Bignose

I couldn't agree more. This is so amazingly frustrating to me -- when speculators show up and at best have a pop-sci poor analogy of what a theory actually says instead of any of the actual details. I love the enthusiasm, and science absolutely craves new ideas. But some of that enthusiasm has to be directed toward learning about the current models that became the current models because they are working the best. And if you think your new idea is even better, you need to be able to show that your idea works even better -- so you need to know how well the current model works in order to justify the 'better'. It really is that simple, and yet, it is missed by a large majority of speculators here.

I still have an awfully hard time believing this. How can the 'waves math [be] correct' when you TEW states that the wave travels in the opposite direction? This needs to be explicitly demonstrated, as I asked many, many posts above. Please post this and show how the velocity of the wave can be reversed and still have the math come out exactly the same. (It is worth mentioning that in that other thread, this was also explicitly asked, and this was about where you started to become unresponsive. Don't let that happen here.)

This doesn't answer anything. I want to know exactly how you propose to do it. And greedily, I want to know if I'd pass your test in any way shape or form. (and before anyone puts words in my mouth, I am not claiming to be the next Einstein, I am just curious if I or anyone else I know would pass this 'back to basics' test.)

By golly, you're right! We probably should be scouring every high school freshman's report on Romeo & Juliet for some hidden truth. Every one of them is clearly a tremendous addition to society. I can't believe I am wasting any more time to even write this as I sit here!!!! The other works are implicitly the issue, and always has been with your agenda, kristasris, whether you think they are the issue or not. When you cherry pick examples, e.g Einstein at 16, you are not providing any concrete reason in the context of that age why he should have been paid any more attention than anyone else. That is only easy to do 100 years later when we know the contributions he's made. Or, let's put it another way... using your criteria, who is the most important scientist working today? Since you think it is so easy, that person should be obvious, right? That next Einstein should be ripe for the picking right now, yes? Or, let's ask an even more real question: the Speculations forum here has 3,432 topics in, on quite a wide range of topics. Who posted here is the next Einstein? who should we dismiss? How can you really tell? My answer to this question has been for a very long time now: demonstrate that the predictions made by the idea fit measurements. If someone can do that, in my mind, it is meaningful. And this circles around to my first post, again, that in order to know what is meaningful, one does have to have some level of knowledge about the current literature. In particular, about the current measurements. And then hand-in-hand with that... know that the current theory IS the current theory because it seems to be doing the best at agreeing with measurements to date. This definition doesn't help. How exactly does one measure how much any single thing increases the probability of quickly furthering science? Again, return this to the now... which of the many 1000s of topics in the Speculations section do you think increases that probability the most and why? Objective measures please, opinions are of very limited value here.

Or is it that it takes 10,000 hours in order to learn enough to know what is and isn't meaningful? The knife cuts both ways. This is pretty much my point in starting this thread, that there is an intellectual maturity required before something becomes scientifically meaningful. And this isn't just limited to science -- one cannot just sit down and crank off a paper about Shakespeare and expect to be lauded. One has to have some level of understanding about the papers and research that has already been written about Shakespeare. And to kristaris, the notion that Einstein could just off the cuff fix SR at the age of 16 is just a ridiculous position to try to defend. He may have on some level understood the issue (as D H says it was a pressing issue that all the bigwigs in physics knew about), and he may have even had a notion on how to fix it. But it took some time before the intellectual maturity was there and it was meaningful. He had to read papers published by the other guys who tried to fix it an failed (yes, there are a bunch out there, despite your hindsight bias apparently neglecting them), he had to make sure what his idea was actually worked on some level, etc. This has been my point from the first post -- that it takes effort and work before that nugget of an idea becomes something meaningful. It is very easy to remember the brilliant people in history -- but we forgot all the hard work that each and every one of them put in first. Michelangelo was one hell of an artist, but I am positive he started off drawing stick figures and suns with smiley faces in them just like the rest of us. He just had the drive to get a lot better and the talent to make that drive pay off.

And, well, that's kind of what I was trying to say, too. In other words, I want the speculators to see this and understand what it means to be an 'outsider' and still make a meaningful contribution. For example, while I would not say that having a PhD is a requirement, one does need to perform PhD-level work. The guy at hand here, for example, was reading recent papers and being familiar with the literature and the current theories. This is pretty much never seen in the speculations forum. Another is doing all the work to nail something down. All too often, speculators here expect us to sit and bask in their brilliance, and don't understand that flaws being pointed out are actually opportunities to make their idea stronger. And there is a very distinct lack of speculators wanting to actually do work to support their ideas. In short, one can question his 'outsider' credentials. I don't think arguing the semantics in my point here. My point is that it is possible for someone who is not known to be working on a given topic to come in and still make a meaningful contribution. But there is a lot that goes into making something meaningful -- a lot that the average speculator in here doesn't even begin to imagine, really.

Self contradictory much? Within a span of 83 minutes, you made statements that are almost complete opposites. I just don't understand.

This comes up every so often here in the Speculations forum: the question being can a relative unknown make a meaningful contribution. I saw this today: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/05/twin-primes/ a relative unknown makes a significant step forward towards proving the twin primes conjecture in mathematics. Now, that said, note one of the comments by one of the reviewers of the paper: He nailed down every detail so no one will doubt him. Theres no waffling. This cannot be emphasized enough in this section. Nail down every detail. So, so, so very often speculators come in an leave details very 'unnailed'. And when this is pointed out, they usually get huffy and the perpetual favorite accusing the rest of the forum of being dogmatic and religious in the name of science. But, it can be done. It still has to be done right, but it can be done.

This is not a wishing forum. It is a science forum. If you are going to espouse nothing but wishing, I, for one, would appreciate it if you took it to a different forum.

I do want to say that both equations are meaningless dimensionally. c^s has units of length^2/time^2. 1/c^2 is, obviously, time^2/length^2. You cannot add or subtract unlike units. This like asking: what is 15 bananas minus 8 automobiles? you can compute 15-8, but the different units make the question meaningless. You have the same thing with c^2 - (1/c^2). The different units on the subtraction make it a nonsense statement. Just something you will have to remedy if you want your calculation to mean something. edited to change a 'can' to a 'cannot' -- kinda fixes the whole post, really.

uncool has it. (1/c)^2 = 1.112 x 10^-17 (1/c)^4 = 1.237 x 10^-34 Considering c^2 is on the order of 10^16, you are looking for a different more than 30 orders of magnitude difference. There are not many calculations or measurements that truly have 30 significant digits.

Wow. Take much personal offense? If you had that much of a problem with me, hit the report button and report me to the mods. But I'll tell you right now that it was in no way meant to be personal. All I was doing was pointing out that there is no single definition of elegance. That reasonably like minded people can disagree on whether the exact same thing is elegant or not. A word of advice. If you are going to take that much personal offense from an innocuous anonymous internet forum, don't ever try to actually present or publish your idea. The reviewers there will tear you up. And I feel that considering your overreaction to the last comment that it needs to be said that the 'tear you up' isn't personal in science. In science, models are poked, prodded, examined, and run through as many ringers as possible. Because that makes them stronger. Lastly, scientific models are judged on their usefulness. In science, usefulness is almost wholly defined by how good to the predictions made by the model agree with reality. Since per your above reply to Klaynos, you can't do the math and make predictions with your model, it really isn't all that useful scientifically. It may be a good story, but that isn't what science is looking for. So, I guess I don't know what your expectations were in posting this to a science forum. I mean, here we are joined by a common appreciation of science. And, sorry, but what you posted isn't science.

My first impression is that if you follow this scheme, there is at least some potential to open yourself to unintended legal consequences. That is, I really don't think it can be legal to charge more for taxes than your local state, district, municipality, etc. charge. I.e. if where I live, I pay a 7% sales tax, it cannot be legal for any vendor to charge me 10% and call all 10% taxes. And while it may be legal to go ahead and give yourself a tip for every transaction, if I saw that on my bill, I think I'd be pretty darn angry about it. And, come to think about it, I bet it actually isn't legal, either. Now, what some companies do is pass that charge on to their customers in the form of an increased price for people who use credit cards. For a long time, it was very common for gas stations to list a 'cash price' and a 'charge price'. It isn't as common today, but you can still see it once in a while. In one of the consumer bills Congress passed in 2011 or 2012, they explicitly made that legal for regular retailers like WalMart, Target, or even Amazon to do, too. While legal, it would be at least a little surprising if any of them did it, simply because it would give their competitors something huge to advertise against. No, I think that you just need to accept the credit card fee as part of the cost of conducting a business that accepts credit cards. One thing to hang your hat on at the end of the year, I am pretty sure that the credit card fees you pay are a legitimate expense, you should be able to write them off for tax purposes.

Heck, maybe we really need to start with 1 + 1 = 2 and build from there. newts, a certain level of mathematical understanding is to be assumed. Also assumed is that the people asking and answering questions agree upon a set of units of measure. If this is really the nit you have to pick with my comment, you are completely missing the point. Which I will re-write here for emphasis: no matter how good someone's writing is, words alone cannot make as good a prediction as mathematics in almost every case. If you disagree, I again challenge you use words alone to make predictions on how far golf balls will be hit. Using those words, the prediction should have a margin of error less than a single yard. But this isn't a prediction!!!! This doesn't discriminate between 206.7, 207.7, or 208.7 yards. The words may explain the principle, but how would one judge the accuracy and usefulness of that explanation. Using math, I would compare the prediction to the measurement and have an objective, clear cut metric on just how good the prediction was. Using just words, you just give that away. Why would anyone want to do that?

And I disagree in the strongest terms. Using only words, describe how a golf ball sitting on a tee flies exactly 207.7 yards downrange. And I require that in using your words, that is it obvious that the prediction is 207.7 yards, and not 208.7 or 206.7 yards. If all you want is a 'words' description of what the equations are saying, those are out there. But words will never make as good a prediction as math. I just don't see how you think it can.

I can answer this one for you: the Universe is under no obligation to meet anyone's definition of elegance. Which of course is sticky in and of itself, because what you consider elegant, I may consider clumsy and hackneyed.

what about halse http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/halse?s=t salse http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/salse?s=t and valse http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/valse?s=t ?

Simply repeating yourself is not a prediction. Can your model make any predictions at all? Or is it just stories and unfounded assertions of what you consider the truth?

More than anything, newts, I'm really not sure what twisted definition of 'correct' or 'incorrect' you'll apply. Your record on this manner is speckled at best. However, overall my position has been very clear (especially if you look through my history of posts), that I support the model that proves to be the most useful. And I define useful as how well the predictions made by that model agree with measurements. In this vein, I do often write that we know our models today are wrong or at least incorrect. This statement is backed in 2 ways: history has shown time and time again that better models are almost always created and we know that our current models are limited. The best example is the lack of unified model of quantum mechanics and general relativity. We seen to have decent models for the really small and the really large, but nothing that bridges both of them. Therefore, we know the current models are wrong in that they are at least incomplete. We also know that the current models are right in that when applied to the correct domain and conditions, they make really quite good predictions. And whatever future model that is out there will make even better predictions. In my mind, the model that makes the best predictions is the best.

Why must you presume to know who my colleagues even are? Why does that even matter in the least? How does this address any of the concerns brought up to you?

None of that really matters. Science is indifferent to your background or named profession. Now this does matter. If the Higgs boson is made of waves, that has repercussions. Repercussions that should be able to be predicted and then detected. So, one the one hand, we have the standard model that predicted we'd find a particle a certain amount of the time under certain conditions. As above, the research is ongoing, but the initial data coming out is that that particle has been found with the correct frequency of occurrence under those conditions. Seemingly a correct prediction. On the other hand, what predictions can you make about the Higgs Boson being 'made of waves'? If there really are waves, you should be able to predict the frequency of the waves, and the energy in them, and how they interfere with other waves, etc. This is what science actually is: prediction and then comparison of that prediction with measurement. We have measurements, and the standard model has made a prediction that has pretty good agreement with those measurements. Conceptually, the hurdle you have the now jump is demonstrate that the predictions made by your model are even better than those made by the standard model. Make a plot with the measured data, the predictions made by the standard model, and the predictions made by your model. Show us that your predictions are even better. Otherwise, if you don't have predictions, then all you are doing is story telling about bosons and waves. Science is not story telling. Science is prediction.

In my experience with you, newts, I cited original works (e.g. the paper in which the 1st experimental evidence for quarks was published) and you refused to read it. This goes both ways, buddy. Your refusal to actually do some work to learn about what current physics says really demonstrates that even if someone bothered to 'discuss and defend' what current physics is, it would just fall on deaf and uninterested ears, anyway. In short, I call shenanigans on your expressed desire to learn about the mainstream. Because you sure haven't demonstrated it to date. I am always willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but even this post doesn't seem to me to be a step in the right direction. If you are truly sincere in the above expression, your first step is to learn the current models and what they actually say -- not what some pop-sci metaphorical interpretation of it actually is.

newts has a history before you logged onto this site, P.G. He was given a very long leash to try to talk about his model, but steadfastly refused to address questions asked about it. That's why I refer to it when I address him. ...kind of like how you aren't really answering direct questions about your model.

Appeal to authority (Einstein) is a logical fallacy. And just because you have a single example, gravity, that you have decided is easy enough to explain to someone -- still a completely arbitrary scale, be it a grandmother or a simpleton) -- that doesn't mean that all examples should be easily explainable. And, really, there is nothing that precludes a grandmother from knowing a level of mathematics sufficient enough to understand modern physics. Do you see how these levels are completely arbitrary? This is what happens when someone just decides that something should be so. Furthermore, to be extremely pedantic, modern physics actually doesn't have why gravity works. We have proposed ideas like the graviton, but no gravitons have been detected to date. So, you in fact have picked as your example of something simple enough to explain and understand as something we don't have a complete explanation and understanding of. Kind of ironic, really. What we do have is an excellent model of gravity in that we can make very accurate predictions of how the gravity force affects objects. Lastly, I think it should be said that epicycles weren't rejected because the were 'nonsense'. They were ultimately rejected because as better telescopes and records were kept of the motion of the things mankind saw in the sky, the predictions made by the epicycle model were shown to be worse and worse. Where as the heliocentric model was making predictions that were being found to be more and more accurate. Near the end of the epicycle model, they were adding epicycles within epicycles 2, 3, 4 layers deep to attempt to make predictions that agreed with measurements. But ultimately it was given up because the math just wasn't agreeing. I am not sure this is especially profound. We actually know with 100% certainty that our models today are wrong, in that they are at least incomplete. Whether you want to describe that as 'fantasy' or not, well that's a word choice I don't think I would have made, but to each their own. What really irritates me, newts, is your lack of respect for known confirmed data. Whether you think quarks are fantasy or not, it is undeniable that the quark model as it exists today makes predictions that agree pretty darn well with experimental data. And whatever model replaced, supplants, or enhances the quark model will also make predictions that agree really well with experimental data. If the replacing, supplanting, or enhancing idea didn't, it would be rejected outright as demonstrably less useful. Unless you can show that all the experimental data that currently agrees with the quark model has been falsified in some way, you cannot just wave it away. So if you want to promote what you think is a better model, just show that it makes better predictions. Make a plot with current measured values, the predicted values of today's model, and the predicted values from your model to demonstrate that your model is more accurate than any other one out there. It is just that simple, newts.

I re-read it like 10 times, and I guess I still didn't get that. Whatever, it's truly immaterial to the topic at hand.