Bignose

I think we're getting closer. But: without the math, what would you compare the observations and experiments to? Math is used to make predictions, and then the idea whose predictions are closest to the observations and experiments tends to be considered the best. But without predictions, we're left back in the Dark Ages again. Observation and experimentation are just part of the full story.

From what I could gather around the incredibly poorly posted text, you want the Navier Stokes equations.

Ok, then why the hubris that your discovery is an accurate representation of the Universe's logic that cannot be put into mathematical form or a dimensionally consistent form when the vast, vast majority of when we have discovered about the Universe to date lets us describe it mathematically and dimensionally consistently? How can you be so damn sure that your interpretation is correct when you cannot even make predictions with it to compare to measured values and get a measure on just how correct it is? Science has moved on from just taking someone's word that something is correct. It is no longer the Dark Ages, man. If something is so perfectly correct, its predictions should be incredibly good to measured values.

you can only boil it to around 90% pure ethanol, as water & ethanol form an azeotrope. If that isn't sufficient, you're going to have to use different methods than simple boiling.

wow, quite a set of cojones to be so sure that the Universe follows your logic and that all of the professionals who have studied it in depth with equations, that are also based on logic by the way, are so very wrong. Where does this hubris comes from, I wonder? Where does one get such confidence to be so very sure that tools like dimensional analysis (shown correct literally billions of times over) and mathematics (also shown correct literally billions of times over) are wrong? Furthermore, if you are so convinced that these tools are all so wrong, why are you trying to even bother to speak with those of us on here that are going to stick to these tools that have proven themselves right so many times? -or- To put it more succinctly, if you are so convinced that your logic and way is so very vastly superior, why aren't you busy writing your own papers and books instead of trolling our forum? Clearly, we're not going to be converted by what you've posted to date, so unless you have some actual new evidence that conforms to what us math-using, dimensional-checking people not trained in logic are looking for, why are you bothering to waste time here? Clearly, we are at an impasse, and posting the same stuff that we're going to have problems with constitutes trolling, really. I'm just suggesting that you may prefer to just start writing on your own webpage rather than butting heads with those of us who are going to continue to insist upon dimensional consistency.

You asked me what meaning I ascribe to the numbers you posted. I answered honestly: none. How is it unfair to be completely honest? And, the reason I ascribe no value to those results, is that there doesn't seem to be anything to them other than coincidence and misinterpretation of things like what 10^-26 means. That's why I suggested posting your algorithm, because then we can see if any of the steps actually do have meaning. Otherwise, it is a black box of garbage in garbage out, for the above and all the reasons mooeypoo gives.

It is meaningless. You haven't shown that any of your calculations mean a single thing beyond highlighting a very few digits that arise by circumstance. I do not place much meaning on circumstance. Perhaps you should post your algorithm used for calculation in detail, if you want people to try to take meaning from them. But, I am not holding my breath, as the final results so far don't seem to mean very much.

mass of a proton in kg and Hubble constant in 1/s. I'm only giving you that because it is fair. Otherwise, I see nothing that isn't just looking for coincidences. There is no 'we' here, only you performing numerology seeking meaning in randomness. Also, I think you're way off in your assignment of what the exponents mean. It has nothing to do with 1,000s of years or 10s of degrees, just how many 0's come before or after a decimal point. To read anything more into those number is silly.

How could you calculate an 'area' with the numbers I gave you? I never told you that they had units of length. What you are doing here is looking for coincidence. Nothing more. The two numbers I gave you (which have physical meaning) have specific values, but you are trying to assign meaning to coincidence. Really, you can do this with any numbers at all -- trying a whole set of different operations on numbers you will end up with coincidence wherein some of the digits are repeated. It doesn't really mean anything. Unless you can show that the numbers are anything beyond coincidence. And considering that I haven't even told you what those two constants are, how could any operations done to them yield most anything besides coincidence? Shoot, I haven't even told you what units those two numbers are in -- changing from one set of units to another changes their values which again lead to just coincidences. So, why should this be anything besides coincidence? Show us that there is something of meaning here besides just luck.

Ok, I'll play [math]1.627262\cdot10^{-26}[/math] & [math]3.2\cdot10^{-18}[/math] RE: "I only need the numbers, not the explanation nor the technicals of what these numbers are and what they pertain too [sic]" Good Luck demonstrating anything meaningful beyond coincidence/numerology without actually knowing the meaning of these two numbers.

khaled, you have to read the post. this 'new' system has 7 unique symbols, same as octal. In fact, the OP, despite the title, in his text about 2/3 through even calls it a base-8 system.

stay classy in 2012, newts

In many regards, I would consider 3 triangles to be be a worse representation for the base 10 numeral of 21 than '21'. '21' only needs two characters to represent it, whereas your system needs 3 symbols. It would get out of hand pretty quickly for a number like even 210....... think about how bad 2100 would be.... As has been alluded to in this thread, there really is nothing too sacrosanct about what base is used. We've seemed to settle on base 10 for most of our written math these days, but again that doesn't mean much of anything other than a convention, really. There have been base 20 and base 60 systems used in the history of mankind. Most good programmers know a fair amount about base 16, base 8, and of course base 2. Pretty much any theorem developed in base 10 is applicable in most any other base, and vice versa. Why triangles? Why not squares? Why not nonagons? Why not a tetrahedron (triangular pyramid)?

No where did I ridicule nor comment on your intelligence in the least. I did comment on your apparent ignorance of the scientific method, and what makes an equation meaningful. This is why I put the preface in there, hoping to avoid such a misunderstanding. There is nothing wrong with being ignorant on a topic -- no human being knows about every subject. We are all continuously learning. What I do consider wrong is that when one is told that they are ignorant on a subject, but there is nothing done to remedy that ignorance or indeed are even hostile to learning about that subject. Unfortunately, that is what I think is happening here. People are commentating on your idea, providing suggestions on ways to make it meaningful, to make it better, and you deliberately remain ignorant on learning about the ways to make it better. Relish in it, even. I really wonder why. Every time someone has suggested a way to make my work better, I've at least looked into the suggestions. Sometimes it wasn't worth the time, but a great deal of the time it was. So, really, why the deliberate remaining ignorance? Why don't you want to make your idea better? Did you bother to even read the majority of my previous post? I actually think I gave you a compliment by saying things like science needs new and fresh ideas.

But you WERE comparing works, because you claimed (without any backing or citation) that Galileo's work didn't pass dimensional analysis. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Look, it is perfectly fine to have new ideas. I'd even agree that if you look at the body of work that string theory has produced versus what it promised, that questioning it is fair. That new ideas are needed. For that matter, science always welcomes new ideas. But they are also always put through a crucible to see how good the idea is. No idea is simple accepted because it has a good story around it, or because is passes a gut-check or is logical to one or many people. A very first crucible is: do the units match? Again, never ever ever ever has there been a correct equation with unmatched units. Ever! Then the second crucible is: does the prediction match the experimental results. The equations we have out there today have passed these two tests. That is why they are currently favored. Lastly, just because the theories that are out there today are illogical to YOU, why do you immediately think that they are illogical to everybody? Why do you think you are The Great Decider about what theories are and aren't logical? -------------------------------------------------- The following may come across as mean-spirited, because tone is not easily conveyed across the written media of a forum like this, so please believe me when I write that I in no way intent for it to be mean at all: But it is rather obvious that you have not studied very much about the current knowledge in physics. Don't you think that if you did study it more, study both the development of the theory and the experiments that have been done and are being done, that the current state may start to seem at least a little more logical to you? Rather than just decrying it as illogical and ignoring all the evidence to date, learn about the current state. Stand on the shoulders of the giants before you and go from there. Again, I completely think that new and creative ideas are needed, but the ultimate test of science is not what one's intuitive or sense of logic says is okay. These can lead people in the wrong direction. That is why the scientific method was developed. It really is this simple: if your predictions match experiments better than any other theory, then your theory is deemed the best.

1) depending on the reference frame -- if you use a rotating reference frame, the kinetic energy of rotation can change and 2) this has been well described by the [dimensionally sound] equation [math]E = \frac{1}{2} I \omega^2[/math] with I is the moment of inertia and [math]\omega[/math] is the angular speed. But, rotational energy is only 1 form of energy, there are lots of other forms... For that matter, depending on the reference frame, rotational energy can appear to be translational energy and vice versa. There really is nothing all that sacrosanct about rotational energy.

OK, please think of your idea as considered and then rejected because it does not follow the measurements made every single day. When I measure the height of a table, I get an answer in inches, or centimeters, or meters -- all units of length. I don't get units of energy, or velocity, or mass. "How high is the table? Oh, about 16 kilograms" -- is completely nonsensical. Or going to the bank to cash a check and receiving gallons of urine in return -- it is nonsensical. E=mR is the same way. The left hand side is asking: "how many units of energy are there?" The right hand side is answering the equivalent of "15 bananas". The right hand side HAS to answer the question with units of energy. Otherwise there is no communication at all, and any mathematics loses all meaning. There has never been a correct equation that the units on the left hand side and the right hand side are not the same. Never. So, either you've come up with the lone example out there -- a truly extraordinary case which is going to need some truly extraordinary evidence (I'd also like to know how tall a table of 16 kilograms is), or it is wrong. Again, every single measurement ever taken to date suggests the second -- that an equation with left and right hand sides without the same units is wrong. It is not impossible that yours is the exception, but considering the entire body of measurements that mankind has ever taken, is doesn't seem likely right now. So, like I wrote in response to your quote, think of your idea as considered and rejected then. Because despite the title of the thread, the equation is completely illogical compared to every single measurement ever taken ever.

It has no thermal energy, but why should that prevent most of the other forms? Like potential or chemical energy? And, it may very well be that all energy came from the Big Bang. As near as we can tell, conservation of energy has never been violated, so the logic there is sound. But really, if you don't want to 'criticize physicists [sic] knowledge about energy in 1996' why even make the comment? I can guarantee that the basic definitions of work and energy were well established in 1996 and haven't changed since. Maybe this is just something that I'm missing in the tone b/c of the written word over the forum.

I was curious so I literally just pulled out my old undergrad physics text (Serway 1996). Chapter 7 is entitled "Work and Energy". You may want to review this before thinking that physicist don't know anything about energy.

It is really important to say that dimensional soundness is merely a first check. The units of work and torque are the same (mass*length^2/time^2), but they are certainly not the same thing. If you use one over the other in an equation, that equation will be dimensionally sound, but still wrong. The next step is, of course, to see what predictions your equation makes and compare them to measurements.

Assuming that the densities do combine linearly, which I don't think is accurate in too many cases in general (I guarantee it does NOT except in special cases for liquids and gases; I admit I don't know about metals, but I'd think that melting two or more of them together would bring about some non-linear effects from the atom's interactions), your measurement of the mass gives you the data you need. Remember that density*volume = mass. You have the mass from your measurement. And you have the parts that make up the density*volume (two or three parts, depending on how you want to look at it).

Ummmm, maybe this is a joke, but no. The proof pi is irrational has been known for over 200 years. And it has been known to be transcendental since 1882 (per Wikipedia). That means infinite number of digits after the decimal point. Just because we can't ever calculate all of them, doesn't mean that we didn't know they are there.

I think it is hardly certain that the Universe is roughly 14 billion years old. Every few years, that estimate gets longer and longer. I think it is pretty clear that 14 billion and 3.14.... is just coincidence. Especially when you think that of all the bases we could have used, 3.14 is only the value in base 10.

You just saying so doesn't make it so. There are numerous experiments that would disagree with you. Perhaps you should either 1) attempt to understand those experiments and the results they got or 2) post why each and every single experiment has been wrong. What part of scientific accuracy being defined by prediction agreeing with experiment is so hard to fathom? If you disagree with it so much, propose something new -- something even better -- something more fair in your eyes. And lets head 'logic' and 'intuition' off at the pass right now as not being valid alternatives. Because sometimes results are not logical, sometimes what is correct isn't intuitive. At one time, it was intuitive that the world was flat. At one time, it was logical to think the moon was made of cheese. Mankind has come a long way since those days, in no small part because science doesn't just blindly accept what someone declares to be logical, intuitive, or correct. Science accepts things when the predictions made agree nicely with the experimental results. Why such a resistance to a system that has fairness and objectivity built right in?

Why -- why is it required that 'the same is true for light'? Just because they share the same word "wave"? Before the duality of light as a wave and a particle was known, the wave behavior of light was known. But, since, we have also learned that light is made up of photons, and the lack of medium in space means there is less junk for the photons to run into and hence light can travel a long distance in space. Whether this explanation agrees with your notion of what is 'intuitive' or 'logical', doesn't really matter. The experimental evidence strongly supports this. This is precisely why the main metric of how good a scientific idea is is how closely predictions match experiments. There is no gauge of what kind of warm-fuzzy one gets when thinking about an idea. There is no meter that measures how 'intuitive' or 'logical' an idea is. In no small part because what is intuitive to me may not be intuitive to you! Accuracy as defined by how close prediction matches experiment is the ultimate objective, clear cut, unbiased, and fair metric on which to judge an idea scientifically If the above is your best example, you probably need to review the current knowledge more before trying to tear it down. The current knowledge is accepted because the predictions it makes agree closer to experimental results better than the alternatives. As I wrote above, there are certainly things wrong and incomplete with the current understanding, but before you make grandiose claims about our lack of understanding with the current model, you need to understand what the current model actually says.