And despite the title they gave me 'Maths Expert', I can tell you that there is a great, great deal of math I don't know either. It takes time to understand what the current ideas are saying and how they are expressed in math and why they have become the current best ideas. When you have questions along the way, use this forum as a resource. We have lots of people willing to answer questions and help along the way. If you stay on this path, I am sure you'll be on your way to expressing your idea scientifically.

I disagree, as per my post above. Science is about accurate prediction. An idea can be a kernel to begin on the path to accurate prediction, but I am sorry, an idea alone is just story telling. Regarding math, I agree it is not completely 100% absolutely necessary. However, what a framework it gives us for prediction making! Quite simply, words are fungible. The same word means different things to different people based on each's history, experiences, culture, and perspective. And this is what makes words great, actually. The best works of literature are constantly being reread and reinterpreted each generation as each new perspective is applied to it. But this doesn't work for science in terms of creating objective, clear-cut, metrics on how accurate a prediction is. Here is a favorite example I like to bring up: I walk into your room carrying a box, set the box down, and say "Whew! That box is heavy." What does this really mean? I am a Olympic weightlifter? A toll booth attendant? A ballet dancer? A man or a woman? Young, middle aged, or older? Etc. The problem here is the word 'heavy.' A mass I struggle to lift may be easy for you to lift. Scientifically, describing the box as heavy is almost meaningless. Compare that to "That box takes 50 N of force to lift." Now we have something. We have all agreed on what a Newton of force is, so whether you can exert 50 N of force easily or difficultly becomes immaterial. Now, let's frame this is concept of science and predictions. Say you and I both had an idea. My idea predicts that the box should take 39.4 N of force to lift. Your idea predicts that it will take 54.9 N of force to lift. Comparatively, my prediction has more than twice the error your prediction has. Scientifically, your prediction is better. And, if someone else comes along with an idea that predicts the box will take 49.1 N of force to lift, well, their idea makes predictions with even less error. This is why science so very, very often works in the framework of math. Because we can make predictions using math and directly calculate how much error they have. Let's look at one of the words you use 'disintegration'. That's fine, but we all could have a different idea of what that really is. What a good scientific idea would do is tell us about the disintegration. How quickly does it happen? How often? How to the conditions of the event change the answers to those first two questions? What are the results of the disintegration? As in, how much energy is released? How much mass is left? As you even alluded to, there is a wealth of data published from the super colliders, how well does the predictions based on your ideas match what has been observed to date? An so on. As I've written above. The idea is the kernel to start down the path of actually doing science. But unless specific testable, objective, clear-cut predictions are made, most ideas -- as you've presented here -- are more akin to story telling than anything scientific. Lastly, like my last paragraph above, I hope you don't take this criticism personally. It seems to me that you are excited about this idea and excited about exploring it scientifically. That's great. But, you need to start taking this idea and turning it into specific predictions. math is not absolutely needed to achieve that, but math makes this goal tremendously easier to achieve. p.s. As a suggestion, I would also drop the narrative of what your education and IQ level are and so on. It is just a distraction from the scientific merit of your idea. Science itself is very blind to the pedigree of the person who thought up an idea. The primary metric of how good an idea is scientifically is how accurate its predictions are. We are well past the days of when scientists would accept the word of someone because they had the right degree, bloodline, belonged to the right church, had the favor of the king, etc. Science doesn't care if you didn't pass kindergarten or have been awarded 15 doctorates. You just have to demonstrate that predictions based on your idea are better than the current best predictions, and you will receive a great deal of attention about your idea. It really is that simple.

That reply doesn't address why 68.6% is anything more than a coincidence. This is a science forum. I need more than just coincidence to accept something. I need evidence supporting why the ratio of dark matter drives what elements can be synthesized.

So, apart from the fact that you have a belief that there are only 172 possible elements (any evidence for this apart from a spreadsheet you colored?), and that the current best estimate of the percent amount of dark energy just happens to equal the same ratio of dividing the currently able-to-be synthesized highest atomic number divided by your unsupported so-called maximum atomic number just happens to be the same, how can we know that this isn't just a coincidence? Further more, how can you claim above that someday the universe will be 99.9999% dark energy, when we basically don't even know what dark energy is? Basically, all I see here is fanciful story telling. On a science forum, you need to present predictions and how closely those predictions agree with measurements -- in short, evidence. All I see here is a coincidence. You know what else is 68.6%? The Canadian Hotel occupancy rate for the week ending 3 May 2014. http://www.hotelnewsresource.com/article77793.html I imagine those hotels had a run of rooms with a view of the universe expansion, right? The country of Namibia imports 68.6% of their power http://www.thevillager.com.na/articles/5727/Namibian-imports-68-6--of-power/ Maybe they should power them with reactors based on element 118? The University of Wisconsin Madison acceptance rate was 68.6% http://www.acceptancerate.com/schools/university-of-wisconsin-madison just think, at the end of the universe even C- students with SAT scores in the low percentiles will be accepted into the school because the acceptance rate will be 99.9999% just like the supposed ration of dark energy in the universe. The above examples are farcical, but currently the coincidences here seem just a relevant as the coincidence you have manufactured above.

This is more a good example when someone comes on the forum and claims that gravity and magnetism are the same thing. Or gravity is a push, not a pull. So, it's like, "ok, then show us how your push (magnetic force) idea makes predictions the agree with observations, in this case the observation being what conditions are necessary for a geostationary orbit?". This is a nice problem because it is something that any 1st semester university physics student should be able to do, has a known solution and observation, and really an opportunity to showcase the difference between the currently accepted idea and someone's new idea. Maybe Klaynos has any example, but despite how much good doing such an example would be, I have never seen someone who claims to have a new idea fulfill the above request. If you are going to claim this, then it needs to be demonstrated. Actually, the above example isn't a terrible one. If you can 'unify everything' then start with your the first principles in your idea and end up deriving the equations for a geostationary orbit. This isn't just Googling them and copying them. I would like to see this proposed unification and how it brings together 'everything'. Then, since this is a unification of everything, please demonstrate how using those same principles reduce to the currently accepted equations used in quantum mechanics. This answers your bigger question, too, on how to present your ideas. If you wish to present them in a scientific manner -- and the fact that you're on a science forum indicates to me that you do -- then know that science is almost wholly about prediction and measurement. And the main metric in science that determines how well accepted an idea is is simply how accurately the predictions based on that idea are when compared to measurement. So, conceptually, it is very easy to understand what makes an idea better scientifically: a new idea will be considered better if it predicts more things than the old idea, it predicts things more accurately than the old idea, or both. Practically, this is typically very hard to actually do. Again, as an example, no one who has come on here with a so-called 'better' idea for gravity, relativity, cold fusion, quantum mechanics, fluid mechanics, astrophysics, or many others have actually demonstrated better predictions than the current ones based on their ideas. That because, well, we have had a lot of smart, hard-working people who have been able to come up with ideas that make very accurate predictions. Now, there are still plenty of things that we don't have good predictions for. Such as, a single good idea that makes predictions at both very large and very small scales. This is why I asked the question above: use your unification to show us how it makes predictions at the large scale (geostationary orbit around a planetary body) and the small scale (quantum mechanics). If your idea can actually do this, then it fulfills the criteria I said out above: it makes more predictions that the current best ideas do. So, all that said, I look forward to seeing your idea posted here. Lastly, I hope that you will understand my and many other people's skepticism to this claim. Basically, this is an extremely extraordinary claim. You're going to have to present a great deal of extraordinary evidence -- accurate predictions to measurements based on your idea -- to convince people. There have been many people who have claimed what you have. And when people start to point out inconsistencies or inadequacies in your idea, please don't take it personally. We are all posting on this forum because we enjoy science, and all ideas in science are examined very thoroughly to test their mettle. Peer review, where other people dig very deep into an idea to find any flaw is common in science. This is just a random anonymous internet forum, figuratively a cake walk compared to the minefield of presenting a paper at a conference or submitting a paper to peer review before publication. The biggest thing is that when someone points out an error on your part, use it as a chance to learn something, and improve your idea. And ultimately, don't be afraid to abandon parts of your idea if the evidence just isn't there. That is all part of science -- trying something and if its predictions just don't agree with measurements, then it doesn't matter how logical, easy, simple, straightforward, elegant, or beautiful it is... it just doesn't have merit scientifically. Science is all about accurate predictions.

Pleader, the way to keep this 'up front' is to demonstrate it scientifically. For that, you need to post predictions and comparisons of those predictions to measurements. If you can't do that, then it is just story telling and of minimal interest scientifically and to a science forum. You've done good actually bringing back citations when asked. But I still haven't seen any real prediction yet...

citation please.

Any idea that claims to solve or remove dark matter needs to demonstrate how the implications from that idea are able to recreate the dark matter maps we have today. http://www.universetoday.com/105619/astronomers-map-dark-matter-throughout-the-entire-universe/ and http://www.space.com/14176-dark-matter-biggest-map-unveiled.html for example. Whether you think that these mappings are actually mapping dark matter or not is your choice, what you can't do however, is ignore the effects that are leading what these maps are recording. Namely, the gravitational effects of something that we cannot see at this moment. Pleader88, you need to demonstrate how your idea directly leads to the above mappings of gravitational effects with no visible matter.