Bignose

newts, I have one more comment based on a conversation I had today. And it is a simple cliched statement, but it rings very true: You don't know what you don't know.

So... you're throwing yourself in with the creationist and astrologists? That explains a lot, actually. Not sure why you'd bother trying to post on a science website then, but... whatever. newts, you have posted yourself that you don't understand the math behind modern physics (I can find that post in your old threads if you've forgotten this). Criticizing things you don't understand kind of just makes you look foolish, especially when there is no need to do so. Admitting that you don't understand something is perfectly fine. No one knows everything. But trying to tear down something you don't understand just casts you into the same lot as the religous nuts you talk about above. Why is this a 'can always'? Under what obligation is any theory to be understandable to anyone of any intelligence level? I think that this idea is complete and total rubbish. And you provided absolutely no reason why any theory, idea, or the Universe is under any obligation to be explainable.

A single particle can have many more than just 6 dimensions. 1) position in the x direction 2) position in the y direction 3) position in the z direction 4) velocity in the x direction 5) velocity in the y direction 6) velocity in the z direction 7) acceleration in the x direction 8) acceleration in the y direction 9) acceleration in the z direction each of those is independent of one another... a particle may be at position (0,0,0) at time t, but it could be moving in any direction, and further accelerating in some other direction.Further more, we can repeat all of the above if the particle is not perfectly symmetrical. 10-12) orientation in the x, y, z directions 13-15) rotations in the x, y, z directions 16-18) angular accelerations in the x, y, z directions Then we can begin describing things like the particle's volume (19), density (20), composition/chemical makeup (21), etc. If this 'particle' were something like a cell, can include dimensions like age since the cell last divided (22), location of the nucleus (23), etc. All this just to describe a single particle.You double the number of dimensions we start to describe a system with 2 particles in it.Just think of the number of dimensions if there are a million particles!The equations that govern how such a system evolves in time are known as Liousville equations, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liouville's_theorem_(Hamiltonian) and they are a key step in developing statistical mechanics. In short, what it is used for is to look at an equation with millions of dimensions and decide 'yikes! this is probably unsolvable' and start to apply proper averaging techniques to significantly reduce the number of dimensions. But my bigger point is to echo swansont's note about how dimensions are taken to be orthogonal with one another. Or in other words, you only invoke additional dimensions when you cannot describe something with the dimensions you are already using. Such as being completely unable to describe a particle's rotation using the position dimensions.

No it isn't. Philosophy is all about the why. Physics is making the most accurate predictions possible. The two are not automatically divorced, but the why is in no way a prerequisite or 'all' physics needs to make predictions. In fact, the example you use supports this! Maxwell's equations got attention because they made such darn good predictions. They still do, for that matter. But the why is not in there, and it is not needed. Physics is looking for the model that makes the largest number of accurate predictions. As above, I don't think that physics and philosophy is automatically divorced, and in many ways I think a great number of physicists are trying their best to make sense of the universe. I think that there is some real conceit in the quote above, because it seems to imply that the universe is under some kind of obligation to be understood at some level. And really, why pick the 'I don't understand math' level? Why not pick 'comprehendable via the average kindergardener's vocabulary'? Heck, why stop there... let's pick 'comprehendable via gestures and grunts alone'! My point is that wherever you arbitrarily draw the line, there is always going to be some group that will be unable to comprehend it. And I don't think that there is an unfairness inherent in this. No everyone will understand everything. At this moment, the models that make the most accurate predictions about how the Universe acts requires some fairly hefty mathematics to understand. I guarantee that everyone who works on it wishes it was simpler. But there is very, very limited value in a simple model that makes poor predictions -- most often only used as a teaching aide to then subsequently introduce the more complicated but more accurate model. If someone doesn't understand that more complicated model, so be it. I will take more accurate prediction every single time, no matter the level of complexity. As for your imaginary beings, I know you have a personal problem with quarks and other of the current physics models. Models, by the way, that have made outstandingly excellent predictions that agree very, very closely to measurements. As in your threads, all you have to do to rid physics of these beings you consider imaginary is to demonstrate a model that makes even more accurate predictions. It really is that simple. Greater and more accurate predictions. You had a very long thread in which you were given many, many chances to do this, and failed. If one wants to talk imaginary, let's talk about your so-called better model, shall we?

reposting the same thing in a bigger bolder font don't actually address any of my concerns. A final word of advice... such soapboxing is against the rules.

I don't think that the above is even necessarily true. My 'bit' of information (and I assume you don't mean bit as 0 or 1), may be sets of input & output. e.g. inputs are {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ....} and outputs are {1, 4, 9, 16, 25, ...} The information here is possible infinite. But I think it is valid to describe that information by output = input^2. Certainly smaller than all the information.

I have probably read several thousand papers in my day. I cannot recall a single one that pre-supposed a functional form and used that to write the equations that supposedly govern the phenomena. Many derive the equations (often called 'from first principles') based on the phenomena and the explore what the solution looks like. And some used data that was published and perform fits on that data to attempt to discover the most probably functional form of the solution. But you are doing neither of these. Specifically I see no first principles derivation that leads to an equation in which 'spherical trajectories' (a term that STILL remains undefined, any chance you'll clearly define that for us soon?) are a solution. Nor is any data presented in which a 'spherical trajectory' is demonstrated to be the best (or even at least good) fit to the data. This is what I object to. That you are just pre-supposing the solution without any good justification for doing so. I am specifically asking you to provide that justification. Is there any way you can provide it?

I do what I can (and it really wasn't intentional to misspell your name when chiding someone about misspelling your name. I do apologize.)

The question at hand is: What % of our brain do we need to necromance an almost 7 year old thread?

Why are you agreeing with me when I am basically saying that the method you are using is wrong. If you agree with me, why don't you use a more correct method. And seriously, spell swonsont's name correctly. It's at the top of every single post he's made. It is just a matter of respect.

Having the resources is a very different problem than trying to replace a model. As I've written many times, the hurdle to replace a model is very easy... it must be demonstrated that the new model makes better predictions than the old one. If it does, then the new model replaces the old one, simply because the new one is more useful. And, math isn't a 100% necessity, but math has the ability to objectively compare two models. I.e. if model A makes predictions with a 0.12% error and model B makes predictions with a 48% error, model A is clearly superior. You need math to calculate error percentages like those... There is nothing in defining the hurdle that is to be jump about how to jump that hurdle. As swansont writes above, there are many research projects that don't get funding. And as fallible humans, there are often unworthy or doomed-for-failure projects that are funded. This is where less objective measures come in... the more renowned scientist will often get more funding. The more charismatic scientist will often get more funding. Younger scientists often find it hard to compete with more established scientists for funding. And yes, funding for string theory is more abundant than other alternatives at the moment. Is this completely fair? No. But it is what it is. None of that changes the end result, however, that the more useful model (in terms of quantity and quality of predictions) becomes the one adopted, however. Science is ultimately about the most accurate predictions possible. Regarding the electron scattering off of the quarks, that was done via math. The trajectories of the scattered electrons were measured, and the math shows that it is acting just as if there were 3 bodies inside the neutron. If you want to argue that there are really 1000 bodies in there (a real speculation that has been posted here), you need to demonstrate how the data from the experiment actually fits your idea better. I don't see how you do this without math, because the original data used math, both in the data gathering and the data analysis. Again, math is awfully nice since it is very objective. There is no need to argue over logic, or aesthetics, or smell or any other subjective measure when the math demonstrates that one prediction is significantly ore accurate than another. Again, I am in agreement with swansont. If you have predictions based on such a model, post them. Demonstrate how well the predictions made with such a model compare with the current predictions and the best known measurements. If you don't have predictions, then really, it isn't much of a scientific discussion and belongs more in a story telling to philosophy discussion.

Yep. This is why the current model is very, very, very good. PS has a very high hurdle to jump to demonstrate his model makes better predictions. Not an impossible hurdle to jump, mind you. But, the current model is very, very, very good.

That's why no decent scientist would say "this is proof the standard model must be correct" What they should say is: the standard model makes the best predictions that agree with known measured results today. Agreement between prediction and measurement is almost completely all of the scientific currency. It is ultimately all that matters. Usefulness of a model is determined by how good its predictions are. What you are confusing with your word choice in the quote above is that all too often when someone posts a speculation, the results of their idea makes predictions that are at odds with a known result. Let me use a recent example. Someone speculates that they hate quarks, and have a new idea of the internal structure of atomic particles. Great. How does that speculative model yield predict results like Briedenbach's classic 3-point-like-bodies found in a neutron? Whether you want to call them quarks, tutus, or bananas.... when you bombard a neutron with electrons, the electrons scatter just like there are 3 bodies inside the neutron. That fact is undeniable. It has been repeated and reverified 1000s of times. So any model that supposed to replace quarks, MUST MUST MUST be able to demonstrate how electron scattering acts as if there are 3 point like bodies. The mainstream today is that there are three point-like bodies in there, and we call them quarks. So, again, not decent scientist would say that anything is "proof" for the current model. But they would say that evidences W, X, Y, and Z all support the predictions made by the current model. Far, far, far too often, the speculators want to ignore, decry, or otherwise put blinders on to the evidence that is out there today. But that cannot be done. That's why people say "your speculation is wrong because of ...". Because there is known measurements out there, and if the speculation cannot predict that measurement, why would be dump the model that can make that prediction for one that can't? Science is not in the business of supporting less useful models. So, ultimately, it is the same thing I repeat over and over: if someone wants to show their speculation has value, show how it makes better predictions that the current model. Make a graph... plot current measurements, the predictions made by the mainstream model, and the predictions made by your model. If your model makes better predictions, then it will get attention. If it makes no predictions or worse predictions, it will be justifiably ignored as less useful. It really is a simple hurdle that has to be jumped... make more useful predictions than the other guys.

You are still completely missing the point. The equation when properly set up -- the solution to that equation defines the pathology of the resulting function. For example, if you calculate height x of a ball tossed in a gravity field, the x vs. t graph will be parabola. Not because someone decided that it should be a parabola, but because that is how the math works of integrating the second derivative of a constant (gravity). THIS is what you need to do for your 'spherical lines' (once again, a term I don't know what it means. I know the two words separately, but I don't know what you mean when you combine them like this.) The physics that govern the situation -- like the forces on the particle, should drive the creation of the differential equation and the the solution comes out because that is the solution. This ad-hoc backwards way of deciding on a solution then seeking an equation that creates it is really poor science at best.

Nope. Not clarity at all. And still no comparison between mainstream, your idea, and measurement...

This is what is completely backwards about this thread. We don't need to 'prove you wrong' about your formula up there. We have a good working formula right now. (It really is quite excellent.) If you want our attention, you need to demonstrate that yours is even better. We in no way whatsoever have to 'prove you wrong'. YOU have to provide evidence that what you have is meaningful at all.

And how does that prediction compare to measurement and the mainstream formula? You are still just tossing out numbers without any context at all. What you post here in no way demonstrates how well your model compares to the mainstream. I still want that plot of measurement, your prediction, and the mainstream prediction. Your post #87 seemed to indicate that you could do that. Can you? And if so, when?

Where did perfection come from? I didn't say perfection. I said a model that proposes to supercede another one has to make more and better predictions than the one it wants to supercede. That doesn't equal perfection. Science is ultimately conservative, because it doesn't support anything that doesn't have evidence. E.g. you talk about faster than c speeds. Ok, demonstrate it. It hasn't been demonstrated before. Same thing with your ideas about quarks, and all that other stuff. Demonstrate it. I'm certainly not just taking your word on it, no matter how logical it seems to you. At one point in the history of mankind it was logical that the Earth was flat and the moon was made of cheese. Logic alone is insufficient. Great. Demonstrate this equation makes better predictions than the equation we use today. Just throwing out an equation alone isn't worthy very much at all. Make a plot showing measured value, the predictions made with the mainstream formula and your formula.

Some of us feel protecting our identities is more important than providing public information that can be easily used against us -- identity theft is very real concern these days. Besides, most of us, despite the pseudonyms and joke pictures can still be plenty civil. And, I'm sorry, using your real name does not guarantee civility. We knew Osama Bin Laden's real name... THAT didn't work out too well.

I think you'll find that vibrations are also limited to the speed of light. If you had a solid rod in Houston and the other end on the ISS, and Houston smacked their end with a hammer (i.e. made lots of vibrations), the ISS would not register them any faster than the speed of light, and actually significantly slower than c. 'None' is an awfully strong word used here. You have to admit that it gets tiresome 'encouraging' people when they refuse to listen to any kind of reason or known verified results. As I wrote in the thread on why speculations are so popular -- science needs new ideas. Craves them. Hungers for them. But to do science requires that you follow scientific rules. And when someone's new idea conflicts with data that is already known, that means the idea is flawed. But so, so, so often people don't want to hear that. A relatively recent example: Person A doesn't believe in quarks and proposes something different. I say, "that's fine, but use your model to re-create the classic Briedenbach 3-point-like body experiment wherein quarks were first experimentally verified"... and nothing. Again, science craves new ideas! We know for sure our current models are at least incomplete, if not dead wrong! But, unless you can come up with awfully convincing reasons that Briendenbach's and all the subsequent quark-verifying experiments were falsisifed or wrong.... that data is out there. So the proposed different-than-quarks model has to be able to recreate the known data the quark model creates today. Really, I think the best example of this is general relativity and Newtonian mechanics. GR is an improvement over Newtonian mechanics, but it doesn't just destroy Newtonian mechanics. In fact, in the right limits, the predictions GR makes are identical to Newtonian mechanics. GR, as the improvement, predicted everything Newtonian mechanics predicts and then some. If someday a better GR is created -- call it super general relativity (SGR) -- then it too will have to continue to make the same really quite good predictions GR makes. See, for example, this paper: http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/ So, to wrap this up... it gets hard to continue to 'encourage' people when they refuse to accept the above. It gets hard to 'encourage' people when their idea is not immediately awarded a Nobel prize. It gets hard to 'encourage' people when flaws are pointed out and they snap back that you must be part of the religious-scientific-military-industrial-unicorn cult. It is hard to 'encourage' when upon having a flaw pointed out, they just throw some more scientific sounding buzzwords into a nonsensical phrase and act like that solves everything. When the speculators don't fell like any kind of rules apply to them, 'encouragement' will easy fall through the cracks. In the end, science is actually quite, quite easy: the model that makes the most accurate predictions win. End of story. If you don't like the current model, show how your model makes more and better predictions than the current one. Done. 'Encouragement' really has nothing to do with that at all... except to encourage speculators to actually make predictions and show how they are better than the current model predictions. I can honestly say, I have never seen a single thread get to that point in this section. Never. ------------------------------------------------------- So, I guess really, regarding this thread then: Popcorn Sutton. Demonstrate that your pushing model of gravity makes better predictions than the current attraction model. If you can do that, then you may have something. If you can't, then your idea is story telling, fiction, and a forum favorite non sequitur: word salad. This is not personal, nor do I think it is unencouraging to arrive at that conclusion. Every single scientist has made mistakes. The good scientist goes back and revises until their model is better than any other one out there. Or concedes that their model isn't better than the current one. Again, no shame in that. If your model doesn't make better predictions, then it doesn't make better predictions. That's all there is to it.

Science needs new ideas. Craves them. Hungers for them. We know for sure that our current models are at least incomplete, if not totally wrong. But, in the end, science is the subject up above. Actually doing science comes with some rules. Such as, unless you have a really, really compelling reason to dismiss it, the knowledge we have already remains. A really good example is the exploration of special and general relativity. SR and GR addressed problems in the Newtonian mechanics, but it did not completely ignore or nullify Newtonian mechanics. In the right conditions, SR and GR return the exact same predictions as Newtonian mechanics. This is how science works. So, for all the speculators who come in and decry how much they hate GR, or hate quantum mechanics, or any other current mainstream theory -- again the new idea is absolutely needed! But, they cannot ignore the fact that the ideas that are mainstream became mainstream because they have been the most successful at making useful predictions. Any proposed replacement theory must be at least as useful as the current one. This is what so many people offering 'possibilities' ignore. In other words, you cannot offer a 'possibility' that doesn't make at least as good predictions as what we currently have. Again -- someone may hate GR. That's fine, but it is undeniable that GR has been very good at making predictions that agree very, very well with measured values. If someone wants to get rid of GR, the hurdle they need to jump is very easy to understand -- their idea needs to make predictions that are at least as good as the ones we currently have. This is what the vast majority of replies to speculations are -- people pointing out that the implications of the proffered idea go against currently-known, well-verified data. At that point, the speculator needs to back up and revise their speculation to include known info. I don't think that the above is too hard to understand at all. But if there are any questions on it, please don't hesitate to ask.

Just a general comment on the topic: words and story telling can be incredibly powerful. There are a great many truly awesome works of literature mankind has created. But, take any of those same great works of literature. No small part of what makes them great is that the author's intent and meaning is constantly debated, re-evaluated, and individuals approach the works from their own unique experience. In short, words are fungible, and take on different meanings depending on each individual perspective. Here's my favorite example: If I walked into the room carrying a box, set it down in front of you, and said "Wow, that box is heavy," what does that really mean? What if I were an Olympic class weightlifter? A ballet dancer? And so on. The word "heavy" means different things to different people. This is the great thing about a mathematical prediction and measurement. If I had a model that predicted that the box would require 500 N of force to lift, that 500 N is the same no matter if I were a weightlifter, a ballet dancer, or a toll booth attendant. 500 N is 500 N and only 500 N. Then, when you actually measured the force required to lift the box, if it measured 499.3 N, you know that my model is pretty darn close to reality. 0.14% error to be exact. On the other hand, if it measured 63.8 N to lift, my prediction was pretty awful. Over 87% error. This is the powerful use of mathematics. We don't have to decide which model is better by how 'logical' it sounds, by who is the better debater, by how much authority the model creator has, by how accomplished a history the model creator has, etc. What we have is an objective, clear cut, simple metric to determine the better model: the model that makes predictions the most accurately compared to measurements. To recap, words are great. They make readers experience an incredible range of feelings and emotions. But mathematical predictions allow objective and conclusive comparisons between models and thus eliminates the needs to invoke subjective arguments on which model is superior.

I'm going to politely decline. I'd rather not just give you an equation that you don't know where it comes from, what it says, or what it means. To be blunt, all that is stuff you should do. If I just give it to you, the chances of misuse and misinterpretation are very high based on what you've posted in this thread so far. And I still say that the 'spherical trajectory' (a term I still don't think is adequately defined, really) is something that should appear from setting up your equation correctly in the first place. Trying to find an equation that gives you the answer you want is hardly scientific in this case. If you had measured data and was trying to fit that, then we could talk. But, I want zero part of someone supposing an answer and then creating an equation that gives that answer for them.

So, now empty space can push as well? This then goes back to swansont's point... how does it know to push exactly on the back side of the Earth? Why doesn't it push just above or just below the Earth? How does the pushing know to push at exactly the right time and right spot every time?

Right. Unfortunately, this is the complete opposite of what happens. The atmosphere actually shows tides just like the oceans, with bulges toward the sun and moon. Almost as if the sun and moon were pulling on the atmosphere...