Bignose

By what objective measure would you dismiss a model then? That is, without comparing model with verified phenomena, what other criteria actually advances scientific knowledge? The history of science is full of 'nice' or 'pretty' or 'clever' or otherwise appealing ideas that fell to the sword of objective experimental evidence. Or, just what value is there in an model that doesn't actually make predictions that agree with evidence? I can only think of one example: simplified models that are good for teaching or exploring a single aspect or a limit of the phenomena, such as studying ballistic models of balls thrown without air resistance -- the air resistance cannot be ignored, but you don't include it when first teaching people about ballistic motion because for most students it makes the problem too difficult too soon. After the student has mastered simplified situations, then the complexity can be added.

I actually think that most people on here would agree with you that what we've been taught, is indeed 'wrong'. Or at least incomplete. We know that the current model has unresolved issues. But, one more time, the evidence for quarks is pretty strong. I still haven't seen how your model recreates the experimental evidence for quarks better than the current model. Or any answer to this question: How does your "protons and neutrons must be made of around 2500 charges" coincide with the experimental evidence for quarks, such as (yes, again) Breidenbach's 1969 paper in which he reported three point-like bodies inside a proton. This need to be answered directly: Why did he report 3 point like bodies and not 'around' 2500?!? Science 'protects' known verified experimental evidence. You cannot just dismiss known results. Until your idea can explain known results at least as well as the current model, don't expect it to get much attention -- there is little point in pursuing a model that doesn't make predictions as well as the current model.

Which is why I wrote multiple times that I feel mankind as a species is not mature enough for anything approaching true communism.

The philosophy as an idea has merit. I think that most people can understand that as a society, there is value in helping people who are less fortunate, and treating all members of a society as equals. However, mankind as a species is not mature enough for this kind of arrangement. There are too many people who in receiving a fair share of the output society produces, will chose not to do their part of the input. And, too many people that would ratchet their efforts down to just the barest minimum work required, because they wouldn't see the benefit that the entire society receives as any kind of personal benefit for themselves. Not enough people can think longer term like "when I am young, I can work harder and help support today's older members of society so that when I am older, and can only work a lesser amount, I can let the young of that time help support me." And, as above, no county has ever instituted the system anywhere near 'properly'. Orwell's Animal Farm probably said it best: "All animals are equals, but some are more equal than others." I have optimism that someday the species will be mature enough to make a society where every member is equal, and everybody contributed what they can to the good of all society, but I do not think that anything approaching that will occur in my lifetime.

I would be double and triple checking that one second of video is really one second of real time, and that your circle is really 186,000 miles in the scale of the picture. Because I suspect that something is amiss here. If you can post some evidence, then I think you'd get a lot of sets of eyes on it to help check the above issues and many more I probably don't know about.

Then, quite simply, you are not doing anything scientific. You are writing a story. Testability and Falsifiability is a major tenant in doing scientific work. The standard model is what it is because of the evidence that supports it. That is, the test results that agree with the predictions the standard model makes. It certainly isn't perfect, but unless a new model can replicate and expand on every prediction that can be made today, why would one even think about throwing out a model that makes successful predictions?

No, plenty of things (that I would assume would fall under the umbrella of 'everything') can't be described by units of m3s. A unit of energy, for example?

Clothes trap a fair amount of heat near your body as does body hair. Also, radiation from the sun will warm you. Also, your muscles release heat as they are worked. Moral of the story is I think you need to perform the experiment where you strip naked, shave everything, and sit still in the shade on the next 98 degree day and see how it goes...

sounds like a vector space to me. i.e if you start with [1,1,1], you can't just add "1" to it. That is, you can't add a scalar and a vector. You have to specify in which coordinate to add one: You can add [1,0,0] or [0,1,0] or [0,0,1] to get [2,1,1], [1,2,1] or [1,1,2], respectively.

10 seconds is insanely too long! At 60 mph, you car travels 880 feet in 10 seconds! You cannot have something obscuring your view for 10 seconds, even traveling at 20 mph, really.

Seriously? How do you get 1/81 = 0.011111? [math] \frac{1}{81} = 0.\overline{012345679}[/math] 0.0111111 is 1/90.

perhaps you should check this first. 0.111...2 = 0.0123456...

I could do without the personal attack here. You have no knowledge of my mathematics ability, and I have no further wish to have any kind of discourse with you.

Well, then here's a PhD engineer (with a thesis topic and many papers written using some very advanced applied mathematics) who also has extensive industry experience disagreeing with you. I hope that I am not too egotistical to say that I really don't think that I am a "mediocre" engineer. I have taught many fluid mechanics classes, and I have worked with people who do fluids computations many times a day. I do not think that any undergraduate student nor most practicing engineers need to know a wit about existence and uniqueness of solutions to the Navier-Stokes equations. Now, I have read papers on that topic, as much as for the mental exercise, but even in one of my research areas of writing multi-phase computational fluid dynamics simulations, the analysis done about uniqueness and existence of solutions aren't really relevant. I think that a great deal of a good fluids class for a group of to-be-industry-ready has very little to do with even solving the N-S equations. An industry-ready engineer needs to know more about how to size a pump and calculate losses through a valve than the N-S equations in my mind. There are many well-verified correlations and rules-of-thumb that give pretty darn good answers to problems like these. How does any kind of "in-depth knowledge of real and complex analysis" help in this case? I have an algebraic estimate of flow through a squared-out orifice, as a function of fluid density, pressure, and orifice size published as a guideline by ASME. I can use this algebra to solve for what size orifice I need without any need for knowledge about real and complex analysis. Which isn't to say that the N-S equations are unimportant, and with the advent of CFD becoming more and more of a useful tool, general knowledge of the behavior of the N-S eqns are becoming more important. But, I think that there are even more important topics such as sizing a pump or flow rate through a packed bed that need to be introduced to a group of students who are to be industry-ready. There have been trillions of dollars of infrastructure built in this country -- and I can personally speak of refineries and chemical plants -- that have been built on algebraic relationships. Things like the McCabe-Theile algebraic method of calculating a good deal of information about distillation have been be the basis of design for almost countless distillation towers built out there. Are there tough problems out there? Of course. Are there problems where exploring the basis of the derived equations are needed? You bet! But, as someone in this world, my opinion is that this is what graduate school and students and researchers are for. I don't see it as issues that even very experienced and good engineers with only an undergraduate degree need to be aware of. Or, to put it succinctly, as someone who had taken some and self-studied a fair amount more of real and complex analysis -- it is interesting stuff to me -- but I do not think that in-depth knowledge of it would help more than a tiny percentage of the day-to-day work that most engineers in this country do. And lastly, I don't think that it is just a question of opinion. I think it can be a question of fact, though I suspect that no one has bothered to study it. I think it can be a question of fact to find out how many concepts from real and complex analysis would actually apply to the day-to-day calculations an average engineer does, someone just needs to study it. Obviously, your mind is made up, but if you have some examples of day-to-day calculations that would be benefited significantly from in-depth knowledge of real and complex analysis, I'd like to know what they are. I just don't know of any that an average undergrad level engineer working today would benefit greatly from.

Classic appeal to authority! -- 1) you don't know my credentials (because I don't share them) and 2) that does nothing to refute my points. Do you have any non-fallacious arguments?

I disagree, far too often a calculus class is the only quality math class a lot of high schoolers get, because it may be the only one that challenges them. The challenge is more important than the specific of the mathematics that is learned, in my opinion. If a university does not think that a high school class should get credit for a college course, then I think that a good score on the AP test earns them the right to attempt to test out of the college class, and maybe that's it. In addition, how many people taking AP calculus are actually going into a profession where knowledge of calculus is required? Especially knowledge at the level you cite: "in-depth knowledge of real and complex analysis"? Unless they are becoming mathematicians, I think that this is overkill. Engineers just need to know what the tools do and what their limitations are, not necessarily where they come from, for example. And, most undergrad level engineers don't use a whole lot of calculus in their day-to-day lives. It is anecdotal, and I haven't kept in contact with every member of my AP calculus class, but I am pretty sure I am the only one that even chose a semi-math-centric profession in engineering. I don't think that having a teacher who barely knew calculus (and I've kept in contact with him, I know he did indeed barely know calculus) impaired anyone's career. Again, I really think it is the fact that the math class was a challenge is much more important at the high school level than the subject itself. On the topic of the first post: to me, the main issue with the mathematics curriculum is that the practicing of problem solving is not emphasized nearly enough. Mathematics gives you can environment where practicing problem solving is very nice. You are given a set of tools that do a very specific job. If the problems are checked and well-written, you get problems that have only right and wrong answers. The idea is to practice problem solving in a very structured and logical environment, because eventually solving their problems aren't going to be so well-behaved. In school, English composition class is at its heart problem solving: the problem being that you need to write an essay that makes the reader feel what you want them to feel. But, this you are given imperfect tools: words mean different things to different people. And, while there are rules for spelling and grammar, those don't help in choosing the right words or setting the right mood to convey the author's feelings exactly. And then in real life: problems are going to be things like you have a flat tire, and your daughter has to be at soccer practice at 5:00 and you have to clock into your work at 5:30. Your tools in this case may be a fellow parent to call to give your daughter a ride and knowing the bus schedule to take the bus to work. Or, there may not even be a solution: you may not get to work that day. But, the point is that you practice solving problems with the nice tools of mathematics, and the nice environment, so that you are practiced when the real problems arise. It is just like when you starting physics class, you do the equations of ballistics, but assume no air resistance -- because the air resistance problem is harder. You build up to tougher and tougher problems. Per the linked-to article: math has become a set of things to memorize. I don't think that you'll get rid of having to introduce a bunch of varied things, but if they are coached are new tools which help solve new problems (think if someone handed you a power drill instead of a hand crank auger!) I think that it would help.

So, you have a curve. Differentiation is an operation/calculation to find the rate of change of that curve. The curve's rise over run, is a good way to think about it at the beginning. Integration is just the inverse operation of differentiation. That is, given a rate of change of a curve -- given a rise over run -- what is the curve? The best example is probably position, velocity, and acceleration. Let a point move on the x-axis as a function of time. Let that point's position be called X(t), and let's further assume that the form of this function is known (i.e. X(t) = sin(t) or X(t) = t + 4.5, the exact form is not needed now). The velocity of that point at any period of time is the derivative of that function with respect to time. That is, the rate of change of position with respect to time. If you think about it, that is exactly what velocity is -- Z m/s means that one's position is changing Z meters every second. Let the velocity be called V(t), and denoting that it is equal to the derivative with respect to time of position is written [math]V(t) = \frac{dX(t)}{dt}[/math]. Acceleration and velocity have the same relationship velocity and position do. That is, acceleration is the change in velocity with respect to time. Thusly, acceleration, let is be called A(t) follows this equation: [math]A(t) = \frac{dV(t)}{dt}[/math]. But, since we already know that velocity is a derivative with respect to position, we can go ahead of show how acceleration is related to position directly: [math]A(t) = \frac{d}{dt}\frac{dX(t)}{dt}[/math]. That is, the derivative of the derivative of position as a function of time. This is often written more succinctly as [math]A(t) = \frac{d^2X(t)}{dt^2}[/math], and is also called the second derivative. Now, as above, integration is just the inverse operation of differentiation. So, it would be used to find velocities if the acceleration is known, and to find position if the velocity is known. That is, if you are only given the velocity V(t), you can integrate that function to find X(t). There is one caveat to this however, and that is that integration only finds the answer to an additive constant. That is, if X(t) = 5t is a valid position given the velocity, then X(t) = 5t - 60 and X(t) = 5t + 100 are also both valid. This is generally written X(t) = 5t + C, where C is any constant. In order to lock down the exact value of C, you need to be given an additional piece of information, such as the position at time 0 was 4 --> X(0) = 4. With that, you can find the exact value of C. Why this is so is probably above your current level of understanding; without going into more details, I'm going to ask that you just accept that this is the way these operations work.

akon, this forum doesn't just do problems for people, but we will help people work through them, point out mistakes where they happen, and point people in the right direction. So, what have you tried to answer this question on your own -- post what work you've done to try to answer this question yourself first.

sure, sure, but it does fit the criteria. A clear pattern in the digits of pi. I never claimed it was useful.

It IS fantasy until some evidence is brought forth that it isn't. Science doesn't just take things at anyone's word. Science judges objectively by how well prediction matches observation. If there is no prediction, or the prediction fails to match observation, then it IS fantasy. It doesn't matter if it is you or I or Hawking who says it. No evidence = fantasy. Now, to shake off that fantasy moniker, you need to start making testable predictions and compare those predictions to known observations. Do that, and it won't be fantasy anymore. Do it not, and you'll still be doing story telling, not science. This is the same rule for everybody, so please try not to take it so personally.

A major reason we think that there is matter out there is because unless there is more matter than we can see -- this ubiquitous dark matter -- that significant parts of the universe aren't obeying the law of gravity as we know it today. There are even maps of the dark matter, when its presence can be inferred by its gravity effects. See http://www.space.com/3319-astronomers-create-3d-map-dark-matter.html It certainly is possible that our understanding of gravity is wrong. For sure, our understanding of gravity is incomplete. But, I'm not sure that there is much to suggest that dark matter would be repulsive. Even anti-matter still obeys the known gravity laws. Would you be able to do the work to attempt to make a "repulsive dark matter" map analogous to the dark matter map above? That is, if dark matter really were repulsive, if you put repulsive forces into the models, can you make the models replicate known observations?

By citing THE paper that initially discovered quarks. Yeah, I'm the dismissing one.... Let me fix this for you: "Nothing will help my arguments on here, because nobody is interested in a theory which contradicts the standard model without evidence." I've written this many, many times, but it is still true: Most every single scientist goes into science wanting to discover something new. Wanting to make that next great leap. Wanting to be the name remembered next to all the other famous names. Discovering something new is the whole frickin' point of science! But, no person who actually practices (good) science goes against the evidence, or believes something without the evidence. Agreement between a model's predictions and the experimental evidence is THE one and only objective measure of how good a model is to science. You can have the greatest story ever told, the most intuitive, the most creative, the most interesting, etc. etc. -- but if that story doesn't make testable predictions with what actually happens in reality, then it is just a story, not science. Preaching a new theory as the solution to it all without evidence is little more than story telling. It darn sure isn't science. And, since this is a science board, we tend to stick to the rules of science. So, what would it take for you to provide some evidence? Not more story telling, not more videos claiming this the greatest theory since sliced bread, but either some actual evidence of your idea, or a prediction and calculation showing how much better your idea fits the known evidence than the model you want to dismiss. If you need time, that's fine. I don't expect you to have all the answers immediately. But, I do ask that you quit with the off-handed disrespectful comments toward me. I've been respectful toward you the entire time. Thank you.

[math] \prod_{i=1}^n (-1)^{(i-1)}(2i-1) [/math]

Ah sweet, the Galileo gambit. Only took 30 posts. I'm just going to say one thing, not that I think it will really help, but you have more in common with "Galileo's colleagues" than us doubters in the thread. Because you seem be doing your best to remain ignorant of the vast amount of evidence that supports the model as it stands today. Take your own advice and "look through the telescope" yourself, and understand why the current model is what it is before trying to tear it down. I know I keep harping on it, but what about Breidenbach (1969)? He reported three point-like bodies inside a proton. How can this be ignored or explained by your model? Look through Breidenbach's telescope and see what he sees, and then get back to us about "occult and childishness".

How else should one objectively judge a model EXCEPT by agreement with model? Without agreement, what good is a model? It looks pretty? A model that doesn't agree with experiment is about as useless as a 3 dollar bill. It can be funny to look at, it can be interesting, but ultimately isn't worth much of anything. It is just a fantasy. Have you even looked as some of the historical sources? Like the Breidenbach (1969) paper? If you think that quarks are so wrong, then you need to explain how your model will have the same experimental results Briedenback reported. Because those are well-known and well-verified results. They cannot be dismissed. So, please show very clearly how your model explains the known results. Unless you want to continue down the road above of fantasy, because it darn sure isn't science to ignore experiment.