Bignose

If it has no distinct qualities, energy or value, and can't be seen, how would anyone even know if it exists? -Or- If there is no observable effect, then there isn't anything there.

you want a 'while' loop. Do statement(s) while condition X is true.

Dovada, it means you need to study a lot of what is accepted physics today before you start trying to tear it down. Please don't take this personally, but you have demonstrated several fundamental flaws in this thread. From being unable to convert from one system of units to another to not even knowing why E=mc^2 is an approximation to just 'fiddling' with E=mc^2 and arriving at your 'centripedal force' equation, you are really not in a position to try to attack what you don't know. Again, this is not personal, and it is not necessarily a problem. You just need to spend some time learning what is accepted today. It hasn't come around just because people fiddled with it -- it has been accepted because the preponderance of evidence supports it. There are plenty of unanswered questions in physics today, plenty of things to explore. But, without some basic tools, you just cannot even really begin. So, I ask you to step back, find a text you are comfortable with, and work through these basics. And, every single time you have a question in your text, please post it on this forum. Lots of people willing to help you here.

Sure, guy, we all have time limitations. But, you'd think that if you really believed in your idea, you'd actually do a tiny bit of leg work to see if it had merit. I'm not demanding an answer in the next 20 minutes or anything. Take a week, a month, whatever and actually do some leg work. That way, you can actually have answers to some of these questions. That's all any of us are really asking -- to put in an honest effort to answer the questions, rather than act surprised when your unsupported idea isn't immediately accepted.

Fine, I'm in a good mood this evening. [math]G = 6.67384 \cdot 10^{-11} \frac{{m^3}}{{kg} \cdot {s^2}}[/math] I'm going to convert it from m to feet and kg to pounds mass. 1 m is 3.28 feet 1 kg is 2.2 lbm You just multiply the above by fractions made of these conversions: [math]G = 6.67384 \cdot 10^{-11} \frac{{m^3}}{{kg} \cdot {s^2}} \cdot \left( \frac{3.28 ft}{1 m} \right)^3 \cdot \left(\frac{1 kg}{2.2 lb_m} \right)[/math] The meters cubed on the top and bottom cancel as well as the kg on the top and bottom, and then you do the arithmetic -- namely you multiply 6.67384* 10^-11 by 3.28 cubed and divide by 2.2 and the result is [math]G = 1.0705 \cdot 10^{-9} \frac{{ft^3}}{{lb_m} \cdot {s^2}}[/math] you can do this with any constant and any system of units. Really, again, quite simple stuff. So, will you actually come to whatever point you are trying to make?

I don't know how to "incorporate the second half of the cycle", maybe you could show us. Since you said any equation, here's one: [math]y=\sin x[/math] Please incorporate the second half of the cycle on this equation, please.

And you are a typical poster with an idea that you don't actually want to do any of the work to try to support, and you try to deflect any actual questions by playing the martyr. I am almost shocked that we haven't gotten the line "they didn't believe in Galileo, too!". Must be a match made in heaven, because this "typical internet forum" gets a fair amount of posters who behave in exactly the same way...

In fact there the CDC made a recommendation today that not only girls of age 11-12 should get the HPV vaccine, but boys of that same age too. HPV can be associated with cancer of the penis, anus, mouth and throat, as well as the commonly well known link to cervical cancer. But, none of this address the main point of this thread -- namely the title "does hatred cause cancer"? And all I'm asking is to start with a little bit of statistics to see if there is a possible correlation. I pretty much laid it out for you. 1) find the percentage of the population that psychologists would define as "hateful" 2) find the percentage of the population that gets cancer If your idea has any merit, the two percentages should be in the neighborhood of one another. This is the barest minimum to start with. There are plenty of other questions to go over, but if there isn't even correlation, then there really isn't any reason to search for causation, will there? I'd want to see where you get your numbers from. i.e. just how a "hateful person" is defined? How it was measured? What are the margins of error on any figured reported? And similarly for any cancer studies, defining exactly what gives a positive result (i.e. if you have a benign tumor, does that count or not), and what the margins of error are. And you'd want to post your sources for answering these questions so that everyone has the opportunity to look up those same sources and make their own judgments about it if they want to. This is your idea -- so I'm not going to do it for you. Though, as I posted above, I suspect that with a little Googling, you could get at least a good beginning on answering these questions. Going to a good library and working with a knowledgeable librarian, and you could probably get pretty good answers to these questions. But, you actually have to do it. And, lastly, I called you a martyr because instead of just doing this teeny tiny amount of work -- you'd rather complain and call us a "typical internet forum" (whatever that exactly means). And again, if you seriously thought that your idea had merit -- why wouldn't you want to pursue the answers to every single question asked as vigorously as possible? Every time you get a well-researched answer that agrees with your idea, you know your idea is just that much stronger? What are you afraid of? That your idea will become weaker once you actually look for some answers? If you truly cared, you'd want to know the answer, whether it is agreement or disagreement. But, again, you'd rather play the martyr, complain that we're asking you some hard questions, and not actually look for answers. You like the attention more than you like actually knowing the answer to the question that is this thread title.

Forgive me for being blunt, but if you honestly cannot convert G from one system of units to another, it is hard to believe that any of your other calculations are correct. Unit conversion is a grade-school level skill, and it is usually well-practiced by 1st year undergrads as homework and exam questions thoroughly test the student's ability to convert units and work in one consistent system. Or, if your question was merely rhetorical, please just get to the point and don't be coy about it.

Oh, come on. Really? The martyr card already? People are just a little skeptical that just because a word is used to describe something, doesn't necessarily mean that that something automatically takes on all of the other definitions of that word, too. Are up quarks literally up? How about the charm quarks -- are they automatically magic trinkets? Is an expression in mathematics the way the formula's face reacts to news? Words share meanings. That is why most dictionary entries have many definitions. All we're asking you for is to do some basic legwork before just assuming that what you think and what the anecdotes you've experienced are indeed how you've interpreted them. Or, if you were just here to ask a hypothetical question, then the posts in this thread should be interpreted as "questions that need to be answered before this can be given serious thought". They are just simple questions. If you really think that your idea has merit, they are questions that you should be eager to try to answer to the very best of your ability. Because if you get answers that support your idea, and your methodology for getting those answers is sound -- then your idea will get a great deal of attention. But, alas, no, you'd rather play the martyr and call us "a typical internet forum" and go boo hoo hoo. Seriously: with this lack of wanting to do any work to support your idea, what did you think was going to happen here? "Oh my goodness!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! the word 'malignant' DOES HAVE ANOTHER MEANING!!!!!!! AND I DO DISLIKE HATEFUL PEOPLE!!11!2 You are teh smarterest person evar!!!!!" Sorry, but this "typical internet forum" requires that you at least put in a teeny tiny amount of work before your idea merits more than a cursory glance.

...and pr0n, don't forget the pr0n...

As mooey pointed out, your experiences on the road are just anecdote. Now, I don't know for sure, but I bet you can find some statistics on the incident rate of road rage. I also bet that it isn't 1/3 of the population, not even 1/3 of the percentage of the population with cancer. But, again, these are numbers that if you looked for them, I bet they are out there. Without some kind of numbers, though, this is just supposition. Just try to look for these numbers -- Google will probably give you some good leads or a trip to a library working with a knowledgeable librarian should get you some preliminary numbers. But, again as mooey said, the onus is on you to try to find these numbers to supplement your idea here. If you do get good numbers, then I would be interested to see them.

So..... let me make sure I have this right. You're trying to form a theory based on a single anecdote? Seems to be that this probably isn't a terribly difficult thing to figure out. Find the percentage of the population that psychologists would describe as "hateful" and find the percentage of the population that get malignant tumors and find out how close they are to one another. It is only a first step, and correlation certainly doesn't not imply causation, but if the two percentages aren't even close, then that probably puts a quick end to this discussion because there won't even be correlation.

Probably need to be more specific about this -- there is plenty of 'electro-propulsion' out there today. Segway, Nissan Leaf, etc. Since this date apparantly stuck out, and it is the first one on your list, what is the significance of this date?

CRC Standard Mathematical Tables and Formulae, The CRC Encyclopedia of Mathematics are both good starts. I like Schaum's Mathematical Handbook of Formulas and Tables, bought it years ago and is the first place to turn when I just want to make sure I have the formula right in my head. It doesn't really explain anything about the equation, just what it is. Dover's got a good one in handbook of Mathematical Functions that is pretty cheap to boot, too. as the posters above wrote, it would quickly become pretty much meaningless to write down every single equation. It would make the size of the Encyclopedia Britannica look like a penny paperback. Or, to put it another way, every single formula IS written down -- in the vast body of scientific literature: books and journal articles. The important skill here is learning how to use the tools out there to search the existing literature to find the equation(s) you need. If you were interested in all the formulas in a particular area, that's where handbooks and review papers become useful. For example, Crispin's Stochastic Methods: A Handbook for the Natural and Social Sciences covers a lot of the useful equations in stochastic calculus. Handbook of Particle Physics catalogues the same for experimental high energy physics. Most any subject where more than just a few people are working on it has a handbook or two published on it and even subjects where there are only a dozen people working on it usually will have a monograph or review paper(s) on it. Again, the skill here is in using the library and other resources effectively to find the info you need.

Seriously, never heard of Google? http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/52469.html If you were a decent mathematician in the 1600-1700-1800s but not a great one, you probably spent at least some significant amount of your time helping expand the scope of the tables. Also, the series expansions are pretty well known today.

Well, let's start with the very first statement. What do you mean by opposite? What is the opposite of each of the other three fundamental forces, strong, weak, and electromagnetism.

Not sure what the question is here... Yes, sometimes under specific circumstances simplifications to the model can be made without introducing much error at all. The art and knowledge of modelling is to know when such simplifications are appropriate, how much they affect the quality of the final answer, and balancing the cost versus speed of arriving at an answer.

I suspect it that the odds are not the same if only because Labs are one of the most popular breeds and there are simply more Labs than Dalmatians.

I wonder how much of this reluctance or reticence towards imaginary numbers is due to the use of the term 'imaginary'? In that, if they were just called 'complex' or even a new word, would people have as much of a problem with them? I mean, I think that most people don't believe in most everything else that is called imaginary, so it is only natural to question imaginary numbers, too.

Pincho, if you are really open minded, you may just want to consider that rather than every person on every science forum being not 'decent', that the common thread there may be your presentation? If you really want to discuss your model, you really need to learn to answer direct questions in a direct way, defining every new term and every term whose definition you want to modify or replace. Read most any scientific paper, and the beginning is groundwork laying by defining terms and starting from a well-established base. This pattern allows people to pick up what the author is saying easily. You would do well to follow it.

yep, I give up. all that was just word salad. not even a real attempt to answer my questions.

Why -- there has to be a reason why. And how does this explain my question about entropy? Really, Pincho, I am quite tired of asking the same question repeatedly. This will be the last time I'm going to ask you to explain what you mean by "Entropy holds them together" Picho, I feel like I am a reasonably intelligent person. I have many degrees that would corroborate this. I am certainly not going to claim to know even "a lot" about physics, but I know enough to know what I do know and what I don't know. I do know terms like "mass" and "vector" and "entropy". What I am trying to say here is that just perhaps I am not 'getting this part' because your explanations haven't been terribly good. And your answering my questions with a question like "Why did something just appear from nowhere?" isn't helping. Because YOU are the one to claim to have a theory of everything -- shouldn't this be a question you can answer? ------------------------ Pincho, I am sorry, but unless there is a clear answer to this post, I'm going to give up. And advise you to try to create much clearer explanations is you should try again. And further advise you not claim to "answer the questions that usually don't get answered" unless you can clearly answer them.

Pincho, I get that. I can see that. I don't get how there being an igloo around something else means it is "nothing" because there is an igloo -- clearly not "nothing". The sum of the two parts can sum to zero, but there is not no things at all. It is just that their summed contributions go to zero. And I don't get how "Entropy holds them together." because that is using a term in a very unfamiliar way. Once again a direct question unanswered. How many times do I have to re-post the same question to get a direct answer?

You can't have it both way. You say volumes are equal (length cubed) and then you say no units again -- very SPECIFICALLY, WHICH IS IT? How? Your balloon example doesn't work because it is the elasticity of the rubber and the fluid nature of the water that transmits disturbances between them. Entropy doesn't work that way. It itself, nor a gradient in entropy is a force. It is a way to know what state is preferred. I.e. you have two states of a system, the one with the lower entropy will be preferred. But, just because there is an entropy difference means that anything will necessarily happen. Consider a gas cylinder filled with hydrogen and oxygen gas. Two water molecules have lower entropy than one molecule of oxygen gas and two molecules of hydrogen gas. But, at room temperature, it will take many, many, many years before that cylinder has any significant amount of water in it. Entropy alone is not enough to make predictions about the rate at which things change, or even that they will change. In this case, there is an activation energy that has to be reached when three molecules simultaneously collide which is incredibly rare at room temperatures. Entropy has never been described as any kind of elasticity -- so again PER MY REPEATED REQUEST -- please define very clearly what you mean by "Entropy holds them together." If they are nothing, then why are we even discussing them? How can there be a shell and it be nothing. It is either a shell or it is nothing. It cannot be both. It is mutually exclusive.