Bignose

You sure use the word fluid quite a lot... e.g. I take a fluid to imply sort of medium. You may want to reconsider your word choice. And, to that end, any chance there are mathematical predictions? The math is independent of word choice and the misunderstandings that are all too prevalent from word choice.

The Michelson-Morely experiment pretty must showed that there is no such medium for light, however.

The quotient rule is just a special case. And, exactly why can't you use it?

[math]\frac{d 1776}{d x}=0[/math] Again, the derivative of any constant is 0. Not 1st day calculus stuff (I think you usually start by working with limits) but pretty basic stuff regarding derivatives. But, a specific number is just a special case of a function. So, pretty much those of us who actually do math as par of our day-to-day lives, work with the function and then evaluate it as needed. Either way, it really shouldn't matter, the same rules have to be followed either way. Things like that random unit conversion I pointed out above aren't valid for either numbers or functions. You never really gave any reasons for that, when do you plan to address my question on that? I was nice enough to answer your questions.

The derivative of constants are zero. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Derivative.html perhaps you are looking for some sort of mean? http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Mean.html either way, you need to use the words as they are commonly accepted or provide clear definitions. You can't speak Finnish to donkey and expect to be understood. challenge accepted [math]\pi = 4 \sum^\infty_{n=0} \left( \frac{(-1)^n}{2n+1} \right)[/math] And to be completely pedantic, it isn't really a function, since pi is a constant. Or at the very least is it a very boring function [math]f(x)=\pi[/math]. So, I provided an expression that is the value of pi to as many decimal places as you want

These steps here are just silly. Ok, you convert a number that you (incorrectly) got in units of miles, to light years, OK. Then, for some mysterious reason you multiply by 1000. Then you take the numerical answer in light years, and just decide that that number is in miles again, then then convert to light years once again. Really? How is this anything other than just completely and totally random, and any result is just coincidence? This is the same problem your other thread had. It looks like nothing more than coincidence finding. Really, unless this thread is going to explain how this is anything other than coincidence finding, this thread should be closed until you are ready to explain that your results have any significance other than dumb luck.

Generically calling results 'misinterpreted' is pretty much exactly the same as summarily declaring everything else wrong, and yourself right. Please download some papers and discuss specifics. That is, specifically show how the data they collected was misinterpreted, and how it should have been interpreted. Show explicitly the mistakes the researchers made in your eyes. No generics anymore, please. A good one to start with might be the Michelson-Morley experiment, because it showed that there is no such thing as an aether -- or in other words that space is mostly empty. It was an experiment primarily to see if light waves DID require a medium, like you are suggesting. Yet it pretty conclusively showed that no such thing exists.

Then please download some of the papers with the experimental results and discuss what misinterpretations were made. Because you get a paper describing a double-slit experiment, for example. There is a detector on each of the slits, that indicate which slit the particle goes through. How does this detector not take under consideration the hypothesis of all space populated with particles?

If you knew this, then why ask the question? Look, I'm not into game playing. Let's just be straight with each other and leave it at that. If you want dialogue so bad, let's be fair to one another. Think what you want, but it is confirmed by experiment many, many times over. Both the existence of photons and their dual nature. Why do you think all those experiments are wrong?

KA, I am really sorry to say this, but this just demonstrates your ignorance of the current knowledge. The answer is yes, photons. They are the same as light, just that the photons have different levels of energy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum

You're right. It can be challenged. What evidence can you present to challenge it? Because there is an awful lot of evidence that suggests space is pretty much empty, and an awful lot of evidence for the wave-particle duality of light (and pretty much any small particle). You can't just reject it because you don't like it... You need to show how the evidence is wrong or show good evidence that contradicts what we know.

Really? The first 30-40 posts of this thread addressed this. If you still have questions, ask specific ones. In looking back over the first 30-40 posts, you just summarily rejected the evidence that has been confirmed many, many times over. You just declared it wrong, and yourself right, and started accusing people of being religious in their defense of the current state of science. Is it any wonder that the dialogue broke down? If you have specific questions, please ask them. But please don't just unilaterally refuse to believe experimental evidence confirmed many times over. With experimental evidence confirmed many times over, you have two options: 1) show that the measurements are seriously flawed in some way or 2) admit that your idea is wrong and modify your idea to incorporate known results So, to answer this question, again, light is made up of photons which so long as they don't run into something, can travel forever. Space doesn't have a whole of stuff for the photons to run into, so it can travel a very, very long distance. Sound is a pressure wave that explicitly needs a medium to propagate -- it propagates by local interactions within the medium. There is no such thing as a perfect medium, so as the media compresses and expands, energy is lost and this is why sound waves dies off (get quieter).

Well, maybe not necessarily everything, but this thread has 240+ posts in it now, addressing some of the questions posed in this thread should be a good start.

The dialogue has been there. The dialogue has been to inform you that your simplifications aren't correct, and will lead to results that do not jive with known results. I don't think that is it fair to call it a dialogue, because there has been very little back and forth. You are informed from people who do know the math, who can see the implications of what the words of your models are saying, that the results go not agree with what is known. If this were a dialogue, you'd read the sources people have given you that demonstrate the known result and see why your ideas are incompatible. And then you'd modify your idea to be compatible, or start over, or demonstrate that the interpretation is wrong. If there was a dialog, you'd pay attention to the critiques people have given you, try to understand the issues, and address them instead of stubbornly declaring yourself right. Look, all of science is critiqued. It is a part of the process to ensure that all the work is backed up as solidly as possible. This is why every paper is peer-reviewed and every talk at a conference has time set aside at the end for questions from the audience. This critiquing process is not personal and it makes all of science stronger for it. As I asked many posts back, why the reluctance to take the advice of other people who are very knowledgeable and are giving you way to improve your idea? In other words, it is very hard to have a dialogue if one side simply refuses to admit that the other side has anything meaningful to say. if you truly believe in your idea, then you need to understand the critiques in this thread, and learn how to address them in a manner that strengthens your idea.

the forum double-posted on me, mods please feel free to delete this

What I gathered from this then, is that while you can compute some of the basic functions of math (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, and probably exponentiation and logarithms), that anything beyond that you don't know. Well, then it is little wonder you have such a reticence toward math. Newton helped invent calculus because simple addition, subtraction, etc. wasn't sufficient to make accurate predictions to agree with the phenomena he was observing. And really, calculus is just the beginning. Modern physics uses quite a lot of modern mathematics -- calculus, differential equations, tensors on manifolds, set theory, Lie groups, etc. etc. Literally, many years of mathematics training required to have the tools needed to attempt to understand something like quantum mechanics. This is where the popularization of science can do a great disservice. Most people don't have the tools, the years of mathematics, to even start to approach a subject like quantum mechanics. So, the writers of the popularizations try to explain it using analogy and 'everyday examples. The real disservice here is that most of the time, the authors leave the reader with the real impression that if they understand the analogies, they then understand the science. But, the only way to truly understand the science, is to use the correct tools, and understand the math with it. The math that makes up quantum mechanics wasn't chosen at random. It was developed because the phenomena that was being observed couldn't be predicted without developing the complicated math. It is just like Newton developing calculus. If you polled researchers in quantum mechanics, I suspect that the vast majority of them would indeed wish that the math wasn't so complicated. Nonetheless, the complicated math when done correctly is able to make exceptionally good predictions. The predictions from that math agrees with experimental results exceptionally well. It is certainly possible that the current mathematical description is missing something that would make it all much simpler. In fact, I think it could be argued that it could very well be likely, considering how often after unifications between seemingly disparate phenomena both sides of the complicated phenomena look simpler. It is almost certain that what we know today is wrong; it is at the very least certain that what we know today is incomplete. Nonetheless, the future knowledge will incorporate what is known today. As an example, Newtonian mechanics can accurately calculate how far Tiger Woods can hit a golf ball. But, it is known today that Newtonian mechanics is incomplete, and hence the theories of special and general relativity were developed. These are accepted because while they make far more accurate predictions than Newtonian mechanics near the speed of light, for very massive objects, etc., they also agree with the predictions of Newtonian mechanics when there isn't very large accelerations, velocities far from the speed of light, etc. That is, you can use general relativity for that calculation of how far Tiger Woods hits a golf ball, but the model in this case reduces back to the Newtonian model. Special and general relativity did not just reject the known accurate results of Newtonian mechanics -- they properly reduce down to Newtonian mechanics in the right conditions and hence retain the same accuracy. This will have to be true for whatever more complete model will augment or replace quantum mechanics. We have a wide variety of extremely accurate known results. Right now, quantum mechanics is the best tool that makes predictions that agree with those results. Again, whether the future model is simpler or more complicated, that future model will also be able to make the same predictions we can today, either more accurately or possibly predictions of phenomena we can't predict today, or both. But, right now we have this mathematically complex model, that to truly understand you need the tools for. To extend your analogy; sure, you may not need a tape measure to build a house. But how about a hammer? Nails? Screwdriver? Screws? Concrete? Lumber? A saw? Stone? Steel? etc. You can build a house missing a few of these, but missing them all? Starts to get more and more unlikely. If your mathematical toolbox just contains addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, exponentiation and logarithms, then no wonder you don't believe in the house that quantum mechanics has built. It probably looks like that M.C. Escher painting with the staircases all askew. It would be like standing in front of the Empire State Building with only the knowledge of how to build mud huts. If a builder of homes only knew how to build mud huts, and you tried to explain to them the Empire State Building, they probably wouldn't believe it either. So, while that initial disbelief is understandable, the next question is what is the burden of proof. For quantum mechanics, we have many verifiable predictions that agree with the measurements. If you can't delve into the math yourself, you need to take the professional scientist's word at the predictions. While not perfect -- there is unfortunately fraud in science -- it is relatively rare, and normally found out because of the constant peer-review and building of work upon previous results. That is, if a result is falsified, when the next researcher comes along and tried to replicate it so that they can then try to extend it, the initial fraud is usually found out. So, what we have is this set of quantum mechanical predictions and their pretty darn good agreement with measurements. In short, the model we have today has a a set of conditions it works on very well. And, of course, why we know that the model is at least incomplete is because there are conditions it doesn't work well on. Again, we do need new ideas in science. But, they only are accepted if they can make predictions that agree with what is already known. Regarding your model here. Again, it is really good to have new ideas. And, if you don't have the mathematical tools to develop it, that's ok, but until it gets developed mathematically, your predictions will only be of a general 'wordy' nature instead of being able to compare two numbers. Maybe more to the point, the way you've described your idea in words implies some mathematical descriptions of the phenomena. For example, the word "contact" has implications. There have been a fair amount of study between what it really means when two objects are in contact, and yes, mathematical models of that. So, when you use the word contact, some of us that do have the mathematical tools can actually build a mathematical model and get a feel for the kinds of predictions that your idea would make. So far, it doesn't look like it agrees well with known measurements. So, that is why there is reluctance about your model on this forum. We just don't see how the implications and natural results of your model as you've described it would result in predictions that agree with known reality. It is certainly possible that the way people are translating your words into math is wrong, after all as I said in my previous post, words are fungible and each person's interpretation of words is colored by their own individual experiences. That's why we normally ask for mathematical models. The mathematical models are objective. F = ma doesn't care whether I grew up opulent or destitute. p = mv doesn't care if I am a man or a woman. That is why we normally ask the inventors of these ideas to present their own mathematical models, so that we can all look upon the same formulas the same way. But, as you've admitted that you don't have the mathematical tools in your toolbox, we have to interpret what you've posted ourselves. And what we've seen to date doesn't agree very well with what it confirmed known. Ok, lastly, I guess this leaves you at a bit of a crossroads. I see a few choices: 1) You could try to learn the mathematics yourself so that you could learn to develop your own model yourself, and gain a much greater understanding of the current state-of-the-art at the same time. 2) You could try to describe your model in words better so that more people could try to interpret it similarly to how you do, or perhaps find someone with the mathematical knowledge and work closely with them to have them translate the model for you. Or, 3) you could continue to just try to besmirch stuff you admit you don't know, and replace it with your subjective wishy-washy hand-waving non-predictions and frankly be utterly ignored by pretty much all of the scientific community. If you are serious in the pursuit of your model, then I suggest one of the first two.

This statement is .... I just ... I don't know what combination of frustrating/ignorant/ridiculous it is, but it is somewhere in those neighborhoods. 1) You fully admit here and elsewhere that you don't have the mathematical expertise. Ok, that's fine, we all have different strengths. But then I don't get this unwarranted self-confident assurance that mathematics is so non-useful. How can you be so sure that the mathematics are so wrong, when it has proven to be so useful to date? How can you have made such a damning conclusion on the usefulness of mathematics, when you readily admit that you don't know them. Maybe, just maybe, if you DID know the mathematics, isn't it possible that you could see how useful it really is? Without knowing the mathematics, why don't you take some of the people who do know mathematics word when they tell you that it does a very, very good job. As an analogy, this is like having made up your mind on what what pair of golf shoes is clearly superior to all the others without ever knowing how to tie your shoes. 2) You do realize that so-called 'normal physics' is also mathematical, don't you? I mean, what part of well-accepted physics isn't mathematical? From day 1 in any physics class, you learn F = ma, possibly the most basic rule in all of physics, as a mathematical expression. F = ma lets you actually say something like "that ball experienced 100 N of force" instead of "that ball experienced a lot of force" or "experienced a little force". The real benefit here is that you can actually measure the force, and compare to that prediction. If the force meter says 99.984 N, you can be reasonably confident in your prediction. If the force meter reads 822.701 N, then you need to re-check. The real benefit here is that you don't have to decide if 99.984 N is a lot or a little or if 822.701 is a lot or a little. If you are an Olympic weightlifter, your definition of a lot of force is going to be very different from that of the average ballet dancer's. Part of my frustration here is that I imagine that you have some level of mathematical ability. I hope that you can add, subtract, multiply and divide. You certainly use mathematical terms like percent and resonance, so I am assuming a basic level. I imagine that if your work shorted your paycheck that you'd notice. But, what if someone couldn't add or subtract? What if they decried that addition and subtraction were 'clearly wrong' and 'not necessary' and 'beyond my expertise'. Heck, what if your work decided that things like adding up how may hours you worked or figuring you annual salary was beyond their expertise and they just decided to pay you some random number each pay period? Would that be acceptable to you, or wouldn't you think that they should hire a payroll accountant to ensure you get your fair pay? I really think that you are doing the same thing. You are tearing down something you fully admit you don't know. Again, there is nothing wrong with being ignorant on a subject, nobody knows everything. But, to dismiss the thousands and thousands of people for who mathematics and mathematical physics IS their area of expertise, why don't you trust their expertise? Just like when you figure a paycheck, you have to have someone calculate out the pay correctly, when you start talking about physics, you need to calculate out predictions of what your ideas say. You need to have a prediction so that you can compare to measured values, just like you compare your paycheck to make sure your are being paid correctly. Look, words (so-called 'plain English') are great. Lots of powerful stuff is just words. Plenty of fiction and non-fiction works of literature are treasured classics of mankind. But, word are also fungible. They carry different meanings each colored by our own experiences. The truly great authors help you experience something as they want you to experience it, or at least very closely as possible. But, even the very best works are constantly debated and re-interpreted over and over. This is where math comes in. 100 N is 100 N. Not 10, not 1000, 100 and only 100 N. 99.984N is a tiny percent different from 100N, and 822.701 N is more than 8-fold different than 100 N. If your needs are for a model that is only a tiny percent different than the measured value, the choice is clear. If your needs are for a idea that predicts "some force", are you going to pick the ballet dancer, the Olympic weightlifter, or the payroll clerk? I really hope that this helped explain just why people on this science forum ask for math. As I've written several times in this thread, it is always good to have new ideas. Science needs new ideas. But, then that new idea is put through the crucible of seeing what predictions is makes and comparing them to measurements. This is what we want you to think about. Your idea as you've written it in words, imply some mathematical structure. The predictions made from that mathematical structure do not agree with what we know we've measured in reality. Unless there is an incredibly compelling reason to think that the measurements were done incorrectly, it is only logical to re-examine the idea in the first place. It is like working for a full week of 40 hours, and then your employer cuts you a paycheck for 12 cents. Unless the printer printing the checks messed up in some way, don't you go back to the source and ask them to examine what's wrong? Mathematically, your measured result (the check) didn't agree with the idea you agreed to (your pay rate when you accepted the job), so you go back and re-evaluate. And, if your employer just dismissed the error by telling you "math isn't needed" or "it's unnecessary", just how much longer are you going to work for them? Again, I really hope this helps, and I really hope that you think about what I've written here.

Oh, well that settles that. I'm convinced..... [sarcasm off] seriously dude? Perhaps you should actually explain it. It ain't so just because you say it is so. Again, not in the Dark Ages and all...

No, you are missing the point. The point is that as the U1 particles interact, the consequence or result of those interactions should result in things that obey QM. Because we know a lot about QM is right, because we have the experimental evidence. So it should be able to be shown, yes most likely using math, that the result of the U1 particles are things that obey the rules of QM. Just like it can be shown that in the limit of slower speeds, slower accelerations, and not massive objects, general and special relativity reduce to Newtonian mechanics -- which it had to because we knew that an awful lot of Newtonian mechanics was right. It is fine to propose ideas for the root of why things like QM work, but you also have to demonstrate just how your ideas will result is recreating the things that are known. You can't throw things out like "my idea is 90% right" or "99% correct" or any other quantifiable claim -- like claiming gravitational interactions that we know how to describe mathematically and what the consequences of claiming gravity -- and then not show that the claim leads to the consequence, or leads to the known verified phenomena. Claims that can be quantified need to be backed up. Again, the main measure of just how good an idea is: does the predictions the idea make match experiments. There are no points for logicalness or beauty or simpleness or any other subjective measure. Science has advanced at the speed it has because of the above objective measure or comparing prediction to experiment. What I really don't understand is why when someone is explained this, why they don't put their efforts into creating predictions with their idea to see just how well it compares with known results. That is what will get attention. Not pretty ideas, not 'logical' ideas, not awesome ideas, not creative ideas -- but ideas that lead to good agreement between prediction and known results. It is just that simple.

Have you even tried? Mathematics is pretty good at using 3-dimensional matrices (tensors) to describe the complexity of 3-D turbulent fluid flows composed of trillions of trillions of fluid molecules. Mathematics is also pretty good at using 3-dimensional tensors to describe the behavior of gases made up of trillions of trillions of gas molecules. Mathematics can be a pretty powerful tool you perhaps shouldn't be so quick to dismiss. Are the insults really necessary? because they don't help. People are taking some of their time to try to urge you to think about different points of view about your idea. Most people would be thrilled to have other people critique work for them, and get ideas on how to make their work stronger. Why such a reluctance to consider what most everyone else in this thread is saying?

ZOMG, you know what else is true: 9.8 meters = 1.03588 x 10-15 light years 9.8 pounds mass = 4.4452 x 1012 nanograms 9.8 degrees Fahrenheit = 12.33333 degrees Celsius 9.8 horsepower = 7.30786 x 1010 ergs/s 9.8 miles/hr = 8.51597 knots 9.8 hectares = 18.346 American football fields 9.8 U.S. gallons = 0.15555556 hogsheads 9.8 seconds = 3.1055 x 10-7 years 9.8 radians = 561.499 degrees 9.8 metric tones = 9710.662 Jeddah, Saudi Arabia batman I can use units converters too! But I am not ascribing any meaning to these -- all it is is the same measurement expressed using two different rulers. All it really says is that the two different rulers aren't the same.

stay classy, knowerastronomy, stay classy.

great. post them. Whaaa? I thought you just said you did them in your head. Were you making stuff up at the beginning of your post, or the end? Because something changed in the 8 or so lines it took to get from the first quote above to the second quote. Seriously.... this is total bullplop. This is a new level of bullplop over the rest of this thread. Because now you are actually just lying to us.

But, how can you write something like that without actually having even some back-of-the-envelope calculations? Frankly, something that can be verified 99% accurate probably will still have a lot of interest. But, nothing showing 99% accuracy has been posted. All we've gotten is hand-waving and grandiose claims of its accuracy. Point is: to claim a specific % accuracy, even with the modifier 'about' implies your doing some math. You can't have your cake and eat it too -- you can't tell us how little math means and then use a mathematical number. The fact that you write something like '99% accurate' implies that you understand the value in objectively measuring an accuracy. So, once again, why the reluctance to actually provide specifics to do this calculation? I do not believe your 'about 99%' phrase simply because nothing has been demonstrated to even hint that that value is anything but made up. And, you actually haven't answered some of my questions asking how you can be so sure that what you have discovered is correct without an objective measure. I really would like an answer to that question.

there are other criteria when judging an idea. But prediction accuracy is pretty darn big one. Just like a needle could conceivably kill an elephant, but I'd much rather have a 50 caliber rifle. The math is a tool designed to objectively measure how accurate the predictions are. Why such a reluctance to use a tool so very well designed to measure objectively just how good or poor an idea is? you clearly used some math to get that '99% accurate' measure? Or is that also just made up?