Bignose

I have actually given you the road for this in many of your posts. In particular see your anti-relativity post. The hurdle to jump to get attention from these editors is very easy. Demonstrate that your idea makes better predictions than the current idea. Make that plot of measured values, the best prediction by the current model, and your model. If you predictions agree better than the current best, then your model becomes the best. Had you read any of the other papers these journals publish, almost all of them follow this pattern. It's a good pattern... Science has made a lot of progress this way. Since you didn't bother to reply to my post in any of the other threads, I suspect you cannot make such a plot as described above. And as such, I'm not surprised you were ignored.

Why don't you summarize from the video the strongest point that answers the questions 'If electrons are not the charge carriers in conductors, what is?' That surely should not take 3 1/2 hours. If the point is super strong, it will naturally lead to more questions and from there you can take more answers from the video. If the point is strong, there should also be plenty of written literature to support it. I, for one, am a much better written-word learner than a visual learner, and much more quickly gather knowledge from reading about things than watching them. So, if you can provide written support of the position, it would be much appreciated.

I read once that the speed of water as it flows through pipes is very slow, only some meters per second. Yet when I turn on the taps, the water is there pretty instantly despite the nearest water tower in my town being many miles away. Can someone explain this controversy? --or-- Electrons in the wire are just like water in the pipes... the wire is full of electrons, and they are available as soon as the circuit is closed. Just like water stays in the pipe and is available as soon as the valve is opened.

I apologize, I must have assumed I posted it in this thread, too -- I tend to post this same link in any thread where the OP doesn't like General Relativity to demonstrate just how successful GR really has been. Anywho, here's the link http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0510072 Again, this paper is 100% about comparing the predictions of GR and what is actually experimentally observed. 89 pages, 299 references. It isn't 100% complete, but it is one heck of good compilation. If you can show your idea makes better predictions than GR does in all the situations in the above paper, you will get some attention.

nope, I have my own projects I am working on.

C:\PythonScripts\popcorn>python popcorn.py >yo [] >I said 'yo' [] >this is awesome [' '] >space to you too, pal ['s', 'a', ' '] >Is that supposed to mean something? ['a'] >uh huh ['u', ' '] >I thought you were supposed to get curious? ['th', 'u', 's'] >thus, what? ['th', 'u'] >that's not even a word ["'", 's ', 'o', ' '] >that is even less of a word ['is ', 's ', ' '] >is s what? ['is is ', 's '] >that's not even grammatically correct ['g', 'a', ' '] >I don't know what that means ['I ', 'a word', 'o', 's'] >uh huh [] >back to null, eh? ['nn', 'n', 'ou', 'e', 'u'] >uh huh ['uh huh'] >uh huh ['uh huh'] >oh, you can repeat my input back to me, huh? ['uh huh', 'o', 'u'] >that's pretty much meaningless ['ppp', 'pp', 're', 'tt', 'u'] >even more meaningless ['even ', 'mm'] >I think I am done here ['in', 'uh huh', 'I ', ' '] The above is a record of my interaction with your code. I don't know what it is supposed to do, but I don't see any 'curiosity'. In fact, I don't see any language processing at all. It looks like it is just trying to repeat something back. Before you claim all this learning & language processing & curiosity, I think you have a long, long way to go.

OK, then, please present a graph with 3 data sets: experimentally measured observations, the predictions made by the current theory, and the predictions made by your theory. Demonstrate that your idea's mathematics improve the accuracy of the current theory. You may want to start here: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0510072 This is a paper that demonstrates just how closely the theory of relativity agrees with measured values.

If this is so, then you are discussing much more philosophical issues than scientific issues. Science is about accurate prediction of measurements. Something is better scientifically when it makes better and/or more accurate predictions. Science, at its core, doesn't give a wit about the 'why'. Now, most scientists are indeed also interested in the 'why', but I think it is important to note the two differences. But, ultimately, if the math is exactly the same in your interpretation -- and hence makes the exact same predictions -- I am not really sure what is all that interesting scientifically, then. Because a different interpretation doesn't lead to more accuracy if the math is the same.

Well, for one you download the paper I linked to, and you read it. Then you note all the sources that paper cites for the measured value... you may have to work your way back 2 or 3 or 4 sources. Then you use the mathematics behind GR and use them to make predictions. Then you use the mathematics behind your idea to make another set of predictions. Then you plot all three sets of data... the original measurements, the predictions from GR, and the predictions from your math. You don't need your own 'laboratory', you use the data that is already published.

Look, we know the GR is wrong in that it is at least incomplete. We don't have a theory that well describes the very big (GR) and the very small (quantum mechanics) at the same time. That said, relativity is extraordinarily useful in making good predictions. Again, please look through this link: http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/ It lays out the many experimental measurements that have been taken and how closely they agree with the predictions from GR. Some have errors of less than 1 part per million. In this regard, GR is very, very right in that it agrees with quite a many different experiments.

Demonstrate this. You can claim all you want in words, but that is hardly scientific. At its heart, science is the accurate prediction of observation. So, you claim that a certain method is no longer accurate. Demonstrate that a new method is more accurate. Make and post a plot of measurement (observation from nature), the prediction made by the old method, and the prediction made by your method. If it is really more accurate, you will receive much attention. If you just keep posting word, wailing and gnashing your teeth against what you think are problems with current science without posting any demonstrable improvements, you will be ignored. Science values demonstrated agreement between prediction and measurement above almost anything else. If you actually have that, you have something scientifically meaningful. If you don't have it, then you are posting on the wrong forum. Science forums respect science -- and again what is more valuable scientifically is agreement between prediction and measurement.

Yes, everyone knows that once you are eligible for Social Security, it is impossible to use photo editing software or otherwise make fakes. This earns another In all seriousness, if this is the level of argument you are going to use here, why are you even bothering? Why don't you join one of the many conspiracy theory, alien, or metaphysics forums where this kind of thing is discussed more openly? What are you getting out of us continuously telling you your critical thinking skills are truly, truly rotten? Unless you are a troll, what are you getting from this?

No, of course, not. No way to fake patches. *cough* http://www.demeritwear.com/ *cough* I mean everyone knows that authentic patches are sacrosanct. *cough* http://www.boyscoutstore.com/patches/spoof-patches/ *cough* oh, excuse me, got a tickle in my throat, I guess. I mean, it's not like there are articles and steps on how to make your own available *cough* https://www.gsmakeyourown.com/ *cough* It would clearly take some kind of wizardry to make your own patch *cough* http://www.patchjunction.com/?gclid=COyM_pHVqrgCFbAWMgodiT0AlA *cough*. Seriously, Semjase, you gotta start being more critical of sources. You could have a copy of that patch in your hand Monday if you were willing to pay enough money.

I have no idea what AAA is talking about... if you have matrix A with elements [math]A_{ij}[/math] and matrix B with elements [math]B_{jk}[/math] (and I picked the dimensions on purpose there.... the second dimension of A has to equal the first dimension of B, hence they both used j) The matrix C = A * B will be defined by [math]C_{ik} = \sum^m_{j=1}A_{ij}B_{jk}[/math] where m represents the number of columns in A and rows in B. For your 2x2 example: [math]C_{1,2} = \sum^2_{j=1}A_{1,j}B_{j,2} = A_{1,1}B_{1,2} + A_{1,2}B_{2,2}[/math] In terms of what order you do these operations in, there are incredibly fast optimized routines out there. You might want to look at the source of something like BLAS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Linear_Algebra_Subprograms) to see how they code it efficiently. But in terms of getting the right answer, order is unimportant so long as you multiply and add the right things together.

I can give a practical answer based on the quote above alone. If you don't know what the if __name__ == '__main__': line in Python does, then you aren't a good programmer. I am no expert at Python, but I looked up what that meant the first time I ran across it and now I know what it means. It is actually incredibly useful in terms of code reuse and testing. I agree with the above, if you are using code you don't understand, then in no way can you consider yourself a good programmer.

Tell me this. If you can so easily dismiss someone else's work with a few yadda, yaddas... why the hell shouldn't we do exactly the same with yours? Hmmm, if only there was a way to tell a good idea from a bad one. I know! Let's compare the predictions by each idea and objectively compare how close those predictions are to measured reality! In this count, Prophet, it is GR thousands and thousands / your idea 0.

words, words, words..... all I see are words. Please take a look at the paper I provided. It makes many graphs depicting the predictions made by GR and the observations. And show just how close GR and those measurements are. Your words aren't enough. You say contract, but contract how quickly? Contraction has ramifications on how other things are affected, for example light. Also, cosmic background radiation. And so on, and so on. Just saying 'contract' isn't enough. You need to demonstrate how the idea derives predictions based on it, and then how well those ideas jive with what is observed. Again, please use the paper I linked above as a template. You should be able to recreate that paper with your idea and show us that it is even better than GR. If you don't or can't, them I am sorry, but what you are doing isn't science. It is story telling. It is a fiction. Story telling is good on its own, but it sure isn't science. Here's another.... your say your theory eliminated the need for dark matter. OK, fine. Then please use your idea to show exactly what these guys mapped when they created their dark matter map: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=biggest-map-yet-of-universes And again, not words. You should be able to use the mathematics behind your idea to recreate exactly that dark matter map and show how what they think is dark matter is really just an effect of your contraction. Can you do it?

Prophet12, Why don't you do this? All this talk, talk, talk is meaningless. Show us the usefulness of your idea by actually using it to make predictions.

Please review this paper: http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/ Many, many citations for experiments done testing GR as well as showing how closely the results from those experiments match the predictions from GR. What evidence I want is for you to provide exactly the same for your idea. Show how your idea's predictions are derived, and then make plots of those predictions. I want to see a plot with your predictions, GR's predictions, and the best measured data. If your predictions are better than GR's, then people will pay attention.

If you 'haven't gotten around to experimenting on it yet', than why are you posting it like it is fact? This is not the way to be taken seriously, Popcorn.

Popcorn, this is an idea that doesn't work. http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/gases-solubility-water-d_1148.html The 0.02 g of hydrogen gas that can be dissolved per kg of water is absolutely a tiny amount.

Oh fudge. Probably should have told these guys that... http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=biggest-map-yet-of-universes

Our brains are capable of a feat known as object permanence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_permanence This is something we learn as our brains develop, and usually well established by 2 years old. This isn't really a logic question, though, as ACG points out. And neither are your scenarios 1 through 3. 1 is a convention, which isn't always true. It isn't a question of logic whether a hotel charges for items in he minibar or not. 2 is nonsense, as near as I can tell. Just because 'there isn't any reason' for something to happen doesn't mean it will happen or should happen. (Reminiscent of Mike Smith Cosmos' Lingual Theory of Everything here...). Farcical example: there isn't formally any reason someone can't walk into my office in the next 30 seconds and hand me $1 million. I'm not really counting on that happening, though, nor should it happen. 3 sounds something related to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. Though if you are stumped by the 'logic' in the first parts of your post, my assessment is that you are not ready to understand Godel. It is fairly complex and requires a significant level of understanding true logic before you should attempt it. Nothing wrong with not being at a certain ability to do something, so I do hope you don't think that that assessment is a personal attack. I am not at a level in my golf ability that I can compete on the PGA Tour nor am I at a level of my dancing ability to perform Swan Lake for anybody. It is just an assessment of by ability, and not an attack on me.

A list of many of the extensive agreements between predictions made by the theory of relativity and actual observations is given here: http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/ If someone doesn't like the theory of relativity, that's fine. They just need to demonstrate that their idea can go an even better job that what we have now. Science is actually very, very simple in this regard. Demonstrate that some new idea makes more accurate or more predictions than what we have now, and what we have now will be displaced. The vast, vast majority of people who feel a need to replace an idea however don't have anything that makes more accurate or more predictions. Again, science is very simple to understand in this regard... more predictions and accurate predictions wins.

Popcorn, there is a great deal of work out there on fundamental and efficient algorithms. The Knuth books on programming are legendary. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Computer_Programming That is probably as good a start as any.