Bignose

It may not be yours explicitly, but you are the one here claiming it as a viable alternative. So, I am curious, what predictions does it make? How do those compare to QCD?

Why do you think 26. Qb3 is forced? 26. Kb2 works nicely. White is still strongly ahead, in my opinion, with attacking options. The rook can get to the open a & b files, the knight can leap into action quickly, and the position is open enough the white bishop will wreck havoc too. Black has given too much away in a failed attack. White is now winning, assuming no more mistakes (both sides made plenty, in my opinion). At the very minimum, white can start to force some consolidation and make his extra pawn & extra knight really valuable. White only real worry in that scenario is black's a pawn.

In the 1st game, if white does 25. Nd2, white is in a pretty good spot. 25. Rd2?? is a blunder of epic proportions (literally since then black has a mate in 1).

So, your claim then is that gravity gets stronger between particles on a subatomic level, because of some extra dimensions. Sure, anything is possible, but QCD which doesn't include gravity seems to be pretty successful. I do agree that our knowledge of physics on that level is incomplete today. But, that doesn't mean that one assumes that your 'strong gravity' theory is correct. Secondly, please look at exactly what I wrote above. "Gravity is an exceptionally weak force on the scale of atoms". This is still correct, as best we know, and as backed up by the paper I linked to where they investigated gravity from single atoms. Your 'strong gravity' claim above is subatomic per your own words. And really, this entire discussion completely misses my bigger point above that when someone uses words like "exceptionally weak [or strong]" that the phrase is rather meaningless without context. That phrases like that imply a mathematical relationship, and if one refuses to provide mathematics -- then one shouldn't be making statements with implied mathematical substance.

This doesn't answer the question, though. If it is undetectable in any way, then it has no bearing whatsoever on the theory. I might as well write gravity(r,m1,m2,unicorns) = -Gm1m2/r^2. There is no point in including unicorns on the LHS of the equation if it doesn't show up in the right. And there is no point in including extra dimensions in an idea if it doesn't affect anything. You only include things in ideas if they actually affect the end result. I disagree. Your claim that gravity gets stronger at small scales has nothing to do with PG's electic black hole universe. AND your claim is unsubstantiated, and is in fact, somewhat refuted by the researcher who published that they were looking for such and effect and instead confirmed Newtonian gravity 100 times more accurately for small scales than anyone before.

Hmmm, I will admit that I could be misinterpreting this, but there didn't seem to be reported much here: http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0605018.pdf especially since they were looking for deviations from Newtonian gravity. I am pretty sure they report that they can reduce the measurement of possible non-Newtonian gravity by two orders of magnitude with the measurement technique they describe. In other words, they confirmed Newtonian gravity on the atomic level to an accuracy 100 times better than any before. And would think that had they found significant departures from Newtonian gravity at that scale, it would have spurred more and different papers. I guess what I am saying then is... while anything 'might' happen, this is still a science forum, and you don't just get to talk about things that 'might' happen. You need to provide some evidence. And ask a mod to split this off into its own thread. Ummm, if we can't observe it, then why would we include it in any calculations or theories? We might as well re-introduce undetectable fairies, then.

But, this is a serious issue that needs to be addressed more fully. It ties directly into disucssions like this http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/78832-how-does-an-ordinary-person-know-whats-mainstream/ on how is any lay person supposed to know what is truly peer reviewed and what isn't. Not only that, but the average lay person probably has no idea was peer reviewed even really means. Another valid question is, is the above a root cause or a symptom of a greater problem? "Publish or perish" has been an overriding truth for many academics for quite some time now. And it is being taken to extremes in some places in the world, such as China, where there is a burgeoning fake paper industry developing. http://www.americanscientist.org/science/pub/-472 That is, the pressure to increase one's publication numbers is so high, that people are willing to buy fake or plagiarized papers that are written in apparently a good enough way to actually be published. So the question is: are journals' review processes weak because the papers they get are so weak, or are they getting weak papers because their review process is known to be weak? Some combination of both I suspect, and really it is the entire scientific community that gets hurt. The more and more of these issues are found, the more it lends credence to the people who decry science as a conspiracy to defend evolution, global warming, relativity, etc.

But... I gave you the evidence. I pointed you to a data set that provides measurements as best as we can tell of the velocities of galaxies. This was the info you said you needed several posts back to use to determine the center of the galaxy. And now, when you actually get the data you said you needed... suddenly, you're just an amateur, and you can't actually do what you claimed. As I said above, once presented with a little work, a little bit of hard facts -- it is amazing how quickly the recoil happens. And I'm sorry, but if you are really going to claim you can't do the math, then you need to also drop using words like "extremely powerful"... because without mathematical estimate of how powerful they are, those words are meaningless. Extremely powerful is only a term that has meaning in a context. For example, Gravity is an extremely powerful force on the scale of the solar system. Gravity is an exceptionally weak force on the scale of atoms. Note both of those statements contain a context, and an implied mathematical comparison with the other fundamental forces. I don't just write "gravity is extremely powerful", because there is no context. If you can't or won't do the math, then you just need to admit all you've got it story telling and not science. Not a theory, not an explanation, but you have a story. That story may eventually bear out to be true, but without science to demonstrate it, it is just a story. Science today has a fair amount of evidence that is isn't the EM force that governs the movement of galaxies, etc. Our models using gravity seem to be pretty accurate. If you don't have a model that can make predictions using the EM force that is at least as good as our current models, then what you are doing just isn't scientifically interesting. If you really believe in your model, then you need to take some time and learn some mathematics and actually get your idea to a point where it will be scientifically interesting. I do wish you the best of luck doing this. I do also wish that my generality above is wrong, and that you will demonstrate that you are willing to do the work for your idea.

To add some background, the OP is a misinterpretation of what I posted in this thread: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/78987-how-do-you-add-exponents/?p=770371 To be specific, I was telling him not to place too much emphasis on achieving a specific number, like 1.0 because 1.0 is only meaningful depending on the system of units used. As in, it doesn't mean anything to get 1.0 inches and declare that sacrosanct, because 1.0 inches is also equal to 25.4 mm. If anything, the OP got my point completely backwards, because my point really is that it is of the utmost importance to be sure to write out what units you are using. But the units themselves are just a convention that everyone has agreed to. This is also related to the OP's thread here: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/79035-numerology-what-is-the-big-deal/ where he is also trying to ascribe significance to specific numbers that arise during a calculation.

The answer is, it depends. Pressure is a function of the number of collisions a gas makes with a surface. I.e. the pressure on a cylinder is directly the number of collisions the gas molecules make with the cylinder and the speed at which to collisions occur. In an ideal gas, pressure and temperature can be directly calculated from one another. This can be seen easily from the Ideal Gas Law, PV=nRT, especially since the constraints of the question above are that you also know moles (n) and volume (V). But, it isn't as straight forward for non-ideal gases. If the molecules interact at all, the way the molecules collide with one another and surfaces (i.e. that cylinder wall again) aren't are straightforward. Just having the pressure -- again a measure of how many collisions and how speedy they are -- isn't enough to know the temperature. You have to know how the molecules interact with walls & each other. i.e. square well potential? Leonard-Jones potential? and so on. Whether you can treat a gas as ideal or not really depends on the necessary accuracy of the question being asked, and the conditions you are trying to calculate about.

Then, cool story, bro. Because all you have is a story. Not science. It is amazing the number of people who have all the energy and creativity to come up with a story, but when they actually have to do some work they are shrinking violets. I guess I just don't understand what people get out of these kinds of behaviors. It is at least somewhat common though, since the Speculations section on this forum is bursting full of threads that follow this pattern.

No, you've misinterpreted. You are seemingly ascribing some kind of mysticism or importance on the number 1. You wrote things like "EVERYTHING IS 1 THEN". My point is that any particular value is 1.0 only in the correct units. And that the units themselves are completely and totally arbitrary. That is, mankind has all agreed exactly what a millimeter is. But there is no reason whatsoever that we couldn't have all decided that a millimeter was actually twice as long as it is today (call them bizzaro mm). It has just been defined to be what it is. And, we see this. There is no moral reason that an inch is any better or worse than a millimeter. They are just different. So my point is that there is no reason to ascribe any importance to achieving a number in a calculation of 1 inch. Because its value is only 1 if you use inches. Because 1 inch is also 25.4 mm is also 12.7 bizarro mm is also 0.000126262626 furlongs. The units are supremely important, but because the exact numeral is tied to a unit, that numeral itself changes depending upon the specific convention you are using. It is the fact that we have so many different conventions that lead to problems. There is no general rule for adding terms with exponents. [math]a^x + b^y[/math] is a term that only simplify in special cases. There is nothing like [math]a^x + b^y = (a+b^y)^{\frac{1}{x}}[/math] or [math]a^x + b^y = a^x(c+b^y)[/math] or other simplifications. If you have to perform the calculations, you have to calculate it fully.

I don't know what you are asking here. A wave length is just a length; it is a unit like all the rest.

Well, the very first thing is that arclength is not equal to the derivative of (stuff), but is equal to the integral of (stuff).

There is a Journal of Errology http://www.bioflukes.com/JoE that specifically wants you to document what your idea was, what you did to test it, and how the results came out spectacularly wrong from your idea. The concept being, of course, that we can all learn from mistakes, and maybe avoid trying the same flawed mistake in the first place.

But, those values are just 1 in a certain set of units. velocity of light = c = 1 in a set of units based on the speed of light. c also = 299 792.458 kilometers / second = 670 616 629 mph = 1.8026175 × 10^12 furlongs per fortnight. It is just units. Similarly 1 hour = 60*60 seconds. We just defined hours, seconds, minutes, millenia, etc. as conveniences. That's all. The choices sometimes make the math at little easier. There really isn't anything much deeper than that; we defined units of measure that are convenient.

I wanted to start a new thread, ancillary to the last one I started here on what amateurs actually have to do to make meaningful contributions (see http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/75040-on-unknowns-making-meaningful-contributions/#entry744966 ), about another very common annoyance I see in the speculations section, which is so very, very often the speculators refuse to admit they make mistakes. Back in 2006, solar scientists announced that the next sunspot cycle was going to be unprecedented. See http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/sunspot.shtml There are some good quotes in here: and In 2009, this prediction was scaled back some (see http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/29may_noaaprediction) but still predicted to be a very impactful sunspot maximum. and Well, here we are today, and virtually nothing. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/24/science/space/the-sun-that-did-not-roar.html?_r=2& said said Douglas Biesecker, a physicist at the Space Weather Prediction Center and the chairman of a panel that had issued predictions about the solar cycle. In other words, the foremost experts in this area are unafraid to admit that when they made a prediction and it did not match well with the actual measured values... they admit that their model it wrong. And needs more work. No digging in of the heels. No decrying that everyone who didn't believe in the [wrong] model belongs to the religion of science. Just acceptance their model obviously didn't work well, and that they need to go back and improve it. I wish we'd see a lot more of this in this Speculations section. I like to write in many of the Speculations threads that the creativity to come up with a new idea is needed. It is craved-for in the sciences. But to actually do science, you need to make predictions with your model and see how it matches up with reality. And then admit when your model doesn't work and needs to be improved.

Be exceptionally careful here. I agree that there are many ways of learning math. But, until you get into some extremely higher level mathematics, just because there are different ways to learn math, doesn't mean that there are equally as many different answers to the math. That is, there aren't many different ways of adding. Addition is addition and only addition. And when you add two numbers together, there is only one correct answer. Not sure how you support this claim. [math]2 \ne 1[/math]. 1 is just a number. It has been defined to have some nice properties, like any number times 1 will be equal to that same number. But, ultimately just a number, not 'everything'.

Me too! [math]V(x,y,z,t) = \frac{dX(x,y,z,t)}{dt}[/math]. Velocity of a particle through 3-D space (x, y, and z coordinates) and time which is commonly thought of as a 4th dimension. Ok, honesty time, I didn't come up with this. It's been defined for quite some time.

Maybe not surprisingly but 'people' are more against 'ObamaCare' than they are against the 'Affordable Care Act', polls show. By not a small margin, either, despite the two things being the same thing. My main takeaway from that is the vast majority of people on both sides only recognize it as something political and have very little understanding of what it actually does. http://politix.topix.com/homepage/8159-poll-more-people-against-obamacare-than-affordable-care-act There is also a humorous quote in this Slate article (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/09/john_boehner_and_a_government_shutdown_what_will_the_house_speaker_do_by.html) To answer Phi's question, I think that there would be almost no hope at all that ACA would be administered well should a Repub win the Oval Office in 2016. Though the Repubs are doing their best to ensure that doesn't happen. Just like 17 years ago under Gingrich, the Repubs have no concept of how much people will blame them for a gov't shutdown. Sure, everyone will take some blame, but it is easy to see just how childish and foolish the Repubs in the House are acting right now.

here you go: link to data with the velocities of galaxies; https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~dfabricant/huchra/seminar/lsc/lsc.dat You should be able to use this data to show where the center of the universe is, per your comment above. How long do you think it will take you?

I only repeated myself because it seemed you didn't understand what I was saying. Because you didn't really address any of the issues I asked about. I.e. namely you are not doing science. Challenging us to make our own models and to quit asking you about tests is not science. You even pretty much said that you have no idea if your model is right or not. This is not science. But this is a science forum. Here we talk science. Not the wishing of what we want nature to behave like, but what we think nature is like because the models we have of nature make predictions that agree excellently with what is observed. In other words, we follow the rules of science -- which you can't or won't do. So again, I am at the point where I don't understand why you started a thread on a science forum if you can't or won't follow the scientific process.

Why are you being insulting? I have not insulted you. I have tried my best to get you to make your work more meaningful scientifically. You are free to ignore my advice, of course. But I'm going to ask that the name calling and intelligence insulting end, please. And since you have ignored my attempts to help you make your work better 3 times, I guess I am done with this thread. I suspect you won't miss me much. And I suspect it won't be open for much longer anyway since you steadfastly refuse to follow the rules. I gotta reply to this two, since you've tossed it out many times. This is YOUR thread. We are discussing YOUR model, and the lack of tests and predictions it makes. Frankly, I'd rather have no model at all, than one that makes no predictions and can't pass any tests. At least with no model at all, you won't be tempted to try to explain something that the model can't do. Science is not confrontational like you are making it here. And it certainly doesn't just accept a model simply because there aren't any competitors to it. Science only accepts a model when it has shown some usefulness at making accurate predictions.

Exactly right. And neither do you. So, what exactly is the point of this thread, then?

As was asked above, I'm not sure where you get any sense of fear from, because that isn't it. Not sure why you think this has to be so confrontational... Let me put it this way. I don't accept just your word that anything you've written is correct or 'truth' without evidence presented that supports the correctness. This is in no way personal. This is true for everyone. If Newton, Einstein, Hawking, swansont, or my barber simply told me what was in your first post, I would still ask them for evidence to support it, what predictions can be made with the idea, and how closely those predictions match experiments. Science does this to everyone. In this way, science is very conservative. It is conservative that until a new model comes along and makes better predictions, science will stick with the previous model. Because there is no reason to replace a model that is making good predictions with a model that makes worse predictions. And science will be skeptical of all claims until evidence is presented to support that claim. (Look, as a farcical example, you wouldn't just believe me if I claimed to have an invisible dinosaur living in my garage, would you? Before you believed that, wouldn't you need some supporting evidence? I would hope so...) This does not mean that science isn't seeking new ideas. Because it is. Creativity like what you've shown above is needed. Craved. But the creative part is only one step in the scientific process. The next step is to take the creative model and show how it makes useful predictions. That's science. That's what I'm urging you to present. No fear here whatsoever. Just a skeptic that isn't going to simply take your word that what you've posted is truth. Because before I accept it as truth, I need you to show how well your model can be tested. It really is that simple.