Bignose

hmmmmmmmmm. More words. Distinctly lacking in evidence. Any chance you're going to post some of that soon? Without evidence supporting your claims, you are basically asking us to believe in the church of Dov Henis. Isn't that exactly what you were against in the first post?

...and another person's brain just put the 'r' right into that word. Don't feel bad, Sam, you're at least the 3rd one whose brain has done this them. (p.s. D H did write 'diving', not 'driving')

Yeah, your understanding is mistaken. Unless you have quite a lot of extraordinary evidence to support this extraordinary claim, the law of conservation of energy might very well be one of the most validated and supported scientific principles we have, and your idea is totally wrong.

You keep saying this. I am not sure you know what it means. In other words, I haven't seen any data posted at all. And you keep wanting us to believe what you say without any evidence. Exactly who is trying to install religious views here?

So, you're upset with the scientific reporting? Not really sure how that is science's fault. The publishers of Scientific American need to make money. If stories about parallel worlds makes that money, then that is what they are going to publish. Though, I'd argue that articles about global warming are probably rather important. Then, regarding the 1900s, I think that in general it appears that there was more cutting edge stuff being published then is for a few reasons. 1) There was less known then, so there was more opportunity to discover stuff. Because of the lesser amount of knowledge, there wasn't the specialization that is present today. 2) That specialization works against some of the impact of today's researchers, because someone may write a really important paper in their particular area, but it isn't known by the majority of scientists because it is only in a particular area. 3) We only read the really impactful papers from 1900 today, no one goes back and re-reads the 'workaday' papers again, because, well, they were only workaday. So, unless you have data that backs up that more of the papers written in 1900 were impactful than today, I suspect this is just some 'remember the good ol' times' bias. I am not really sure how well one could determine the percentages of impactful in 1900 versus today. It is going to depend a lot on what your definition of 'real science' is. One the one hand, there is nothing stopping you from going into a library and reading journal articles. But, most people aren't going to understand very much of them at all. So, if you let someone else reinterpret the work, you always run the risk of misinterpretation or dumbing down... in short, not 'real science'. You claim to keep using data, but this Lamarckism has been generally shown not to be correct. When Trofim Lysenko tried to apply these ideas to crops grown in the Soviet Union in the 1930s, he caused the death of a great number of people due to famine.

LOL. If you add heat, you are adding energy. You aren't going to get more energy out than you put in...

Really? Any evidence of this you can share? Some evidence of some problem that got solved faster because of the word choice?

I really quite disagree with this. Science as it is practiced in 2013 is worlds apart from how it was practiced in 1925. The information sharing that exists today must be at least 1,000 more than occurred 80+ years ago. While there may be a pocket or two of nationalism leftover, in any of the major players of scientific funding there isn't anyone pushing for a nation-specific type of science anymore. For example, there isn't anyone dictating a 'Germanic science' or a 'Soviet science' agenda like the Nazis and the Stalinist were doing. In the 1920s, it was very conceivable that your career would be ruined, or you'd even be possibly killed if your scientific work didn't meet some pre-defined political agenda. And then lastly, the technology of the last 80 years has allowed so many more avenues of research. For example, the entire field of genetics, the large number of already successes that field has had, and the potential for so many more is owed to the direct manipulations of genetic material we can do today. Genetics 80 years ago was limited to what could be cross-pollinated. I guess, in short, I really am curious what you think about science 80 years ago was so much better than how it is practiced today.

Science does not just believe 'common sense'. Fortunately, you also wrote data there. So, present that data please.

evidence please

Why does it really matter what it is called? It's not like there are police running around enforcing relativity... Two things will always happen: 1) Non-scientists will always apply the colloquial definitions of the words to the terms. E.g. the significant number of people who can be swayed with the phrase "well, it IS only a theory". 2) Scientists will understand how strong or weak the idea is because of the evidence supporting it, not because of some foible of nomenclature. Really, I don't think it matters if they are called "The Laws of Thermodynamics", "The Good Ideas of Thermodynamics", or "The Banana Slugs of Thermodynamics". And I also think that Nature doesn't care either. Energy will continue to be conserved no matter what we call them.

ah, my bad. I will admit I just threw a bunch of those together because I know in general we don't know about most of them. I shall be more careful in the future.

Several proofs pi is irrational: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_that_%CF%80_is_irrational It can also be proved e is irrational, as well as the square root of 2. But, there are some funny ones like we don't have a proof pi*e is irrational, or pi^e or e^pi or pi^pi, etc. Most likely they are, but we don't have a definitive proof. I guess, really, it depends on the number you're looking at. Again, some of them we know, but in general, we probably don't know for sure.

Why do we need to start another conversation in what is a duplicate of this thread? It makes a whole lot more sense to keep all the conversation on the same topic in the same thread. That's just common sense.

Don't feel bad, my brain did the exact same thing. I was thinking of when I drove across the Rocky Mountains, and did need to pop my ears frequently, but 33 feet seemed just a little low to me too

Really? you're going to give me a negative rep, not explain why you disagree, and then point to a thread that is a a duplicate post of this one? What The F***? Why don't you actually tell me why you disagree?

degrees awarded is no guarantee of any kind of knowledge about the field. That is classic appeal to authority, a logical fallacy. There are people with PhDs who post a lot of woo woo, here and on the internet in general. And, heck, they gave me the (ultimately meaningless) title of Maths Expert, and I don't even have a degree in mathematics. I suppose I should probably leave now, in a very professional and mature way, of course. In the bigger picture, I guess I am with zapatos above, and will express it this way: If someone just wanted to know what the 'book' says, they can just go and read the book. So, I am not really sure what the goal of the OP really is. Secondly, there is nothing from stopping a psychology expert from joining the site. It's not like any of us are paid, and they award the titles based on people who consistently give what are judged good answers. So, really, to get a psychology expert here, one just needs to join and do a good job answering questions in that section. Beyond that, I'm not really sure what else you think should be done?

So do Kelvins.... I don't see what the point is here. The error on specific reported number depends in the measuring device. An alcohol thermometer is limited by the demarcations on the thermometer itself. A thermocouple depends on the voltage measurement's sensitivity. If I read the temperature using a thermometer with 1/2 degree marks, I'd report it as 25.5 +- 0.5 C. On the other hand, if I used a thermocouple, I'd report the error that the manufacturer and calibration reports -- and it is important to use the right kind of thermocouple because they vary by materials and temperature ranges. But I really don't get the one trillionth of a percent stuff... darn near any measurement can go to infinity. We still use tape measures even though distance can do to infinity. I still get a speeding ticket if my speedometer in my car goes up to 100 mph even though speed is possibly infinite. You really are confusing the infinite nature of a number with the accuracy of a measurement tool.

I agree that's why I wrote Why did you cut that out of my quote when it was the immediately relevant sentence immediately in front of the one you did quote? Not sure how 25.5 C changes based on latitude and longitude... if you have a calibrated thermometer, 25.5 C is 25.5 C and nothing else. Yes, the boiling point of water changes based on latitude, longitude, atmospheric pressure, altitude, etc. But a good thermometer would read out 99.4, 101.1, 100.7, etc. It doesn't just read 100.0 C just because the water you have stuck it in is boiling. All you've really shown here is that it is important to use measurement instruments that are properly calibrated.

What? Where do you get the 0,000 000 000 000 000 000 001 % number?

I'll try to read the whole thing and comment when I have more time. But I wanted to clarify something immediately. My point is that data and experimental techniques have to be reported directly. For example, if a thermometer reads 25.5 degrees C, that is what it reads, and all the details of the experiment that led to that reading are all spelled out in the report. The interpretation of what it means that the thermometer reads 25.5 can be subject to bias -- that is all too human. But, the fact that 25.5 degrees C was read is not biased. THIS was my main point in that thread before. That the data point itself is not biased, and that any theory that claims to be useful needs to be able to predict that 25.5 data point when inputted the conditions of the experiment.

Well, and all the successful predictions of the standard model versus the zero successful predictions that your theory has resulted in.

It is NOT dogma to expect someone claiming to have an 'Ultimate Theory' to be able to demonstrate that that theory actually makes predictions that agree with what it already known. How is this so difficult to understand? Look, PG, this critique isn't personal. As I've written above, I completely agree that we need new ideas. And it is good to see some creativity, so new ideas, and some work done to explore it a little. But once that idea starts making predictions that disagree with what is already known... you have to accept that the idea at the time is wrong. This is not the time to become more entrenched. This is not the time to become more dogmatic, to use your own word. It IS the time to revise and reevaluate your idea. Every single scientist does this. Every single scientist makes mistakes. Every single scientist has thoughts that turn out to be incompatible with current knowledge. The successful scientists take this opportunity to learn from their mistake, revise their idea, and start again. They don't try to dismiss the current knowledge, they don't complain that everyone use doesn't understand them, or is too dogmatic. In short, critiquing your theory and actually taking the critiques to heart will only make your idea stronger. So, the only question I have left, then is: why is this so hard to understand? Why are you asking us to accept your dogma when you can't provide evidence that it is correct? Why are you asking us to do exactly the thing you are decrying that we are doing with the current science? Why haven't you explored the wealth of experiments that demonstrate why the current model is the way it is? Then it won't seem like dogma; it will seem to be well supported by facts and experiments.

No. You do it. It's not my idea here. If you had any familiarity with the literature, Briedenbach's result should not have been a surprise to you. I'd suggest that it is you that needs to put the time in learning what is in the current body of knowledge. All you gotta do is start a new topic and in it put a link to this thread. Or, PM a moderator and ask to split it if you think we've gotten too far off topic. My opinion is that we're at least on the topic of what PG needs to bring to the table, and why what he's brought so far has failed in the able-to-agree-with-what-we-currently know test.

Cannot disagree more. Correct scientific procedure judges ideas almost wholly on how useful they are. And almost always usefulness is defined as how well predictions made by the idea agree with actual measured values. All that stuff about confirmation bias carries weight in the softer sciences, but in physics it is hard to get away with it. If I report that I put 10 g of deuterium with 20 g of polonium in a steel bomb calorimeter, and in 5 minutes I see a temperature rise from 25.0 to 25.5 degrees C.... that is what gets reported. Now, I may call that cold fusion, the energy of the two atoms mating, or whatever I want. But, the most important thing is that it is repeatable. This is what destroys all your confirmation bias issues. See the example of Pons and Fleishmann, claiming to have demonstrated cold fusion in their lab. But once their experimental setup was published, no one could replicate it. And their idea was shown to be wrong. Look, if you want to call confirmation bias the way the data is interpreted... fine, whatever. I actually really don't care about that. My main argument is that you cannot just ignore the data itself. E.g. Breidenbach's experiment wherein a proton is bombarded with electrons, and the electrons scatter exactly as if there are 3 point-like bodies inside the proton. Whatever you want to call those 3 bodies, I don't really care. But, you can't show up and claim that a proton is made up of 1001 bodies, or have positron halos in them, (both actual claims made on this forum some time back) without showing how the 1001 bodies or the halos would lead to 3 point-like bodies scattering electrons. The fact that electrons scatter like there 3 point like bodies inside a proton is undeniable, many times replicated fact. Well, once that fact was reported, and verified many times, people naturally became curious as to what they are, and worked on other ways of finding out information about them. But, the fact that they are there has never changed. So, for anyone to claim differently just shows an utter lack of research and understanding of the base of knowledge we currently have. And there is no confirmation bias in seeing the number 3 in '3 point-like bodies'. The math is there. You can do the math yourself and see how the data from the experiment show that there are 3 bodies. So, while I understand your point about possible confirmation biases, I don't think it applies nearly as often as you think it does in physics and chemistry, etc. Papers in these fields are required to publish many details about their experiment and how they gathered data and how they manipulated the data to get results. If the papers don't have this info, they don't get published. And that info is required so that others can exactly replicate the experiment described in the paper. The result is hard facts, no matter how they get interpreted or biased or anything else after that. There is still another data point out there that any future improvement will have to be able to hit. So, when you get an idea posted here, for example, that claims the particle of light have substantial mass... it ignores all the current data points we have created when doing experiments with light. Unless you are prepared to say (and back up) that every experimental result published with light has been done incorrectly or falsified in some way, I don't know how this isn't a major problem in the idea. I mean, this is like the stake through the vampire's heart. I would certainly hope that there isn't a single reasonable organization that would spend money on further developing an idea that makes claims so opposed to so many facts that we know to be true at this time -- and there hasn't been anything compelling so far. Look, again, in a big picture, there is something missing. There are improvements to the current model. And, yes, that improvement may be a major revolution of what we call the current model. But, that improvement is still wholly constrained by the published facts of today. Such as when we do experiments A, B, C, ..., X, Y, and Z, photons are massless. That improvement will still agree with all those experimental results. That improvement may show that we were only testing certain conditions, but that improvement will also demonstrate that under those conditions the expected results are exactly what we measured. This is what happened when the electromagnetic force and the weak force were unified. They were thought to be separate because each was tested under different set of circumstances. But the unification shows how the electroweak force acts under different conditions. And don't think that that wasn't huge for physics. The fact that two forces initially thought to be so very different from one another could be unified, is huge. It required a lot of re-thinking and re-evaluation of the known results. Note... re-evaluation of results, NOT tossing them away. And it is the reason it is suspected that all 4 forces could one day be unified. But, once again, that future unification will not toss away all the results of today. That future unification will show how when you test it under certain conditions, it acts like gravity, then when you test it under a different set of conditions, it acts like the weak force, etc. I hope all of the above helps convince you that it isn't 'incorrect scientific procedure' but is in fact exactly correct. Old experiments may get re-interpreted in terms of new ideas, but the actual results of those experiments do not change. And those old results still have to be met by any new and improved idea that comes along. So, in short, if Przemyslaw.Gruchala wants to get any kind of serious attention for his idea, he needs to show how his idea makes predictions that agree with known results. So far, it has failed miserably, and therefore fails that very first test of usefulness in terms of making predictions that conform to known reality. It is really, truly, as simple as that. I don't care if his idea has 2 particles, or 20,000 particles, or has the wishing of polka-dotted unicorns as its basis --- it has to make spot-on predictions. Period. End of story. Poor or no predictions? Not interested from a scientific perspective. Makes thousands of predictions very accurately? Very interested. There is no other judgement that matters. THAT is science.