Bignose

This is your response to the critique that your idea isn't dimensionally sound? Because while I can agree that mankind hasn't figure out all the mathematics that describe the Universe, we have never, ever, ever found a situation that was mathematically dimensionally unsound. That is, there has never, ever, ever been a valid idea where the units on the left hand side don't equal the units on the right hand side. It is like asking "how fast is that car going?" "Oh, about 16 christmas trees per lumen". The units have to be right for it to make any sense at all. I don't think you'd appreciate much if your employer hired you with an offer of $100,000 a year and turns out by their reckoning a dollar is a banana. The units have to make sense. What was your metric for determining this accuracy? My metric is % difference between predictions and experimental values.

You have used the word accurate, in claiming that your idea is accurate. Unless it makes predictions that agree with measured values, how do you know it is accurate? Or how are you defining 'accurate'?

These are all words. How do you expect to check them against experiments? You need specific values in order to compare to the experimental results. "This theory predicts a particle which compresses when it rotates" this has implications -- it takes a certain amount of energy to compress. An experiment to get a particle rotating should consume more of the input energy than would just be needed to rotate it. What what % of energy goes into rotation. How far compressed is the particle? one more: "This theory predicts that there is no such thing as infinite gravity" So what is the functional form of gravity? Since the current functions seem to be awfully good at making accurate predictions. Can you cite an experiment where the current gravitational model didn't work? Can you show how your proposed function would fit the experimental numbers better? In short, words are not scientific predictions. They are more story-telling. To make scientific predictions, you need to predict very specific values so that the % difference between your prediction and measured values can be calculated. Mainly because in order for your idea to gain traction, its % difference needs to be just as good as the current ideas to be considered equal. If your % difference is smaller, than it will get loads of interest.

Fortunately, we don't have to wait on 'Time'. The 'deciding factor' is actually just how useful your idea is. Usefulness in the scientific sense is pretty much defined to be just how accurate any predictions made are. That is how the current theory got to where it is today. As compared to your premise that things must be logical -- where exactly is it required that the universe be logical to you? (or me, or anyone?) -- the ultimate metric ideas are scientifically judged by is agreement to experiment. The current theory makes predictions that agree with experimental values more than any other theory. Is it perfect? Of course not. It is almost certainly wrong in that there are parts missing, and it is certainly incomplete. But it is the best we have right now. And it is best because of how closely the predictions it makes are to measured values. So, really, my post boils down to one question and its followup: What experimental predictions does your idea make? And then, how well do those predictions compare to known experimental measurements? These are important so that you can talk about just how accurate your idea is. If it is more accurate than current ideas, then it will supplant the current ideas.

Seriously? this is an objection of yours? He didn't directly observe it? What does constitute a 'direct' observation then? This speculation about 'somebody's interpretation' of the data is just silly -- why don't you actually go an get a copy of the paper wherein the experimental procedure is detailed and you can see exactly how the data was interpreted. This is exactly WHY research papers are written All these words have specific meaning -- such as elastic, inelastic etc. They has specific implications on how the bodies in the collision would act. And I chose the word specific deliberately, because IF you actually think that the above is what happened, you can calculate what it means. You can calculate the trajectory the bodies would take after collision. Etc. You can then compare your predictions to what the data actually is. So, when can we have your calculations? Maybe... just maybe... it is evidence for the quark model. Hmmm, quark model says 3 bodies in a proton, and then 3 bodies found. Ding! That's already better than your model. You can't just say 'it is hard to fathom' -- it is a known result that if you think your model is correct, YOU NEED TO SHOW HOW YOUR MODEL WOULD YIELD THIS EXPERIMENTAL RESULT! And then you need to use Web of Science or some other journal article database and find all the other experimental results from people doing experiments based off of, or similar to, or confirming the Briedenbach result. Then your model also needs to SHOW HOW IT ALSO INCORPORATES EVERY OTHER EXPERIMENTAL RESULT.

And this is a total non-answer. Your model should be able to make a prediction that shows how your 2501 charges lead to 3 point-like bodies being discovered in the scattering. The above is meaningless since it is just words. There is a confirmed experimental number: 3 bodies. Your model needs to be able to make that prediction. Show us how your model makes this prediction. (and as an aside, I stopped bringing it up when it was becoming clear no real desire to actually answer it -- I'll be floored if my question above is answered, actually)

Bullplop. I brought up Briedenbach's paper no less than 3 times in this thread where the first experimental evidence of quarks was published. The report of 3 point-like bodies was very clear from the paper. You have not shown in any way why your collection of thousands of particles would lead to 3 point-like bodies. You can't even demonstrate that your idea replicates the first experimental evidence for quarks, much less the thousands of experiments that have come after the first one. If your model can't even predict the first result, why even look deeper? If you respect scientific data so much, why the rejection of this first groundbreaking experiment (that was verified many times over)? Again, if this is true, why does the Briedenbach paper report 3 point like bodies, and not 2501?

This. This times a million. newts, your thread is full of contradictions. You claim that scientists are 'religious' in their defense of quarks, yet you want us to accept your idea without any significant evidence at all. You claim that scientists just 'decided' that the quark model is what it is, but yet you apparently just decided how your model should be. Hello pot, meet kettle. It is cliched, but I do like the saying about how one should keep an open mind, but not so open that the brain falls out. I think actually just sitting in on a real scientific conference would be very interesting to you newts. There you will find 1) many, many people presenting their new ideas 2) those same people also presenting evidence why the think their idea is right and 3) those same people answering questions that the other scientists ask them.

uncool, he's already admitted it was metaphysics (post 24). I still content it really has no place on a science forum...

50 years at that time is pretty fast. There were only a handful of people who had the means to do good science because they were independently wealthy or talented enough to have the attention of a financial backer. Very few and far between. Quite simply, at that time, 50 years was not enough time for compelling evidence to spread quickly, especially with the strong influence of the church at that time, too. Nonetheless, the deficiencies in the epicycles model were becoming well known. That's why they were trying models of cycles withing cycles, and further smaller cycles, etc. Obviously, the word did eventually get out, and in the end, it was evidence that was the most compelling. What?!? It isn't a freaking decision. It is an experimentally verified number. To be uranium, it has to have a certain number of protons. And, then the differing numbers of neutrons are the isotopes. There is no 'decide'. Really, you need to be careful with your word choice.

http://www.amazon.com/Introducing-Fractals-Graphic-Nigel-Lesmoir-Gordon/dp/1848310870/ looks like what you want

newts, I hope you take this quote seriously. Because, as I wrote many posts above, it is basically trolling this forum to be so deliberately obtuse on the scientific method and the evidence that is out there. You've had a lot of the evidence for quarks cited for you. And you've ignored it. You've made no attempt to even learn about why the modern theory is accepted -- i.e. all the evidence for it. You've even said it yourself that you don't know about quarks, and in the time since you've made that post, I don't think you've made any attempt to remedy this deficiency. All this adds up to trolling, really. Now, I am a perpetual optimist that you aren't trying to deliberately troll this forum, but I really do question your sincerity when you just flat out ignore the vast, vast majority of critiques of your idea and steadfastly refuse to acknowledge how weak your idea currently is. Taking the critiques to heart would only make your idea stronger, but you just ignore them. Again, this smacks of trolling.

It is words choice like this that simply infuriates people in your threads, newts. 'deciding'. You make it sound so casual. I decide I'm going to wear my tan pant instead of the black ones today. I decide to drink Coke instead of Pepsi. I decide to buy the red bowling ball instead of the blue one. etc. It wasn't 'decided'... the experimental evidence from numerous experiments determined what quarks made up which particles. The mathematics of the standard model makes predictions about what particles should be found, and the experiments bear them out. In a lot of ways, your aside about the epicycles and Kepler is spot on -- the need for a better model (Kepler's) was readily becoming apparent as more accurate observations of the movements of the heavenly bodies were taken. Can you say the same for quarks? Can you point out experiments of decomposing particles that are contradictory to the quark model? Can you show where your model does a better job predicting experimental results? Because THAT IS HOW EPICYCLES FELL OUT OF FASHION -- Kepler's models made much more accurate predictions. That is the your only goalpost -- show your model making better predictions, and all this wailing and gnashing of teeth and rage against the 'religion of science' will end. Will there be a few people who stubbornly hold on to quarks because they devoted their life to them? Sure, scientists are human too. But, if you have a model that makes better predictions, YOU WILL GET NOTICED. YOU WILL GET THE ATTENTION YOU THINK YOUR MODEL DESERVES. It really is that simple.

bullplop! newts, if 'nobody was that interested' how did you get 5 pages? The reason nobody heralded your idea as the next great thing is the lack of evidence for it. Not just lack of evidence showing that your idea was an improvement over the existing idea, but also a total lack of your idea matching known experimental results today. New ideas are great, and new ideas are always needed. With the stagnation that string theory has been in, new ideas are really needed. But you cannot cannot cannot just ignore existing evidence. New ideas have to incorporate all known existing evidence, unless the known experiments can be shown to be flawed in some way. This is the hurdle ALL new ideas have to jump. On the one hand, it is monumental -- there are a vast number of experiments out there, and one needs to be well-versed with the current ideas to know how to properly interpret the known data. On the other hand, it is easy -- the hurdle is right out there, in plain sight, and the concept is simple. Unlike your claims of religion, the acceptance hurdle is very clear -- no 'bishop' or 'pope' or science has to decide it is holy or not, no one has to decide a miracle has been performed, etc. -- you just have to have objective clear evidence and your idea must make predictions that coincide with the known evidence. Despite your numerous claims of religious fanaticism, THIS is the reason the current idea of quarks is preferred. I guarantee that the large majority of scientists would agree that the current theory of quarks is at the very least incomplete if not wrong. But the new idea must also incorporate the known results. A good example is general relativity includes special relativity and also includes Newtonian mechanics. That is, the improvements made by relativity were numerous, but then in the limit of velocities far away from the speed of light, in locations far away from strong gravitational fields --- it reduces to the Newtonian mechanics that everyone learns in 1st semester physics. If general relativity is to be replaced, the replacement must reduce to Newtonian mechanics in the appropriate limits, and reduce to general relativity appropriately, too. You cannot deny that quite a lot of data shows that Newtonian mechanics and general relativity are correct, in their respective areas. So, any new theory has to subsume known accepted data. THIS is why your thread had 'nobody interested' -- you made no objective predictions (i.e. numerical) and from what little was presented did not reduce to known results very easily. And in fact seemed very contradictory to known results -- and you seemed to have little to no interest in addressing that. Is it really a wonder why interest was lost? The above is true for all new or per the title of this thread 'Final' theories. Data we have now cannot just be dismissed -- so one thing for certain is that whatever the 'final' theory is, it will reduce to or mimic an awful lot of our current ideas in the special cases of what we have data for today. It must, unless some extraordinary flaw in the data we've gathered to date is found.

When, o when was it dictated that the Universe must be logical to you?

And I never said that I have a problem with philosophy. My problem is that on a science forum -- where the rules of science are paramount -- trying to promote musing and wondering to the level of science isn't fair at all. A major component of science is the prediction and comparison of that prediction with results. Musing and philosophizing alone doesn't give that. I never said that there isn't value in it, but until those musings are turned into specific predictions, they aren't science. It really is as simple as that. And, as it isn't science, it really doesn't belong on a science forum. There are philosophy forums where this kind of discussion would get much more attention than here.

In the broadest of terms, you need to analyze the data and see how well or how poor it fits the model. Sometimes, you need the data to actually give you some information about the model. Then, the error analysis tells you how well the data actually fits that model. But, the details of how to do all that really depends on the nature of the data and project itself. Surely, you've been introduced to some of this in school, or at the very least your instructor should be able to give you some guidelines and examples of what is expected of you?

I would disagree that metaphysics is in any way "another branch of science" since it apparently doesn't even have to follow the most basic rule of science -- prediction and comparison with observation. That is the very core of science. And, consequently, at the very core of this forum. Since it seems like there doesn't plan to be any prediction and comparison with observation, there is very little interest here. you may like to look over wikipedia's entry on Metaphysics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics "Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy" "Prior to the modern history of science, scientific questions were addressed as a part of metaphysics known as natural philosophy. " both seem pertinent to me. Both seem to strongly suggest that it isn't accepted as a form (or "branch" in your words) of science today. Making it very hard to defend on a science forum that is newer than the end of 18th century.

this is a nice story and all, but I still see no specific prediction that would be objectively testable to exclusively if your idea particles are real or not. How soon could we expect that?

Incorrect, it was becoming well known that as better than better observations were being made of the movements of Mars, the Moon, etc., that Earth-centric solar system models were making worse and worse agreements with predictions. Whereas a sun-centric solar system was making better and better predictions. And that is the heart of our questions on your idea here -- what specific prediction can your idea make that can show objectively and clearly that the particles in your idea exist? This is a huge part of physics -- making predictions and seeing how well measurements agree with that prediction. It is the ultimate judge of a model -- its usefulness as to how well its predictions agree with experimental observations.

There is that "no value" phrase again, that I am sorry, but I still don't know what it means. Value of what exactly? What exactly does "infinitely valueless" mean? And, again, please propose a test that will clearly show their presence or lack of presence, and furthermore shows that imparticles are real but "faerie wishes" aren't.

Dovada, the units not working out is very serious issue, and cannot just be ignored. "How fast is it moving?" "6 fishtanks per handshake" It doesn't matter how coincidentally a number appears, if it is in an equation which is dimensionally unsound, it is as useless as the reply to the question above. That is, if you are seeking a velocity, and you don't get a length per unit time, then it does not matter at all what what value the arithmetic yields -- it is meaningless. You do want your results to take on some kind of meaning, don't you? Unless you can show me that every experiment done to find the electric constant or the magnetic constant was performed on exactly the same day each year, how could their values NOT change if they followed the rules you've laid out? There is around 5 million km difference between perihelion and aphelion. That would not yield just a 1 part per million difference if your formulas we right. It would yield something like a 5% difference. That would be noticeable! Why hasn't it been noticed!

If the distance from the sun to the earth was an integral part of those constants, why hasn't anyone noticed a difference in those constants from perihelion to aphelion? The difference in distance is not insignificant, which should change those constants in a not insignificant way, which would mean things like the computers you and I are communicating with the forum would only work correctly for a short time each year.

Not sure why you would say that... http://news.mongabay.com/2011/1106-hance_greenhouse_gas_2010.html for one of many examples of the emissions steadily rising world-wide for quite some time now...

Imparticle, you may not have said "there is no observable effect" directly, but isn't that the logical conclusion of what you did write "The imparticle is invisible, having no distinct qualities, having no energy or value."? As in, if there is "no energy or value" (not quite sure what that means, BTW), then there is no test possible to determine if and where they exist -- because there is no energy to detect or any 'value'. Hence, no test to observe them, either directly or indirectly. So, finally, if there is no test, then how could be know if there are there or not? I mean, if I replace your 'imparticles' with 'faerie wishes', how if it any different. Your test above doesn't work, because 'faerie wishes' can also lead to 'the effect is the pattern' because the faeries wish it so. You need to come up with a test that discriminates between imparticles and faerie wishes.