Bignose

This is somewhat prudent. Fairest would be to say that the current best observations support a slight acceleration in the expansion. And then this comes back to the OP that if he wants his model to be taken seriously, then he needs to demonstrate to us that his model makes predictions that agree with the observations. Right now there is a story with nothing to back it up. What I'd always like to see is a graph with 3 data sets: the current best observations, the current mainstream best predictions, and the newly presented model's predictions. In many years of asking for this I have seen exactly 0 graphs presented, though. Hopefully this will be the first!

Whoa whoa whoa, here. Just because it is a century old doesn't mean it isn't still awfully useful. Within its domain, its predictions are very good. And its domain has been extended significantly with improved interaction models. I actually think that more than enough evidence can be given showing how good its predictions are that the kinetic model of gas indeed does need to be accepted today. Unless you can provide a more accurate model, I don't think one can abandon the kinetic model of gases at all.

Very strong claim here with no evidence presented to support it. On the one hand, we have this http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.7377 which clearly demonstrates how accurate GR is in comparison to observations made. And on the other hand, we have someone who freely admits "I do not have a clue.. could sure use a knowledge of higher calculus right now." and therefore doesn't even understand what the current model has to say. But yet, it "isn't accurate". Com'on man, you gotta do better than this on a science forum. If you're going to claim something like this, you need to present a ton of evidence to back it up. Otherwise, it is just hubris and Dunning-Kruger effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect).

So, I'm going to go back to my (completely ignored) request in post #9 in this thread. Using http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.7377, can you please recreate their graphs showing observations, the current predictions from GR, and the prediction made by your model? Now that you claim to be able to 'prove it [GR] wrong mathematically' it should be super easy for you to demonstrate that your model does it 'right' and since it is more right it should make even better predictions than what we have. If there are any questions about this request, please let me know.

Look back at the first post. You didn't start it with "historical fun fact. We once thought that..." You started with a fact that is now known to be wrong. Why does it matter that we once thought it was right? Threads about other things that we once thought were right but now know are wrong are in Speculations, too. Like phlogiston, flat earth, hallow earth, etc. As near as I can tell, you aren't even arguing the point anymore. What exactly do you want? Someone to say that yes indeed there was a text 30+ years ago that agrees with you? Ok, there, done. Congratulations. But if we now know that is wrong, unless you want to discuss more about what we know today, why don't we just let this thread fade away?

I think you are getting way ahead of yourself. Using the accepted version of gravity today, I can write the math that describes a geostationary orbit very straightforwardly. No reason to invoke GR or cosmological constant or anything like that. I am asking you to do the same thing treating gravity as EM as you've claimed. No need to expand to cosmological scales if you can't even describe the local ones. I am hoping that you will clear up my question that I've asked several times now as to if gravity was EM based, why the sun doesn't repel the moon. Again, I don't care if you call it a push, a pull, an attraction, a repulsion, or so on. We know that things with opposite charges behave differently than things with same charges. If gravity was EM based -- and thus objects would have charges -- it doesn't fit what we see. This needs to be remedied before your idea goes any further. I have very little interest in an idea that doesn't match what we see.

No, not really. Because the experts know that gravity is an attractive force not a repulsion, and is not the same as EM. So you're saying [math]f_{gravity \ and \ EM}=\exp(something)?[/math]. what is that 'something'? You need to show me that this model makes better predictions than the models we have today. And this is not the functional form we see today which makes supremely accurate predictions. Here is an easy one: using your model of gravity/EM, please show the math for a geostationary orbit.

LOL, world's worst conspiracy. Hey, let's conspire to keep the masses from "understanding the universe", but let's publish review papers laying out all the evidence that supports it: http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.7377 The greys and the illuminati are just shaking their heads in pity.

whether you want to quibble on whether it is a push or a pull is rather immaterial here. You can dicker on word choice, but I notice that you didn't address any of the substance of my post. Namely, if what we call gravity today is an EM effect, why doesn't it obey what we know about EM today? Or, to the point, why isn't the moon repelled by the sun? Please propose a model that makes predictions that agree with observations. Again, I don't care whether you call it a pull, a push, least resistance, repulsion, attraction, or whatnot. I just want a model that agrees with what is observed.

But gravity being part of EM is trivially falsified. EM's attraction is between opposite charges. The moon is attracted to the earth. Ergo, the moon must have the opposite charge of the earth. The earth is attracted to the sun. Ergo, the earth must have the opposite sign of the sun. It them follows that the sun and the moon must have the same sign. Yet, in EM, the same charges are repelled, but the moon is not repelled by the sun. This is just one of many, many reasons we know that gravity is not the same as EM. Many have tried to proposed this exact same idea, and none have been able to offer forth a model that agrees with observations. Until such a time -- and there very well may be a unified force description we discover some day -- the best model science has is treating gravity and EM as separate.

This can be set up as a calculus problem. "Speed being constantly reduced" translates into an acceleration (deceleration). Then you use the fact that acceleration is the time derivative of velocity and velocity is the time derivative of position.

Unless I am grossly misreading the OP, the total distance traveled is 142 km. As stated "reach a sign that says your destination point is 142 kilometers away." During the 1 km between the 142 and 141 sign, the rate of speed is 142km/hr. Therefore it takes 1/142 hr to travel that distance. During the 1 km between the 141 and 140 sign, the rate of speed is 141km/hr. Therefore it takes 1/141 hr to travel that distance. During the 1 km between the 140 and 139 sign, the rate of speed is 140km/hr. Therefore it takes 1/140 hr to travel that distance. . . . During the 1 km between the 2 and 1 sign, the rate of speed is 2km/hr. Therefore it takes 1/2 hr to travel that distance. During the 1 km between the 1 and 0 sign, the rate of speed is 1km/hr. Therefore it takes 1/1 hr to travel that distance. You add up all of them, as given by the formula I posted above, and you have your answer.

Acme, this fails the "common sense" sniff test. The last km takes 1 hour. In the 2nd to last km you travel faster than in the last km. Ergo the 2nd to last km must take less than 1 full hour. You can use the same logic to know that the 3rd to last km takes less than 1 full hour, the 4th to last km takes less than a full hours, and so on for all 142 km. Since every single km takes 1 hour or less, your final total in time has to be less than 142 hours. 10 thousand is way off. [math]Total time = \sum_{i = 1}^{142} \frac{1}{i}[/math] is how I would calculate it.

Yes. I think we are all saying the same thing. 'Wrong' is a very general word. As I pointed out above, from a certain point of view, there is a certain amount of wrongness. But it also clearly isn't completely wrong, as it is correct in its domain of validity. All I am lobbying for is when we respond to the 'trisectors', that we make sure we are extremely careful about our use of the words. That we represent science completely fairly. Writing things like "relativity is not wrong" and leaving just at that only feeds the reputation of science as ivory tower 'preists' that dictate what is and isn't wrong. Writing out "relativity has proven to be supremely successful in its domain" gives a more complete answer and supports the philosophy of science of being most interested in prediction accuracy.

Well. At least one key difference is that there is not a formal proof that there is no model combining GR and QM like there is against trisecting an angle with straight edge and compass. I think most physicists feel that there is a model out there - string theory has been advertised as the best candidate for a while now - though there isn't any model that is blatantly obvious.

It is very pedantic, and for that I apologize, but from a certain point of view, relativity is wrong. It is at least incomplete. It's incompatible with QM today. So we know it isn't "not wrong". It IS, however, supremely successful are making predictions in its domain. That is undeniable -- the link I presented above. And our average relativity denier almost never presents a model, and those that do, their models usually make far worse predictions. But, I think that it is important to not just write "relativity is not wrong" and nothing else. But to be more explicit about where relativity is wrong and where is it supremely successful.

just randomly came across this today: http://youtu.be/8V7aA0RHK-Q thought it fit the thread. And maybe the biggest lesson is, again, luck happens and you can't read too much into any single anecdote.

All I was asking was if there was any 3rd part independent verification in the literature. I don't think that is too much to ask. Otherwise, yes, the conservative nature of science is that it will not just believe "fringe science" at its word. Mainstream science will always ask for evidence. This does indeed mean science has been "wrong" about some things. But in the end, all the things that have been eventually right have been supported by evidence. And when you have an extraordinary claim, it requires extraordinary evidence. That's all anyone has really been asking here, barfbag. What independent objective verifications are out there? To date, it doesn't appear much of anything. And that's ok. When something is cutting edge, that is not uncommon. Just don't expect people to get super excited about it, support it, give it grant money, etc. Because it doesn't have evidence to support it. Science demands evidence. It is really that simple.

Ok, so 1) I know there used to be program that would record hands for you so that you could analyze your own game and try to adjust your strategy. But 2) all we really have then is your gut feeling that you think you've been unfairly treated. I'm sorry, but the process you've laid out (randomly generating decks ahead of time rather than in real time) seems completely fair to me, and I'm also sorry you've gotten some cold cards. But unless you have proof that someone can look ahead and time what deck their table will be given, there is nothing here that demonstrates any unfairness.

This is why the specific citation matters. A peer-reviewed paper published in a reputable journal carries some weight that the work has been looked over by many different people. A well written paper will also have the method used to derive the formulas or the the experimental methodology used to gather the data. And allows anyone else to come along and replicate the results. Don't get me wrong, a papers aren't perfect. But it is incomparably better than a resume. I ask again, citation please. Where is this published?

So, you do understand that the house rakes a % of every pot, right? The house hosting the games makes their profit too. By this alone, most people will be negative expected valued. If there is no rake, then poker is a zero sum game. Someone wins and many lose. But, and here's the biggest thing, there is a skill to poker too. I can totally believe that even game with no rake, the average player is negative. Because there are some very skilled players that will be positive, and a large number of low skill players that will lose a lot. The nature of the game sets this distribution up. If you seat a table with 10 players and play until someone has all the chips you have 1 winner and 9 losers. The 'average' player here is negative expected value. Lastly, it is a random game. You could have a game where everyone plays perfectly all the time, and you will still end up with a winner and a lot of losers. Professional players have off nights, weeks, even months or years. Sometimes you just get cold cards. Really, unless you have millions of hands of data, I'm not sure you can claim unfairness simply from the random nature of the game + the skill part of the game. This is what you need to show that it "The distribution does not run according to statistics." Do you have this data? More than just a single anecdote about your one week?

How do they accomplish this timing? How can someone see what decks are coming up and thus do this timing? If someone doesn't know what deck is coming up, the fact that it was generated fairly but ahead of time doesn't matter. The question was posed above... are you honestly saying that rolling a pair of fair dice right now is actually different than rolling a pair of fair dice 1 minute ago?

None of this matters. I don't care about anyone's pedigree. If it was kindergartner or Albert Einstein saying it, I'd still want objective third-party verification of the data. Not someone's CV. This is a logical fallacy: appeal to authority.

if "yes" then what is the question? If the randomness is fair, then the equal distribution over time is also fair, by definition.

This is the same thing...