Bignose

One major difference. It is known & proven how to make a bolt and a nut. It is not known & proven how to make a drug with the specific actions and attributes you give it. Now, mankind may get to that point some day, but it isn't today. So, today, you need to actually do some science to make that first step wishing meaningful. This actually demonstrates the great improvement made in science & technology over the years. But, someone actually had to do and prove out that science and technology. Drug making is no where to that level yet. Again, the first step does have some meaning; it is good people do think about these things. I've said so since my first reply. But scientifically, the first step alone is not useful here. And I tried to suggest ways in which you could make it more useful -- namely, read up on some of the cutting edge research out there. Write articles that publicize the positive results that merit further study, with the intention of trying to help drive additional funding. But just saying "we need drugs that kill cancer cells" is so vague and so unspecific, it really is meaningless.

rbwinn, it's not a question of what I believe or not. Did you read anything in the link I posted? It shows many, many experiments that have agreed really quite well with GR. You know what I will accept? If you take an example out of that paper, and post a graph with the prediction from GR, the prediction from your math, and the measured values. If you can demonstrate that your predictions are more accurate than those of GR, then you've got something. That paper makes it easy, in a lot of cases it has already plotted 2 of those 3 things I am looking for. Ultimately, in my heart, I am a very practical person. I will use the model that makes the best predictions. GR is that at this moment, since you've posted no good evidence to think otherwise. And yes, science does have 'endless conversations about experiments' because, well, that's what science is. Making predictions that agree with experiments. If you are looking for 'truth' or something like that, you are looking for more philosophy than science. Sure, most people naturally have some overlapping interests. But ultimately, agreement with experiment is what is most meaningful scientifically. Look, I know that the above request is difficult. I don't expect it immediately. What I am trying to get you to do is show us that your idea has scientific merit. I am asking you to take the opportunity to make your argument stronger. That is, asking me what I personally believe doesn't make your argument stronger. Showing that your idea makes even better predictions than what is mainstream today will make your argument very, very strong. Here's hoping you chose the latter...

And yet you didn't do it. Where is the comparison between your prediction, the prediction of the current mainstream theory, and measurements? That paper I gave you have 100s of references to predictions and experiments performed. Use your math to make a prediction and show us how it is more accurate than GR.

Well, I think we can call this busted now, can't we? No trajectory anomalies reported http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/10/12/juno_spacecraft_gets_a_boost_from_earth.html

If you have a copy of MS Office, you effectively have VB6, because the Visual Basic for Applications (VBA) that comes as the macro language in Excel, Word, etc. is almost identical to VB6. Otherwise, asking the forum how to effectively pirate software isn't really cool. Actually, even worse than that... the 2012 version of VB is free from Microsoft's own website. http://www.microsoft.com/visualstudio/eng/downloads#d-express-windows-desktop Furthermore, since you haven't used basic since QBasic, I would think that you aren't necessarily wedded to basic, so you can use almost any other compiler. Like GNU C, or python, or ruby, etc.

For something you claim is mathematically incorrect, it seems to be pretty excellent at making predictions that agree with measurements. Please review http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/ and then demonstrate how your equations make even better predictions then we have today. Because in terms of what is rational is that the model that makes the most accurate predictions is favored. If you think your model is better, you need to demonstrate that your model makes even better predictions than the one favored today.

I'm not complaining about the possibility of any of the drug existing, as unlikely as it is. I am complaining that your thinking just saying you wish such a drug existed is meaningful. The analogy given by another poster of wishing there was a warp drive and then thinking that just the wishing means something. It doesn't. I am saying that real science is done by people who wish for something AND THEN also actually investigate how to make it happen. What is scientifically meaningful is reporting on drugs that one may think has the properties you're looking for, and also reporting on what actually happens when the drug is used. What is scientifically useful is, you know, actually doing science. Forming hypothesis, testing those hypothesis against experimental results, and repeating. In short, you stopped on just the very first step (and expected that it might be worthy of prizes). The first step is needed, it is necessary. But it isn't all that meaningful until the next many steps are take too. It is an old adage "you don't win a race in the first step, but you can lose it". I am saying that if you just stop here, you're going to lose the race -- because you've stopped and expected a medal to be draped over your shoulders when the rest of the racers are still moving forward. Again, the imagination to think of such ideas is needed. But all you've got at this point is a story. There is nothing scientifically meaningful. And as this is a science forum, you see how many people have issues with that you've written.

I think it is fair since you don't actually name a drug. You describe the effects the drug is supposed to have, sure, but not the drug itself. [begin sarcasm] Hey, I just invented the P drug. It kills HIV and AIDS. Hey everybody, I just solved AIDS! Hey, I just invented the [math]\aleph[/math] drug. It kills the virus that causes the cold. Hey everybody, I just cured the common cold! Hey, I just invented the [math]\textbf{niner}^{derp}[/math] drug. It makes ugly people attractive. Hey everybody, I just cured ugly! man, that was easy. I should probably get to inventing more drugs... [/end sarcasm] I'm sure you're going to tell me how these are different than your H & K drugs, but I don't see it. You just named what these supposed drugs are supposed to do, as did I. I don't think I did anything meaningful. And I'm sorry, but I don't think you did either. Meaningful work are the people who are actually discovering, creating, and testing drugs. Some of which actually do some of the things you named here. That's why I wrote you should be reading the research papers... Instead of just naming drugs with letters, you might actually learn something and maybe even might think of something that can actually help.

So, firstly I want to say that it is good to be thinking about such things. It is appreciated and necessary work. That said, the above is really not terribly helpful. All of the above approaches as well as many others have been tried, are being tried, and so on. And most importantly, they are being tried in a scientific way -- that is, investigating efficacy and side effects and comparing to placebo, and so on. To put it another way, I don't see what good just writing about some magic substance that kills cancer cells actually does. We've been looking for that for over 100 years. Or, more accurately, we've been looking for 100 years for something that kills cancer that also doesn't kill the person, because lots of things kill cancer cells. The real value is in actually doing science to find that substance. If you do want to write something meaningful, you need to be reading the articles on the cutting edge of cancer research, so you can form good opinions on what may be the most promising. And then write opinion pieces helping to solicit resources for research. Also, as a last piece of advice, the "prizes" section of the paper is really unnecessary, and it makes the entire paper read as little more than an ego stroke. I would drop it from future revisions.

Oh come on, did you even look?

No. I don't accept that. Especially from someone who also apparently doesn't know the theory... In your own words (emphasis mine): It doesn't matter if it is Strong Gravity, QCD, or the theory of dancing unicorns. If it is scientific, it will have evidence to support it. SG apparently doesn't have evidence. If it does, why don't you post it? If it is too far outside my knowledge, I'll ask questions about it. I'll admit when I am stumped. But I'm not going to let you tell me I have no knowledge on a subject, and end it there. Post some damn evidence if there is any, and leave out the implied personal insults.

I never said no knowledge, anywhere. My level of knowledge is completely a non issue for defending SG, which I notice you decided to not do yet again. What conclusion is anyone, with great knowledge or zero knowledge, to make of a supposedly viable idea that has no evidence to support it? No matter what my level of knowledge is, if there is no evidence to support an idea, it is not scientific. It is story telling.

TL, I appreciate the offer, but the reality is that this was the first chess related activity I've done in at least 5 years. I am out of practice, and really wasn't enjoying it anymore. I enjoyed this little blast from the past, but really I just clicked on the link and the thread out of curiosity. I hove other interests that are consuming more of my time these days.

So. David, there actually have been similar propulsion devices suggested (on this forum actually!). What I usually suggest is that you build yourself a prototype, install it on a boat, and get yourself on a quiet body of water. If it works the way you say it does, it should be easy to demonstrate, yes? Make sure you don't use any currents or wind effects -- nice an quiet. Amazingly, no one has ever come back able to do the above demonstration -- and no one has ever come back with gobs and gobs of cash, either. The laws of physics as we know them today say that devices such as yours don't work the way you are proposing. But, maybe you'll be the first. Best of luck. I hope you can show us a demo soon.

"not much" =/= "no". I have enough. I especially have enough about how science in general works. And that is, if you want to claim an idea is scientific, that that idea needs to demonstrate predictive capabilities that agree with measured results. I know that is shouldn't be this darn hard (25th post in this thread!) for a truly 'viable' idea to have actually demonstrated some predictions. And I don't just mean predicting concepts like "quarks cannot be isolated" -- I mean actual graphs of data measured and mathematical predictions of that data. I have enough knowledge about science to note that this thread is only just a smidgen better than most of the rest of the non-scientific ideas expounded upon in the Speculations forum. That smidgen is that it appears to actually have been published at one time in the 1960s. What about recent publications? If it is so viable, why does it seem to have lost so much favor? Ok then, so then we're back in the domain of QCD. If gravity is indeed such an influence at that scale, why isn't it included in QCD? The strong force, at this scale, is on the order of 10^39 times stronger than gravity... not much room to wiggle in there and actually be noticeable. I guess I just don't get what is being said here at all. I keep being told that SG is viable, but no evidence to back that up. Why is it so difficult to provide some evidence?

I will again admit, I don't know much about it. But I had always seen SG pitched as an alternative to QCD. Even if it isn't, and they work on different scales, what it needs to gain support is evidence that is makes predictions that agree with measurements. Just like anything scientific.

Or someone used to play a lot of competitive chess -- the move is also favored by the computer because it is a strong move. I will admit, I've enjoyed this thread if only to unearth some of those old skills. I used to be really good positionally, but I had to work very hard to help improve my tactical skills. 13... Bg4 isn't that hard to see tactically, but I again, I will admit that I've had a lot of practice. Averbakh's Chess Tactics was one of the hardest books I've ever read. The first 3 times I tried to read it, I knew it was above my head. It took me several years before my ability was mature enough to actually get something out of the book.

[math]\log b^a = a \log b[/math] So, say you need to calculate sqrt(25) = 25^(1/3) Using 'log' to be mean base 10 logarithm: [math] 25^{(1/3)} = 10^{ \log 25^{(1/3)} } = 10^{ (1/3) \log 25 } [/math] log 25 could be found in a table = 1.39794 1/3 that = 0.46598 Then 10^0.46598 could be found in a table = 2.924 and that's your answer.

14. Qe4 is replied with Bf3. If the Queen moves again, Qxh2. If White gets too greedy at any point and tries to take the Rook, ... Bc5 is very powerful. ...Bc5 leads to forced mates. White is in all sorts of trouble with both black bishops, the queen, and the knight on d5 ready to support, too. White has a lone bishop that is blocked by the pawn on d3 to try to defend. If after 14... Bf3, the Queen doesn't move again, then Black ends up well ahead materially.

You missed the devastating 13... Bg4. I would consider that a mistake. Positionally, I think 14... Nxf6 is stronger than the pawn taking. 15... Qg1 is almost a wasted move. The Queen leaves the strong longest diagonal for what exactly? I'd start my attack on whites queenside. You may not of 'hung' any pieces, true, but that doesn't mean that there aren't better moves.

I am remaining objective. Scientifically, the theory that makes the most good predictions, wins. Accuraet predictions is the ultimate in objectivity. Just as it always has. I'm not saying that QCD won't ever be replaced by something else, because chances are someday it will be. But that something else that does replace QCD, will replace QCD only because it makes more and more accurate predictions that QCD. If you are telling me that SG is viable, then it should be able to make at least somewhat good predictions. If it doesn't, then objectively, what else should be done? Objectively, I'll take the theory that makes good predictions over the theory that apparently can't. Ironically, I think it can fairly argue that your support for SG isn't terribly objective, since it doesn't have the predictive successes QCD does. Lastly, if someday SG can be shown to make more and better predictions than QCD, then I'll gladly change my mind. But right now, it appears that QCD is far, far superior at making accurate predictions.

I want something like this: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.1898.pdf A paper where they used experimentally measured values, compared them to the predictions from QCD, and demonstrated just how accurate the predictions from QCD are. If SG is truly to be considered 'viable', it should be able to do the same. Use the published experimental values, and make a plot with 3 curves on it: those experimental values, the predictions from QCD, and the predictions from SG. This is what more I want you to say. This is what I've been asking for since post #8 in this thread, and explicitly asked for in my last post. On the other hand, if SG can't do the above, I don't see how it can be considered viable. Because QCD would seem to be tremendously more scientifically useful.

Really? The only mistake? I'm not here to hurt any feelings, so I'll just note that I disagree with this assessment, and further note that such self-confidence typically limits further growth. In that, usually an honest assessment of one's abilities leads to quicker growth. And as an assessor, you clearly aren't perfect. Two posts ago you thought you could force the winning of white's queen; I demonstrated that was wrong. Again, I am not here to hurt feelings or trash talk or anything else. I am just noting that if you want to get better, I'm suggesting you take a more honest approach evaluating your own play.

Sensai, I agree. But gravity is far weaker on the atomic scale than em forces. This is my point. Strong and weak are relative terms. Gravity is strong on a galactic scale because the other forces are far weaker. Gravity is weak on the atomic scale because the other forces are far stronger. TL you still really aren't answering the question. Show me a direct comparison of strong gravity, QCD, and measurements. If SG is viable it should be making predictions of comparable accuracy to QCD.

Okay thanks for the history. You didn't answer my questions. Namely how does its predictions compare to experimental measurements and QCD's predictions?