Bignose

If you are correct, you should be able to fulfill this easily. Let's see a plot with 3 sets of data: experimental data, the prediction from general relativity and the prediction based on your idea. Demonstrate that your idea makes better predictions than GR. I suggest you start with: http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.7377 wherein a lot of these graphs are already made and demonstrate that GR makes excellent predictions that agree with measured values.

Have you never played much poker before? Because, like, this stuff happens all the time. I'm not a big poker player -- maybe 40 or 50 hours total in my life -- and I understand stuff like this happens all the time. As an anecdote, I remember one night a buddy won with pocket aces 3 hands out of 4 consecutive hands. Extremely unlikely for sure, but it happens. That's the nature of randomness. If you really think there is a problem, you need to calculate what the probability of getting pocket aces two hands in a row from a purely random distribution. And then calculate the probability of getting two aces from the shuffle server. If those two are significantly different, then I agree you have a problem. If they are the same, then there isn't a problem. But what you've presented here doesn't seem so unfair to me as just the nature of randomness.

Relative, this may be true (this is certainly NOT an endorsement by me), but IF it is true, then you really, really, really need to work on communication. Because you have not been able to adequately explain this at all. This includes using terms in their well defined and accepted ways. This includes accepting feedback from the users here. We aren't trying to personally attack you when we ask you questions. We are trying to understand what you are saying, because we think we are confused, you are confused, or both. I would suggest taking an example from some of the nice review articles out there. Where a topic is introduced, all the terms are introduced, and then the development of the problem is presented. Wrapping up with a conclusion presented with plenty of supporting evidence. Here is an example of what I am talking about. You start with 1 second... later that becomes 1 solar second. You must, must, must be sure to use the right words. This sloppiness does not help you and just frustrates people.

If this is the best you got, I guess I am pretty mild to it. From the conclusions section: "The model of the hydrogen atom considered here is not the most sophisticated one. The motion of the nucleus and the spins of election and of nucleus have been neglected. The electromagnetic field should be treated in second quantisation... As long as these more sophisticated calculations are not accomplished, there are no serious arguments from quantum mechanical theory to reject the existence of the hydrino state." So...... in this simplified model, which the author knows isn't complete, a hydrino isn't explicitly rejected. Yay (he says sarcastically). Too bad there are the other 3 papers cited above that do show that it is explicitly rejected by the current models. Again, I will agree that the models are not 100%, and that there is plenty more to learn. But, this isn't exactly a ringing endorsement here. And it certainly isn't the independent verification of his data that would really, really, bolster the case. I don't really know how you can say that with a straight face. The more I read about it, the worse it looks to me. Because of the lack of independent objective verification of the data.

Yes, of course critical thinking is needed in science. It is needed by both sides. One side can't just go around shouting 'viscosity!' and expect the other side to just nod and accept it, especially when the word is being used in opposition to how it is defined. In the same way, you can't just go around shouting 'magic leprechauns' and expect people to accept that, either. The problem is too many people don't truly understand what critical thinking is, and then also seem to refuse to move to the next step in the process, which is prediction and comparing those predictions with measurements. The critical thinking part of it can help you devise models in order to make those predictions, and invent experiments in order to take measurements. But thinking alone is almost meaningless. It is the objective nature of comparing accuracy between prediction and measurement that how allowed science to achieve the state is in today. Consider this. It wasn't all that long ago that critical thinking led to such insights as: the moon is made of green cheese, the earth is round, heat is a fluid called phlogiston, and N-rays. These were then overturned once the prediction and comparison to measurements showed that the thinking was in error. In short, critical thinking alone has led us to a great deal of wrong ideas. The real value of science is prediction and comparison to measurements. Leaving out this step results in mere story telling.

So, you've posted this twice now, yet have failed to back it up. Can you please post citations to the papers that support hydrinos? Not YouTube videos, not media from a company, but other peer reviewed papers that support this idea? Most preferably, papers not including Mills as an author in order to get some independent verification of his claims? There is always more to learn, but if this effect is as real as is claimed, any decent scientist knows it needs to be written up and subjected to peer review and if they wanted any kind of famousness, research like this would be worth of Nobel prizes. If someone is trying to get the word out on their great invention, having a Nobel prize in hand really helps convince the venture capitalists. I guess what I am saying is that there are papers published against it -- per the link above plus http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/7/1/127/fulltext/ and http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0608095.pdf -- but I don't see any that don't include Mills for hydrinos. Not to mention that if it were real, Mills should be doing his utmost to rebut the publications above. The fact this is all one sided makes it hard to swallow. You have to remember that science is very conservative, and before extraordinary claims are accepted, a great deal of extraordinary evidence needs to be presented, verified, and replicated. I know you are saying that this is happening, but if it is really as extraordinary as it is claimed, the papers should be flowing out of the groups and this ought to be giant news. I guess what I am really saying is: all the member here who aren't accepting of the paucity of evidence that has been presented to date are just fulfilling the skeptical conservative nature of science. And if someone really is defending their idea, then the response to that is to present more data. None of this other stuff about how much money he is or isn't making, other similar examples like cold fusion, his pedigree, or any of that matters. All that matters is evidence. And I'm sorry, but what is out there to date is a lot like that Patterson blurry shake film of Bigfoot. Sure, there could be something there. But what you see isn't enough to jump in full force with both feet. A lot, lot, lot more evidence needs to be presented. Our best models to date don't seem to think it very likely (again see the links I posted above), but that is the great thing about science -- almost all of our models are wrong at least in some way (in that they are at least incomplete)-- but a large amount of compelling evidence will help create the next models. But you can't get ahead of it and talk about new energy sources and rewriting physics without that evidence. So, barfbag, I think I speak for a lot of us when we're saying: we need to see a lot more evidence before giving it a lot more credence. I don't think that that is too much to ask.

Come on, man. If you're going to claim this, at least present some actual evidence of it happening. Show us your model of different 'viscosities' making better predictions than we have now. Otherwise, just admit that you're completely misusing the word and making stuff up. And lastly, exasperating someone to the point where they no longer wish to carry on a discourse with you is not a victory nor evidence that 'science is wrong'. All it means is that your communication style and presentation is terribly inefficient. If you REALLY supported your idea, why aren't you taking the feedback people are giving you here and making your idea better? And making your communications better? This isn't just a place for you to shout whatever you want. Go start your own blog or webpage for that.

In the physical world, yes, every measuring device has an accuracy. But mathematically that isn't so. Every range has an infinite count of numbers between it. And for a continuous probability, the probability of getting exactly one of those values is zero, per the above. This is solved by talking about probability of a value being in a range, which in many instances could indeed be the accuracy range of a measuring device. I thought I made this clear in the rest of my post (that you '[snip]ped' away. Did you read it all?

There is a lot of physics that can be 'explained' without math. But without an objective metric, such as accuracy between prediction and measurement, how do you decide what explanation is more correct? This is what you keep missing. The math is way to figure out objectively and without worrying how smart, clever, eloquent, authoritative, or closest to the deity of choice the person giving the explanation actually is. This is absolutely smashing. Because no longer does your credentials or pedigree or influence matter. All you have to do is be able to demonstrate that your ideas make better predictions than everyone else's. But, the kicker is that mathematics is that language of predictions. It is extremely precise. A favorite example of mine: imagine I walk into your room there carrying a box. I set the box down and remark "Whew! That box is heavy." Now what so that really mean? What is I was young? Old? An Olympic weightlifter? A ballerina? A toll booth attendant? Male? Female? And so on. The point is that words take on very different meanings to different people. What I consider heavy, you may consider light. Now, let's say I come in, set the box down, and say "Whew! That box weighs 50 kg." Now, because we've used the very precise language of mathematics, we have something that everyone knows what it is. Regardless of if you are an Olympic weightlifter and 50kg is light to you, or a young child where 50 kg would be very heavy to you. Let's stretch this analogy further. Let's say we each had a physics model of how much that box weighs. My model predicts the box is 38.6 kg. Your model predicts 47.9 kg. Your model is significantly closer to what the actual measurement is, and is therefore better scientifically. It doesn't matter how many degrees I had, how old I am, how many papers I've published -- your model is objectively better. And we get that objectivity via math. And, if a third person comes along with a model that predicts the box is 50.2 kg, well then their model is even better. This is why the maths are needed. To ensure that everyone is speaking the same language. Not the written or spoken word where words take on different meanings to different people. But a language where you can make very precise statements and then compare those statement to measurements and quantitatively judge how good those statements are. Many, many people have come on here and denounced mathematics as not needed, much like you have in this thread. But, when asked, none have come up with an objectively measurement of accuracy that comes even close to mathematics today. Here is the really great part about science -- and I've already mentioned it above several times. If you do have a better way of objectively measuring the accuracy of ideas -- better than math -- then let's hear it. And if it is truly better, then it will replace mathematics. Because science strives for the greatest accuracy at all times. I should conclude here that I'm not going to hold my breath until something else comes along, because mathematics have been supremely successful. But, I am open minded enough to listen to any alternative suggestions you have.

And Wolfram is a consummate salesman and he did a good job getting a lot of people excited about his work by promising a great deal of things -- and most experts in the fields agree he hasn't delivered. Cellular automata do lead to some interesting patterns. But they have been known for quite some time; they weren't really new in 2002. Wolfram is a very smart man. His Mathematica is an incredibly useful tool. But I caution you not to put too much emphasis on one person like this, especially when as I wrote above, he really hasn't delivered on the promises he's made. (You don't have to take my word for it, just browse some of the many reviews his book has gotten on Amazon.) Furthermore, given what you've described your triangles as -- I guess I also fail to see how cellular automata fall into that. Therefore, I also caution you to be careful not to oversell your idea. Especially as objective evidence and demonstrations of your idea have to date been extremely sparse. Don't fall into the same category as Wolfram.

I'm going to use it now! Some 4 hours into the future from your post! I have no idea what you mean by factor of time, nor what the variables you chose [math]\frac{E_k}{pv}[/math] are supposed to mean. So, apart from my very facetious use of them above, your question is essentially meaningless without context.

Viscosity is the result of intermolecular forces acting on one another. If there is nothing there, like empty space, how can there be anything to interact with and thus has a viscosity? I think you are grossly overestimating what viscosity is.

I hope you find what you are looking for. However, again, I wouldn't think of these as being such separate entities. This place may be called 'science forums', but we have plenty of engineers who log on too. Science and engineering really aren't very different from one another. I'll just repeat: Engineering may be a tinge more focused on application, but it is still a very tight partner with science. It is not going to be interested in triangles that aren't there. Or poor analogies of the physics forced into a particular scheme. Engineering still follows the same idea of science of being able to make the most accurate predictions possible. You will still need to demonstrate the usefulness of your idea via accurate predictions to any engineer, too.

What exactly are you trying to say here? That engineers don't make predictions?!? And that your description of triangles is what is already there? Because both of these are way, way, way wrong. I'm sorry, but unless you can demonstrate some evidence of your triangles and demonstrate their usefulness to make calculations, your idea isn't science, engineering, technology, or anything at all related to these. It is fiction. It is story telling. Engineering may be more practical and application based than pure science, but it doesn't divorce itself from reality and defend things with no evidence. No engineer is going to want to learn about a system of triangles if that isn't what is really happening. I'm sorry to be so blunt, and I appreciate the idea and the effort you've put into this. But I'm sorry, I just don't see how it can be useful to use this idea for any kind of training, science, or engineering. It just obfuscates what we know is actually really going on.

LR, Ophiliote's request should be easy to fulfill if you had reviewed the current literature. There is a technique called magnetoencephalography http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetoencephalography (usually abbreviated MEG) which can detect the magnetic fields caused by electric currents in the brain. Not to mention MRI, CT, PET, EEG, and so on. All of these are techniques for imaging what is going on in the brain. Surely, if your idea was right, there would be evidence published on the results from one of these many different imaging techniques. Why don't you review some of the literature (such as http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/07/10/1410963111.full.pdf+html that was announced just yesterday) and look for evidence of your idea. This would actually be something productive rather than your repetition of just saying that you believe they exist. On the other hand, if you haven't reviewed the literature, may I recommend that you spend some time educating yourself on the best knowledge we have on the brain today before you just toss out a major different concept on how the brain works. I mean, even if your idea is right, you should be able to cite many examples that fit your idea instead of just hoping that your idea is right, and to be able to cite those examples, you need to be familiar with the current literature.

So, how does the math change with your method? And can it make more accurate predictions of what is observed? Here is a good refernce for you to start with: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0510072 Please use some of the graphs in that paper to present a graph with your prediction, the current best prediction from GR, and the data. Show us that your idea makes more accurate predictions than what we have today, and I guarantee you will get a lot of people paying attention to your idea. On the other hand, if your idea cannot make better predictions, then you're not going to get much interest in your idea at all.

Again, I get all that. I know it. I am objecting to his proposed "zoom in and see triangles" when the graphics capabilities aren't really restricted to that (because they are good enough to not look triangular anymore, just one of many examples: http://www.welurk.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/lara-croft-romb-raider-infographic.jpg) and physically they aren't triangles. As I wrote above, he's obfuscating what is really there and in many ways making it worse.

I get that. But I don't see a need to explicitly display everything as a triangle when the graphics are capable of drawing pretty good spheres and polygons, etc. Especially when physically these things aren't triangles. He thinks it simplifies it, but I think making everything 3 sided obfuscates it more than it helps.

So, then, why triangles? Why not actually draw the shapes as they are. Modelling an electron as a sphere seems much more natural and simple than modelling it as a bunch of triangles? If you aren't changing the math -- and hence not changing the results -- why change how it is depicted? And why seemingly force everything into triangles? For example, if I took your entire post and replaced "triangles" with "squares", I don't think a single thing is really materially changed at all. Mankind has made simplifying examples a part of learning for just about as long as learning has been around. What good is there in wedging learning into a particular favorite shape?

I won't disagree with any of this. But, we can predict reality with a pretty darn good level of accuracy with our current mathematics. If your system can't even predict a simple problem with a decent level of accuracy, then there is nothing scientific about it. Despite your expressed personal feelings, science is all about making predictions and comparing those predictions to observations. Your method apparently can't even make simple predictions. You claim your system will help children and you claim that today education isn't helping them. Yet, you are going to present them a world view of triangles that isn't supported by evidence? I'm sorry, but if I had a kid, I wouldn't present them with this view. I'll take the current system that actually makes fairly accurate predictions. I don't see much value in learning about triangles just to have to unlearn it.

You keep saying this. Yet, you can't demonstrate how to use your idea to calculate my very simple example. Why is this?

This has been demonstrated to be approximately true (ignoring the units, which isn't usually a good idea). It is accurate to within about 1/2%. And, the historical reason why was also shown (e.g. trying to define a second based on a pendulum -- and the equation describing the motion of a pendulum has pi in it.) The whole of science has not changed.

it isn't that complex. I spotted the error very quickly. Once I saw the error, there is no point in continuing because it is all based on an erroneous premise. If you are building a house, and the foundation sinks or cracks, you don't just continue putting the 1st floor and the 2nd floor and roof on it. You fix the foundation. Your error is a broken foundation. Get it fixed and then see what conclusions can be drawn.

Wow. Just wow. All that text, and you didn't actually answer my question. I have no other conclusion to make other than your system does not work as well as the current best system. If this is the best way you can demonstrate your accuracy, you have a long, long way to go before you're going to get any interest from anyone actually working in science. I don't write this to be mean. Just trying to be realistic about what you have presented so far.

Ok, let's see that "as accurate as possible" then. Use your triangles to answer a simple physics question. I drop a regulation golf ball from 2m high. How long until it hits the ground? How high does it bounce back up?