Bignose

So then, why are you wasting time posting on this forum? Seems to me that you should have some papers to write. If you really think your ideas can support all of the above, why aren't you writing them up and publishing them? If your ideas are really that strong, supporting evidence for them ought to be easy to come by. I don't know why you are wasting time with anonymous internet schlubs when -- if you can support your claims above -- you should be driving a physics revolution. Conversely, based on the fact that you are here, and based on the so-called evidence you've provided in this and prior threads, you still demonstrate a gross negligence of what is actually meaningful in science. In this and many prior threads, people have tried to point you in the right direction. I don't understand why you refuse. Even if you think that science is flawed in some great way (and again based on past threads, you do)... science is great in that if you can actually demonstrate a better way, science will change!. All you need is compelling, objective, statistically significant evidence. Your evidence to date has been wishy-washy, subjective, cherry-picked. I'm sorry, but I'm going to go with the current status which requires objectivity and significance. Again, if you think your ideas are so correct, why is it so hard to produce objective and significant evidence? I hope that you will ponder on this for a while. There is no point arguing about probabilities and Bayes ad nauseum if you can't actually provide evidence that your idea makes predictions that are are least in the neighborhood of the current predictions and their agreement. You are asking for an equal seat at the table because you think you are 'probably' correct. Science no longer accepts that. Demonstrate something besides 'probably' correct (which, BTW, I don't think you've demonstrated either, but let's set that aside for now) -- via prediction and agreement with measurements -- and you'll earn a seat at the table. Science really is simple in that regard -- predictions that agree with measurement win out. All this Bayes stuff is really just obfuscation that you have never actually published a model that does anywhere near as well as the current mainstream. If you disagree, just actually post a straight forward, non-wishy-washy, non-generic, non-vague prediction and compare that with what is actually measured. And then, really, if you can actually provide this forum that -- you ought to be preparing it for publication. Because if it really is straight forward, non-wishy-washy, non-generic, and non-vague, it is publishable. I guess I'm not going to hold my breath for that.

So... apart from it being a nice story, and some pictures of things that sort of, kind of, if you squint maybe, look alike... do you have any real basis for this belief? I mean, for one simple example, the forces on an electron is largely electromagnetic. Gravity is typically so very small that it is completely ignored. Comparatively, the force that is most influential on a galaxy is gravity, and electromagnetic forces are typically ignored. How do you justify the apparent difference in the nature of these forces if "We are within everything and everything is within us"? This is not the only one, but it is a good start.

Thanks for the backhanded insult here. I am well versed at mathematics and programming, FYI. If it is so simple, why is it so hard to directly answer my question?

I find it humorous that you 'disagree' and then say a lot of my same points. I will agree that it is a Catch-22 in that if the schools don't teach good science, it is hard for the media to be held responsible. But, the fact that the media plays so haphazardly with science reinforces the notion that it isn't so important to teach in schools. I guess in many ways, I don't care whose fault it lies with more -- both sides ought to address it. As for your ideas about the pyramids, I'd say that the more extraordinary evidence you can collect that backs up your ideas, then the less likely you will be ignored. Science is a human endeavor, with all the failing inherent in humans in play. This includes defending ideas in the face of evidence, and misusing power to quash competitive ideas. It isn't going to be fixed here. And your personal ideas belong it its own thread, not here. What is on topic for this discussion is the TV program Ancient Aliens, and how it pretends to be scientific but is woefully non rigorous in that respect.

This is the supreme cop out, in my opinion. Firstly, science doesn't 'prove' anything. It just shows what ideas make predictions that agree most with the evidence. It may surprise you that the Theory of Gravity isn't proven, for example. But is sure is verified almost uncountably times over. It will never be proven, it will just have the ability to make incredibly accurate predictions over and over. But if something ever came along that made better predictions, then it would supplant the Theory of Gravity. Secondly, the main problem with the show is that it doesn't bother to discuss the heaps and heaps of evidence against their ideas. They cherry pick in the hopes that their viewers won't bother to look any deeper than what they present. This is in no way science, though it tries to give every impression that it is science. It is this ingenuousness that really irritates people who actually like science and what it stands for. This kind of exposure to a wider audience belittles the actual science that occurs and really gives people the wrong impression about the state of science. This belittlement of actual science has effects on people. It's why far, far too many people actually think there is some kind of scientific controversy about creationism. It's why far, far, far, far too many people think that it is a bad idea to vaccinate their kids. It's why people continue to buy into non-proven medicines, supplements, herbs, etc. These last two can have the direst of consequences -- i.e. people die. Compare Ancient Aliens with the version of Cosmos that is airing right now. Cosmos has some speculative things in it -- and it isn't perfect -- but it does such a better job of using language to show what things are known and what things are speculative. It's not just 'poo-pooing', it's a question of how things pretending to be science present themselves. Edit: changed 'ingeniousness' to 'ingenuousness'... slightly different meanings of the words there

You haven't proved anything other than you are a poor speller. If you want to have a serious discussion, why don't you explain what you think time is, then? And actually help me understand your statement 'time doesn't exist'. Because I disagree that time is 'just' used to describe motion or rotation. Time still passes even when I sit still. How does this jive?

Really. You are honestly going to tell me that time doesn't exist? Please explain why your first post and your latest post in this thread didn't appear at the same time then. Because if time "didn't exist", shouldn't all this happen at the same instant?

The problem, mojo, is where does it end? I can write, draw, and create 'ancient texts' that provide plenty of speculation that I have an invisible dinosaur the lives in my backyard, I've created a cold fusion reactor from used kitty litter in my basement, and transmuted clay into platinum via the power of wishing. And then I can go all accusatory -- just like you did -- and ask who are you not to think that it's factual? This farcical example aside, the point is that what you have written could possibly be true, but given the evidence we have to date, you really can't call it the most likely. Science takes observations and predictions and goes with the ones that match the best, objectively, repeatably, and significantly. Interpreting these text as aliens is a possibility. But, it isn't the most probable. More probably is that many of the stories are allegorical in nature, and meant to convey a message in the context of their times. For example, the Bible hints that Methuselah was over 700 years old at the time of his death. Is that possible? Well, sure, I'd agree that its probability isn't exactly zero. But you must concede it is incredibly improbable. And the more probable interpretation of that very advanced age is that for the writers of the Biblical stories, age was directly correlated to wisdom, and vice versa. And as Methuselah was considered very wise, he must therefore have been very old. Bigger point: in science, it is not enough for an idea to just be possible to be considered equal. Science is not a pure democracy in which every idea is equal just because it exists. Science is a meritocracy, in which only the ideas that make the best predictions that agree the most with all the evidence (not just a few pieces) are considered the best. So if you really want to support the idea of aliens visiting the ancient peoples, then you need to demonstrate a great deal more of the evidence.

I think it is also important not to confuse significant figures of a number and the accuracy of a measuring device. The accuracy of a measuring device ought to drive the significant figures of the reported value, but so, very, very often it isn't done correctly.

Yates, On this forum we help, we don't just do it for you. So my very first question is what have you tried? What happened? Where are there errors?

If they are good scientists, they will readily acknowledge the differences between science and their personal opinions and beliefs. The 'far more well known' ones would at least have known to define their terms before trying to find evidence for them. MSC, I am sorry if I upset you. And in no way am I trying to impugn your beliefs or belief system. But,I am saying that by posting this on a science forum, you are invoking at least implicitly the rules of science. Which again are looking for objectivity, repeatability, and significance to results. Your ideas as presented here would probably go over well on a new age forum, or a philosophy forum, or several other venues. But, I'm sorry, it just isn't scientific. The last 120+ posts have been attempts to get you to see that, and help direct you towards a more scientific discussion. Getting upset at the people who are trying to prod you in that way really isn't going to get you anywhere. So, in my mind, the choice before you is: Do you 1) drop it? 2) refine it to be significantly more scientific? or 3) take it to a venue where it will be more appreciated? Because the simple truth is that what you have here just isn't appropriate for how this forum is normally operated. I think the moderators have been exceptionally patient considering what is essentially your perpetual breaking of the rules of the Speculations section of the forum by refusing to make your ideas more objective, repeatable, and significant.

Not sure how this helps or hurts the mathematical concept of entropy which has proven itself to be supremely valuable at making predictions that agree with reality. How one of the pioneers in thermodynamics conducted his life's affairs doesn't change the fact that your definitions of cleverness and order have yet to be shown to be scientific. And you ask "what do I expect?" I expect you to follow up with your use of the words. You declared that you were going to use the formal definition of entropy. Why is it so hard to believe that I actually expect that? If you didn't actually intend to do that, then why that word choice? And then, really, the overarching comment of what I expect is that: if you post on a forum dedicated to science, I expect at least some adherence to the principles of science. (And based on the comments, it's not just I alone in this.) Which means defining terms in an objective, clear-cut, repeatable and statistically significant way. This doesn't have to be math, but math usually helps quite a lot in fulfilling the above. So, what do I expect? I expect at least a modicum of science, and so far this thread is clearly lacking. Lastly, that's ok if you can't provide it. I just think it would be fair for you to acknowledge that what has been posted to date hasn't been scientific.

You're so close, now. Definition #2 there. That's the thermodynamics definition. So let's go all the way: [math]\Delta S = \frac{\int dQ_{rev}}{T}[/math] So, now you've claimed to use the 'formal' definition, and even your citation supports this (even if it isn't the #1 definition that suffers from the same problems I showed above). So, are you actually going to do something with this? Apart from draw a graph that is basically unrelated, unlabeled, and made up...

I find this disingenuous at best, since the 'formal' definition of entropy is mathematical and firmly rooted in thermodynamics. It was only later co-opted in its use as a measure of disorder. A term that fails as being based on a human aesthetic of order vs. disorder -- as I showed previously. Using it as a synonym for cleverness fails the same test -- it is all in how you define it. If you wish to use the formal definition of entropy, then it is mathematical and you should be able to define cleverness mathematically. I'm not holding my breath as we're 120+ posts into this and if you had this in your holster, you should have pulled it out by now. But feel free to show me wrong here. Please back up your statement here and use the 'formal definition' of entropy.

But this definition lacks a fair amount too. Take for instance Benard convection cells in a fluid that is heated uniformly from below. The shape of these cells form perfect hexagons. This is clearly ordered. But most assuredly entropy is increasing in this situation -- despite what appears to be increased 'order'. This is the difficulty in applying human aesthetics like 'order' to what is inherently a mathematical concept like entropy. And ultimately shows that this concept doesn't fit too well for defining 'cleverness' either.

This is basically the opposite of what an awful lot of differential equations say. For example, when I write the Navier Stokes equations... the velocity and pressure at a single point in a fluid is a function only of the gradients at that point (i.e. the differentials). Those gradients are measured over an infintesimal span of space. And you cannot tell me that differential equations have not be supremely successful at making very accurate predictions and describing phenomena very well. All that said, the differential equations are the result of turning integral equations -- obstensively representing the 'whole' -- into the differential equations via forms like the Divergence Theorem, Stokes' Theorem, the Reynolds Transport Theorem, etc. And so very often the most important factor in solving those differential equations correctly are the boundary conditions. I think the local descriptions have been very good, but it does leave open the question about larger scales.

Normally, a 'proof by computer' in the way you are suggesting is done when the number of cases to study is high, but finite -- and you can then sic the computer on the task of exhaustively checking each case. I would say that I would be surprised if any time soon we have any system that can be inputted a conjecture and be outputted a proof, other than a simple lookup database. The algorithm being talked about above seems to be good for exploring the space of truths given certain inputs. I imagine you can help direct it by giving it a certain limited about of givens. But that can be limiting, because often you don't know what axioms you will end up using to get to the final result. In short, proof making is still largely an art form, and computers haven't been all that good at recreating art-type stuff. Though, they do seem to get better at it every day.

This isn't right. The RHS doesn't have any df/dx terms. What you've posted here isn't the chain rule.

May I suggest that rather than code, you post the actual formulas you are using the code to solve? And preferably the derivation and what you take as the significance of those formulas... My point is 1) posting code is harder to read than well-formatted math formulas (especially if you use this forum's LaTeX capabilities) 2) code has a lot of distracting overhead, like initializing variables, the actual making of the grpahs etc. These just distract from your main points 3) if someone is really interested in the equations, they can write their own code to solve them. At the very minimum, I wouldn't post the code directly; if you feel you must post it, link to it stored to it offsite someplace. github would be my suggestion. Furthermore, the formulas should also drive to help address my yet-unanswered question of what makes this point you are focused on so important. If you can't clearly show that with math (again, as a turning point, or a maximum, an intersection.... something) then it really makes me question why any point is so important.

Next time actually write what you mean, rather than using inexact words, then, please.

There is little point in running a new program if you aren't willing to more clearly define what is or is not a significant output. I don't see how re-writing your code from one language to another changes the significance of its output. Lastly, you are right. I don't understand. I don't understand how you can defend x around 5500 as significant when, as above, I can use every one of your arguments to similarly defend both x around 4500 and x around 6500. Rewriting code into another language doesn't change that.

Ummm, you did write: Presumably 'anything' includes the 'later, speculative parts of this book', right? The point being, again, that parts of the book are good, parts of it not as much anymore. I assume that you have no major objection to that, right?

faizin, why do you keep expecting people to do this work for you? There are links to researchers' names on the right hand side of the link ajb provided, which included what institutes those researchers are with. There are some right there. And again, my suggestion of looking at papers in the area you are interested in -- the authors will list what institution they are with. So there are some more. We aren't going to know exactly what you're interested in, your best bet here is to make contact yourself and talk with some of these people who know more about the are you are interested in.

No one is saying it isn't, but you've made statements like this: and you can't honestly tell me that a book from 1973 with parts of the book on the subject of The Universe (part VI) or Experimental Tests of General Relativity (part IX) have the most current ideas in it. The ideas that best fit the universe have changed over the last 40 years based on newer evidence that we keep discovering. As a simple example, how old we thought the universe was is not the same as how old we think it is today. And we've tested relativity a great deal more in the last 40 years. I mean, if there wasn't information that superceded the book, why would papers like this http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/ even be published? If there wasn't more info, people would just say 'go to the book.' This is the point people are trying to make. I feel like you're trying to set up a false dichotomy, that the book is either denounced, or it is wholly correct. When obviously, it is neither. It was an important text, and it still is an important text, but it isn't perfect. And just because it has mistakes in it and just because some of its information is out of date doesn't make it wholly wrong and denounceable either. Each piece of info in the book has to stand on its own. Some of the book still represents our best knowledge, and some of it doesn't. Science marches on.

Ok, good, I appreciate your acknowledging this point. That said, a new set of code still doesn't address the point, and I'd like to see it actually addressed. On a meta level, you're right, I can always check out. But, I thought the point of posting this on a forum was to solicit at least some feedback -- and I'm trying to do that for you. If you didn't want to get feedback, feel free to go and start your own blog or website and allow or disallow all the feedback you want. And on that note, my feedback in my prior note was that I felt like you weren't paying any attention to that feedback, despite appearing like you were soliciting it. In reality, I think this even applies to this latest reply -- again, you acknowledge the feedback, but still don't really address it. So, again, if you don't plan to address it, then I guess I don't get why you're posting on a forum where the give and take -- the posting and the feedback are the main purpose of a forum.