Bignose

No. You've almost completely misinterpreted what I wrote. I shall try to be more direct. You can sit there and pontificate about octohedrons, great circles, and electrons all you want. But if you cannot turn that pontification into testable predictions, then is isn't science. Period. End of story. It is story telling. You say you seek "truth", but if you can't test it and make sure that its predictions are accurate, how exactly do justify calling it "truth"? At one time, it seemed "truthful" to claim the earth was flat. At one time, it seemed "truthful" to claim the moon was made of green cheese. At one time, it seemed "truthful" to claim heat was a fluid call phlogiston. We have learned that just because something seems truthful (or logical, or aesthetically pleasing, or any of many similar adjectives), it doesn't make it so. Truth-iness alone is scientifically meaningless. I wrote the above and my previous post in an attempt to urge you to think about how to turn your idea into something scientifically meaningful. And silly me, I thought you were posting on this forum for feedback, and I was providing my feedback. If you were just posting to post, you are free to start your own blog. A forum involves replies back and forth. And maybe, most importantly, you should read the rules of this forum before you post here. The rules require you provide evidence for your ideas -- yes even here in the speculations section. In other words, the rules do not allow soapboxing. So, what are the odds you can provide some? You don't get to just claim your words are "truth". You need to provide as least some smidgen of evidence or support.

Sure, but this is forum primarily on the subject of science. Science as it means today is almost wholly accurate prediction of phenomena. It is the process of formulating an idea AND THEN using that idea to make predictions AND THEN checking those predictions against what is actually observed. Note that those are 'AND's, not 'OR's. Almost always, it is loop; after comparing the prediction and the observation, usually one then modifies the idea and repeats. If all you want to talk about is truths, this is primarily the domain of philosophy. Without predictions and comparisons to those predictions (synonymously referred to above as testing the idea), it really isn't all that interesting scientifically. This is why you were asked about testing the idea. The point being two fold: firstly, if you can't make predictions using the idea, then again it is uninteresting scientifically. It may be interesting story telling, but it isn't science. Secondly, if you can't make predictions using it, how do you ever check if it is correct or not? Without the loop of comparing prediction and observation, the idea doesn't have any validation. That is, if the idea leads to a really poor prediction, then that acts as a check on the idea and tells you that this idea isn't right. If you want to talk about truths scientifically, then the prediction and comparison to measurement steps are essential. That is how science gets to 'truths', with the implicit understanding that if someday an idea comes along that makes even better predictions that what was 'truth' will be replaced by a new 'truth'. This is part of the reason that science doesn't like to use the word 'truth'. Because science recognizes that any idea may someday be replaced by an even better idea. Lastly, please note I am not disparaging you or your idea here. Just trying to explain why the attitude above won't really be embraced on a forum dedicated to science. You may find a metaphysics-type forum more welcoming.

I don't think that this is the root of the problem. The root of the problem is that you don't answer direct questions (e.g. my and sawnsont's question about what test would you perform to detect this electromagnetic fluid), and you don't answer questions well at all. Another big part of the problem is that you seem unable to provide quantitative predictions. This is a big one, because most anyone can craft a story. But turned that story into a prediction and then comparing that prediction to what is actually measured... now that is something scientifically meaningful. I ask most people to provide a graph showing the current best measurements, the predictions by the current mainstream idea, and the the predictions made by their idea. And I further tell them that if that graph shows more accurate predictions than the current mainstream, that they will be getting a lot of attention. No one in speculations has been able to make that graph yet. Any chance you could be the first? I will not be waiting with baited breath. And, I'm sorry, but most scientists will also dismiss this similarly. You obviously have a creative mind, and have some talent for story telling. But that is all this has been so far -- telling stories. There is nothing scientifically interesting without quantitative prediction.

Ok, so you claim that the fluid matters. Good. Please present a test that will enable us to conclusively and objectively prove the existence of this fluid.

How can you be so very sure that it requires a super computer? What literature about the current models indicates that that is necessary? What specific particle interaction model are you using? What are the equations? Again, what programming language do you plan on using? 10 years ago we could do models of 100's of thousands of granular materials flowing through hoppers on a state of the art desktop computer; it would take a few days to run. 10 years is a ton of time in computer technology -- I almost feel like the phone in my pocket could probably replicate that today. At the barest, barest minimum, you can set up a small scale model on a desktop -- something with only 1000s of particles -- and test the code to get it ready for this super computer. You can look into using Amazon Web Services to rent distributed computing power on an as-needed basis. A small scale version of the simulation will help you estimate just how large scale it may need to be. But again, all I see are excuses why you aren't actually working in it. Do you actually want to try to do science? Or do you just like pontificating on what you think science should be and not actually doing anything?

if science cannot 'see' it, then it has no effect. And if it has no effect, then there is no need whatsoever for its existence, and really, if there is no effect, it really doesn't exist. On the other hand, if it exists, and it has an effect, science can 'see' it, even if only indirectly, by measuring the effects its presence would have. The above isn't a buffet where you can take bits from each. It is a true 'or' situation. One of the two scenarios must be true. Either the fluid doesn't exist because it has no effect, or it does exist and there must be some effect that can be measured or 'seen'. And you don't just get away with claiming something is there that is 'undefinable'. At the end of the week, you wouldn't just let your boss say "Sorry, your paycheck this week is undefinable." If you are going to claim something is there, you actually have to define it. If you aren't going to bother defining it, what the heck is the point in even talking about it then?

So, I asked you in your other thread and didn't really get any answer: what steps are you taking to actually do this model? I.e. what literature about the current models are you reading? What are you doing to set up this simulation? Have you picked a programming language? Or maybe one of the commercial pieces of molecular simulation software? In other words, it is time to stop just talking about how wonderful this idea is, and actually put it to the test. I provided you avenues to start pursuing making your own models. I also told you that in my experience, if the simulation is done properly as you've laid it out, I don't think anything will happen. But, really, let's see what happens. You really should be working on this if you believe so very strongly in it.

Considering that you didn't even know about the models until a few days ago, how do you justify calling them not accurate enough? And then, what are you doing to make a model that is accurate enough for you? I notice you keep ignoring me when I tell you to follow the existing literature and make your own model. I wonder why that is... My initial thought is that it is easy for you to try to sit back and call things wrong, but ever time you are asked to put forth a model and pointed out where that model fails you have some excuse -- but never a plan to actually address that excuse. So I am directly asking you, what is stopping you from following the literature of simulations of rigid spheres that have been done at the parameters, temperature, and accuracy you claim is needed?

So why don't you do this then? The temperature of an ideal gas is given by [math]\frac{1}{2}m\overline{C^2} = \frac{3}{2}kT[/math] where T is the temperature, k is Boltzmann's constant, m is the mass, and C is the peculiar velocity, so [math]\overline{C^2}[/math] is the velocity fluctuations. All you have to do is start and ideal gas sim with low velocity fluctuations and you have a sim running at low T. Use really small time steps if you want to be 'extremely accurate'. Why don't you do this? I still seriously doubt that any order will form. And, really, it is up to you to show us that it does.

All right, I'm a glutton for punishment. I'll ask the question. What does your (heretofore proven untrained) eye think is wrong? You keep talking about absolute rigidity, and yet don't seem to believe that THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IDEAL GASES ARE. That the sims you are describing have been done in the simulation of ideal gases. If you really think this isn't so, please explain.

I don't need to add anything more here except to support 100% swansont. The assumptions that go into defining an ideal gas are rigid perfectly elastic spheres. And the molecular simulations of ideal gases has been done very, very well. For example, here's one of 2 ideal gases mixing: Again, there is a rich literature on this stuff. Oh, and ideal gases have never shown any kind of clustering or crystal structure forming. Again, if you don't want to just take my word for it, do it yourself.

Statements like these really tarnish what little credibility you have left. In other words, it would be nice if you demonstrated at least a tiny, tiny bit of knowledge about the literature and subject before you just dismiss it out of hand. A few hours in a reasonably well stocked university physics library would have yielded many results. See as one of many, many examples. The research group I used to be involved with would do many of these... flowing through hoppers, pipes, cyclones, etc. And we sat next to a group who did the same thing but on models of molecules and atoms for thermodynamics research to foster knowledge sharing. When I left that group, they were doing simulations on the order of millions of granules. In other words... there are many, many of these simulations out there. You can even buy commercial software that does molecular dynamics! The game of billiards is much more complicated than the model you are talking about. Billiard balls roll on a surface. Billiard balls have friction and rotation. Billiard balls are not perfectly elastic. And, yet, people are still modeling them. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.88.9763&rep=rep1&type=pdf And in fact are modeling not just the interaction of the cue, ball, table, and rails itself, but working on teaching an AI how to win the game! http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1558040 http://www.aaai.org/Papers/AAAI/2006/AAAI06-156.pdf All this in a simulation of a much more complex interaction than the one you are proposing. Your elastic non-interacting sim can and has been done, many many times. As I wrote above, it is a very simple test case to test your code before introducing more complicated simulations. I'm going to say that it is extremely good that kristaris' personal incredulity of what can and can't be done doesn't direct scientific funding! Your displayed lack of knowledge on the mathematical modeling that is available is appalling when you couple it with authoritative-sounding statements about what you think can and can't be accomplished. Your total lack of knowledge on the subject means you have no justified opinions on what can and can't be done. Or, to put it another way, there is a pretty wide body of knowledge out there on how to program these simulations, if you;d bother to actually look at it. Again, if you so strongly believe in your idea -- why don't you actually do it?

It's not a question of 'slow enough'. It is a question of interaction model. If all you are doing is perfectly elastic collisions of rigid objects, nothing interesting will happen. The randomness will continue forever. This has been done. See Hill's An Introduction To Statistical Mechanics (I have the Dover reprint edition from 1987, the original is from 1960.) as an excellent introduction. Perfectly elastic sphere collisions of Helium atoms give very good agreement to the ideal gas laws. No 'order' is ever found. Where you get 'order' is actually something closer to the sims I wrote about above. The granular materials that are inelastic. The loss of momentum and energy when they collide leads to the formations of clusters and some very fascinating fluid mechanic implications. If you really think that this idea has merit, why don't you program it yourself? I'd suggest something like Satoh's Introduction to Practice of Molecular Simulation. What you are describing does not sound very difficult to model at all -- and in fact is usually used as a test case before programming more complex problems. That is... someone programs a molecular dynamics test case, but they turn of the complicated force models and inelasticity and let the sim run for a while. They they periodically check the the system isn't losing mass, momentum, or energy. If it is losing any of those, they know there is a problem in the collision detection subroutine or the post-collision calculations. If the programmer can't get the simple case of perfectly elastic to work right, there is no point in moving on to more complicated models.

quite right. Simulating 1000s of particle is something I have actually done. We were looking at macroscopic granular materials flowing through pipes and hoppers and the like, but the idea is similar. And the really important parts of the simulation was in the models of the forces. With the exact same initial distribution, the granular materials would act very differently depending on what friction model you used, whether you included angular momentum or not, what particle interaction model you used (such as how much energy dissipation and what that depended on) and so on.

whatever dude. http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=10716162191&searchurl=kn%3Dintroduction%2Bfluid%2Bmechanics%26amp%3Bsts%3Dt

This is so very very wrong. No one working in science would dare pose a TOE that conflicts with known results. Let me repeat that conditional statement -- that conflicts with known results. String theory has been proposed for many years now as an attempt towards a TOE. So has quantum loop gravity. People are trying to improve the models we have all the time. But no one who actually does research in this sits around, spouts off-the-cuff wild-ass ideas and then asks for funding for them. They may have a wild-ass idea, but then they start to test the predictions from that wild-ass idea and see if it makes good predictions. THEN once the theory is making good predictions, THEN they start to seek funding. And while there are problems with bureaucracy, no one instituted a bureaucracy with the sole purpose of making results harder to get. Bureaucracies are put in place to attempt to maximize the effect of limited resources -- money, manpower, etc. If resources were unlimited, it would be okay to remove the bureaucracy, but in the meantime, they are in place to do their best at distributing the resources. I don't think that it all bad.

I can find quotes, too: "The negative results are generally considered to be the first strong evidence against the then prevalent aether theory, and initiated a line of research that eventually led to special relativity, in which the stationary aether concept has no role. The experiment has been referred to as 'the moving-off point for the theoretical aspects of the Second Scientific Revolution'". And it doesn't matter who said them, because citing the who is an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy. (in other words, just because Einstein or Lorentz said something doesn't guarantee that it is 100% true) You may have never written longitudinal waves and transverse waves, but I did. Because that is how every other medium we know about acts. And the MM experiment, whether intended or not, makes longitudinal and transverse waves, if there was a medium, because the beam gets split at 90*. And the earth has to be moving through this medium at some point in time -- if light is made up of this medium, then the medium is emanating in no small way from the sun. Those interactions should have been seen. I don't see how those interaction couldn't be seen. Because, again, every medium we know about behaves that way. Furthermore, the MM experiment has been repeated numerous times, in many different arrangements. Further furthermore, the success of these repeated MM experiments are also tests of theories of relativity -- also to incredible levels of agreement. And the theories of relativity don't include any effects from a medium. Lastly, please don't include snipes about my having to 'read carefully' -- I have treated you with utmost respect and I don't need you to disrespect me by implying I don't read.

I don't know what to tell you except that it isn't the easiest subject to learn. There are other ways of learning it than just YouTube videos.

So, you're trying to say that before 4000 years ago, the oral histories were perfect, and then once we invented writing, THEN we started making mistakes? I find that rather difficult to believe.

Then why does it make predictions that are contrary to what is known? Windevoid, I can think that when I drop a lead weight that it will float up all I want. But I cannot deny that here on earth, it falls down. Every time. I can't base any further ideas on 'lead falls up' once it falls down. And there is no point in trying to insist that I am right that lead falls up. Again, why don't you take some of this energy you are putting into stubbornness and learn about what the current theory says? What do you think is in there that is going to scare you so much? What is stopping you? I just don't understand this reluctance to learn about what our current theory says. At the barest minimum, if you truly believe your idea is so much better, you still need to learn the current theory so you can demonstrate exactly where it is wrong.

then what the hell have the journals been publishing the last 20 years?!?!?!?!? Your claims aren't understandable because they predict things that are contrary to things that are already known. I can claim that 'the sky is striped red & brown', that 'air is really a liquid', and that 'an invisible dinosaur lives in my garage' all make sense to me -- but that doesn't make them so. Instead of sitting around and pontificating random questions, why don't you spend some time learning about how science is actually conducted? You could include in that a review of the current electrical theory. It's really smashingly successful, you know. It's created the computer and the Internet you used to post your message, as just a few of it's successes.

So, you're saying that even though we know that written works -- using a form of storage that is inherently significantly more permanent than human memory -- incur a significant number of errors, you're assuming that oral histories were kept perfectly. Okaaaaaaay. I don't know any off the top of my head because I've never looked into it, but I have to suspect that there is some evidence of this. Surely groups that fractured and at one time shared a history ended up telling different versions of the same story after it drifted through the years. I know that several fables and myths ended up with many different versions told, for example. It is just my opinion, but I think you are severely underestimating the natural effects.

Then demonstrate how this marriage makes good predictions. It seems like it failed pretty miserably above.

I wouldn't say that I have any prime suspects. My point has been for a very long time now, that whatever 'prime suspect' comes out, it won't replace the old theories until it demonstrates that it makes predictions at least as well as the old theories. If it doesn't, then it will no longer remain a 'suspect'. So far, I haven't seem any TOEs proposed that are anywhere near the predictive successes GR and QM have; though, to be fair, I also don't work in this area at all.

I do dispute that, because the universe is under no obligation to seem 'simple' to you, me, or anyone. Hence I strongly dispute the word 'must'. As above, I don't really have a desire to reply to the rest (which mostly looks like gibberish).