Bignose

There is a wide and rich literature of published data presented by people who do have access to observation equipment. For example, look at how BICEP http://bicepkeck.org/ published their data: http://bicepkeck.org/B2_2014_i_figs/powspecres.pdf The red line is the predicted values. The dots with the error bars around them are the observed values. You should be able to do the same. Your idea should be able to make predictions. Compare those predictions to published values in the literature. Ignorance of the literature is not a valid excuse for not doing this, just like "I do not have access to the type of observation equipment necessary". Furthermore, the request isn't for 'proof'. Virtually nothing is 'proved' in science. What we get is a great deal of observations that agree really quite well with predictions. That's what we need from you to begin talking scientifically. Predictions and comparisons of how well those predictions agree with measurements.

When I am on my laptop (Win7, Google Chrome 37) I get a malware warning when I try to open a thread. I don't get it on my Android phone. Probably something to look into. Seems to be all threads. Even got the warning when the forum tried to display this thread after I clicked submit to start a new one.

TJ, welcome to the forum. Let me expand a little on what has been said above. You have 2 equations here that are poorly defined at best. Firstly, if an atom has infinite velocity, how does that jive with "nearly infinte density"? Because if the density was so high, the particles would be running into each other an awful lot. If you take that a step further, if a particle truly had infinite velocity, it should actually physically be in every single position in the universe at every single time. I am pretty sure there aren't any black hole particles in my living room where I am typing this! In short, I think the idea of a particle having infinite velocity needs to be rethought. Secondly, your second equation is rather meaningless too. What is universal drag? Drag is a force, so it has units of Newtons. The right hand side of your equation is energy (units of joules), energy density (joules per meter cubed), and 'universal constant'... which one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_constant#Table_of_universal_constants It can't be any of these we've already defined, because for this equation to be dimensionally sound, this constant has to have units of N*m^3/J^2. Thirdly, the reason people are bristling at the use of the word 'theory' is that as that word is used colloquially, it is not used in science. In science, the word theory is reserved for something which we have found an enormous amount of evidence to support. Like the Theory of Gravity. What you have here is a speculation, supposition, or really a story. Fourthly, if you want to take this beyond being just a story, you need to present evidence that supports your idea. This is how science is really done. You have an idea, you make predictions based on that idea, then you gather data and see how closely your predictions agree with what was actually measured. Now, we don't know a whole lot about black holes. But, your ideas, as presented, have implications. (i.e. something with infinite velocity would be in every position in the universe at every moment.) You need to make predictions based on these ideas. This is why people typically ask for (useful, dimensionally sound) mathematics, because mathematics makes it much, much easier to make predictions with. It is far easier to objectively measure "the ball weighs 5 kg" compared to "the ball didn't weigh very much". So, at this point, you need to help us. You need to actually turn your idea into predictions, and then you need to compare those predictions to data we've observed. Edited to add: p.s. lastly, it is a small point, but it also considered rather tacky to name something after yourself. If someday, you flesh this idea out with the tools of science and get is published and it becomes famous, the rest of the community will de facto name it after you. But, it is considered poor form and grossly egotistical to presumptively name it after yourself.

Naming it is not actually discussing what you've done here nor is it providing any evidence of your claims. Popcorn, you've been a member long enough, and we've had these kind of threads before. You cannot just claim something and expect us all to heap praise upon it, or even accept it. You are claiming a major advance, but just expecting us to accept that with some trivially counterfeited evidence? You really ought to know better than that. We're not going to accept you copying and pasting just inputs and outputs. You've claimed this before, and it was nowhere anywhere even close to what you claimed. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/72967-thread-hijack-a-lingual-theory-of-everything/?p=756823 In short, the 'empirical evidence' you've shown here is totally insufficient. If you aren't going to post the code, or let us interact with the machine via a web service or something, I don't know how you can change the above state of exceptionally sketchy and frankly unbelievable 'evidence'. Furthermore, if you aren't going to give us expose to it, then I guess like the above reply, I don't know what discussion is actually going to happen in this thread.

I don't think this can be commented on since you didn't actually, you know, show how you made it happen. You just posted a large quote, that to be honest, could easily have been faked. And considering the python code you had posted before, I frankly do not believe that the above came from that code. I ran it, and it returned gibberish. Basically, you probably need to post code that any of us can run and replicate the above. Or at least write about the theory of what you're claiming and back it up with not-easily-fakeable evidence.

This is where the phrase I specifically used -- domain of validity -- comes in. I never claimed Newton's laws were valid in the limit as light speed is approached. Just that Newton's laws were not invalidated in their domain of validity by Einstein. If anything, I think Einstein's work may have made Newton's work even more valid because the Einsteinian equations reduce to the Newtonian equations in the limit of speeds much less than light speed. Again, just because we're in the 'Classic Physics' subforum, doesn't mean we're ignorant of relativity.

It is disappointing to me that you assume that just because people post in the subforum entitled Classical Physics that you just assume they have no knowledge whatsoever about relativity. It is further disappointing that if you think relativity is the answer to the problem you've posed, that you haven't provided any evidence to support that assertion and furthermore you have the gall to lecture us about science when you can't even follow the basic tenant of supporting your statements with evidence. Probably the most disappointing the statement that Einstein somehow 'invalidated' Newton, when a good scientist should probably understand the domains of validity of each theory. But, maybe that's just me.

Unless you mean potential energy, I think you had best 1) define what 'gravitic' energy is and 2) ask the mods to move this thread to speculations because unless the first clause of this sentence is true, then you are talking about something very much not mainstream and therefore should be categorized as a speculation.

Yeah, you're probably right. Now excuse me, I'm going to go back to my work on finding a pattern in roulette table results. I know that if I just study it harder, I'll be able to find the pattern there, too. Because no one has proven that there isn't a pattern yet. I mean... 5 reds in a row, that mean the next one has almost surely got to be black!!!! Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster have both looked over my work and think it is sound. As a serious reply, maybe you should read what I have actually posted in this thread, twice now. But, again as I wrote above, until a pattern is demonstrated, your belief in one is unsupported by the best evidence and knowledge we have today. No amount of cliche-quoting, misunderstaing the word random, and wishing for a pattern to magically appear will change that. If you want to support this idea, then let's see some actual demonstration of it.

This whole thread has been about the pattern of primes! Have you even read it? Even if you had only read the last few posts, that is still tentacle's reaction to the phrase "there is no pattern in their occurrence". Very good, you've repeated the tautology that a number in the set of primes is prime. Because all you've done here is use the definition. The whole point about finding a pattern that predicts if a number is prime or not is to not have to use its explicit definition. And the whole point in finding a pattern is to hopefully dramatically speed up the calculation time for checking a prime. Do you know how long it would take even the best computers to use the above algorithm to check the currently known largest prime number 2^57885161 - 1? Probably millenia. This is why finding a pattern is so interesting. Now this I really don't get. Where does this idea that if something is random, then is has to be 50:50? This misconception has come up a lot of times, and I really don't get it. Rolling a fair 6 sided die is random. None it's values come up 50:50. Dealing a deck of cards is random. The chances of being dealt a straight flush is certainly not 50:50. I could go on and on and on. There are literally an infinite number of random events out there that aren't 50:50. All it takes to be random is for there to not be pattern. I mean, sheesh, look at the definition YOU POSTED!! Nothing about 50:50 in that! And finally, even with the tautology and the explicit definition of primes, look at the visualizations at the beginning of this thread. No patterns. That's the whole point. If you could prove a 100% accurate pattern, you'd revolutionize a great deal of mathematics. But the current state of knowledge doesn't have that. Random is exactly the right word which describes our current knowledge. I really don't understand the objections to this when the objectors cannot ever produce a pattern.

Really? If there is a particular pattern, then let's see it proven. (And not the tautology of "the numbers in the set of primes are prime" presented in "Probability of that 2,3,5,7,11,13 etc etc. is prime number is 100%.".) Using your own definition, if they aren't random, then there must be a pattern. I don't know how you can say "pattern to predict the next prime is completely not needed" when that is precisely what the definition YOU CHOSE TO USE says. Not to mention that THE PATTERN ITSELF it exactly what we're talking about. If this is so easy, let's see some supported results.

You can totally disagree all you want, nonetheless, the simple truth is that with our knowledge as of right now, no pattern has been found. If you disagree, let's see proof of a pattern. No 'intuition', no 'we need a breakthrough', but an actual demonstration of a pattern. Without that, the word random is a completely valid and accurate description of our knowledge today.

I'm only going to reiterate what Strange wrote because I agree with it completely. If you are unwilling to build the foundation in order to properly understand this work, what do you expect anyone else to do for you?

But you must acknowledge that any specialized field with his its own terminology, concepts, and vocabulary. If you wanted to know about chess, I would start with how the pieces move, the rules about being in check, and so on. If I started with the Yugoslav attack of the Dragon variation of Sicilian Opening, you have no hope. If you wanted to know about baseball, I would start with the basic rules about pitching and batting. If I started talking about reducing the grip pressure and pulling down on the windowshade to go outside to set up the high heat, you have no hope. If you want to know about American football, I would start with the basic rules about advancing the ball and the basics of tackling. If I started talking about lining up a Mike in 4-3 and shooting the B gap off of a stunt, you have no hope. I could continue on, but I think the point is made. Everything has its own terms and specializations that if you want to talk about them at a high level have to be learned. A lay audience is not going to understand it. A lay person CAN ask about things. But when you don't even have the basics down, the foundation for the advanced stuff isn't there. And I'm sorry, but if you don't even know what a spherical coordinate system is, or why it is used to graphically display a state space, then you aren't ready to truly understand this paper. There comes a point when you have to explain EVERYTHING to a lay person, and it isn't just explaining anymore. It is teaching basics. The authors of this paper and the intended audience of this paper are assumed to have a certain foundation. So really, you're at a crossroads here. You can make an effort yourself to learn these basics, and then be ready to understand the advanced cutting edge papers being written (as indicated above, this typically takes years), you can accept that you don't completely understand the paper and trust that the experts who do and wrote it have done their utmost to be as right as possible, or you can continue to grossly misunderstand and misinterpret what people are writing and hope against hope that you stumble on something correct. I would say that it is highly unlikely that a lay person could seriously 'rebut' any paper published in a reputable journal these days. The chances are about the same as a 5 year old discovering a new 3rd move in a chess game opening that revolutionizes the game.

If you're going to assert this, then there is little to no point in arguing with you. Because basically you are saying here that no matter how the building fell, explosives could have done it. In other words, every single object falling supports your idea of the use of explosives. In science, when all evidence supports an idea, that idea is not considered very strong at all. A strong idea can be falsified. Your saying that explosives could encompass 'a whole spectrrum [sic] of outcomes' means that the idea of using explosives can't be falsified. If this is your position, then why should anyone bother to discuss this with you? Because you're placed total and complete faith in this idea, and nothing is going to dissuade you.

There is no general operation (that I know of) that returns a vector in some circumstances and a scalar in others. I don't see how any operation that would work this way would remain tensor rank correct, and I guess I would question any model that would require this kind of behavior. There may be something out there like that, but I guess I can't envision any practical application of this behavior.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norm_(mathematics)

Your thoughts here still aren't supported by what I see: https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aircraft/glider_handbook/media/gfh_ch03.pdf Look at page 3-4. The FAA -- in their glider handbook -- published in 2013 (NOT 50 years old) -- is recommending adding turbulators. I see what you're saying. And it may reflect your experiences. And I respect that. But it doesn't seem that generalization about the entire gliding community are valid. There seems to be plenty of recent discussions and recommendations about use of turbulators in gliders.

There seems to be a lot of talk about adding turbulators to gliders: http://www.standardcirrus.org/Turbulators.php http://www.mh-aerotools.de/airfoils/turbulat.htm http://www.hanggliding.org/viewtopic.php?t=18126&view=previous Enthalpy I think you misinterpreting the function of these. Total drag = skin drag + form drag. Skin drag is a function of the roughness of the surface. Form drag is a function of the shape and how the vortexes shed from the shape. Vortexes shed very differently if the boundary layer is turbulent or laminar. Laminar boundary layers shed much more easily, leading to a much large wake and low pressure zone behind the body, leading to high form drag. Turbulent boundary layers lead to less form drag. But, laminar flow does have less skin drag because the velocity gradients in a laminar flow are less than in a turbulent flow. However, studies have shown, time and time again, that because a turbulent boundary layer lead to better vortex shedding that the overall drag is reduced. For a turbulent BL skin drag goes up, form drag goes way down. Net result is that total drag is less. It is not just a question of stalling (though that is related). The turbulence helps. Not just golf balls, but also airfoils. There is a reason they are put on everything. And you claims that they aren't are not backed up by what I see with just a few quick searches.

Didn't it pretty much evaporate instantly? I think the worry about it being on skin is the possibility of frostbite and if it is a liquid is can expose your skin to very cold very quickly. But if it didn't frostbite you, it probably turned to a gas and went off on its merry way. I mean, your skin and your clothes are normally exposed to air, right?

You should be able to answer this by looking up the definition of what constitutes a Markov Chain, paying particular attention to past, present, and future state dependence and independence.

No. Turbulators (also known as vortex generators) are very common in commercial aircraft. While large swaths of the wings are kept smooth, the entire thing is not 'as smooth as possible'. Maybe this is just being pedantic, but I think that it is important to get it right. I do not know about gliders specifically, but would be a little surprised if they didn't have something that performed the same function. Because, again, tripping the boundary layer to turbulent is overall considered very helpful.

Not really. Whole books are written on these topics. I tend to write long replies, but not that long...

The design of every golf ball made in the last 150 years would disagree with this statement. The roughness of a surface does increase the surface drag, but reduces the form drag because it helps trip the boundary layer from laminar to turbulent and a turbulent boundary layer separates much later along a bluff body. A smooth sphere with a laminar boundary layer will exhibit its wake separating around 135*, leaving a very large low pressure void in the wake, significantly increasing form drag. http://authors.library.caltech.edu/25017/4/figs/fig502a.jpg A dimpled sphere where the boundary layer is turbulent will separate around 160-170*, leaving a much smaller low pressure void. The decrease in form drag more than makes up for the small increase in skin friction. http://www.simscience.org/fluid/red/image/golfball_d5.jpg Note how much smaller the wake is behind the dimpled golf ball. Mythbusters found an improvement from dimpling a car, too. http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/dimpled-car-minimyth.htm I think a main reason this isn't done today is that the manufacturers think it looks ugly. But I predict it won't be too much longer before dimples and similar features are on our cars. I, for one, would buy a dimpled car for 11% fuel consumption savings. Your comment about reducing stalling is relevant however, because you will see very similar dimples on airplane wings, typically called turbulators, and they are there for the exact same purpose -- to trip the boundary layer from laminar to turbulent to result in better wake separation. Edited to add: one of many graphs that can be found of CD as a function of Re. http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/drag/drag-disk.jpg Note the change in the graph for a rough sphere vs. a smooth sphere.

Buckingham Pi Theorem is a good place to start on the study of dimensionless numbers. Any good introductory level fluid mechanics text should cover this.