mississippichem

There are proton conducting materials used in hydrogen fuel cells. Unfortunately the only thing I know about them is that they exist. My lab did a side project assisting another group in characterizing some exciton conducting materials though. Excitons are bound states of electron hole quasiparticles and electrons. Some pretty interesting stuff IMO.

I'm actually a troll. I'm just so good at it thar no one has noticed yet. I've even infiltrated the staff and convinced them I know what I'm talking about half the time. Should I report myself or let you do it to avoid staff bias?

Funny how these calculations never get posted, or can't be because of "patent issues" (note that physics can't be patented but inventions can). Note this page from the same author, found on the link to his homepage Nature of the Primordial Field Clearly metaphysical word salad nonsense Also note the lack of inline citations, also the citation: (2) "Is God Supernatural," Robert L. Dione, Bantam Books, NY, 1976 553-02723-150 Which has what relevance to physics? Also you'll notice how the page you linked has no inline citations, a rather laughable statistical analysis section, uses non SI units, has no introduction, no abstract, no hypothesis, and no proposal of theory to explain the observed phenomena. Also note that the experiment was not even performed by DePalma according to the credits given in the title. Probably because no resonable evidence was given. Quotes are nice for literature but they really carry very little weight when it comes to hypothesis testing or the verification of scientific work. False. Retractions happen all the time. Rebuttal articles are published with the sole intent of discrediting recently published work. That much is apparent. Good for you. Please show how this is relevant to anything previously brought up in the thread. I've never seen any scientist use their income as a credential in a proposal, a CV, or anything for that matter. Please give us the details of your submission process. What journals denied you, and what the reviewers comments were in the denial letter. Legitimate scientists are denied publication regularly. Often times it has to do with the manner in which the submission was written or some specific technical detail that the reviewers found unappealing. Other times the reviewers request more experimental verification. Getting published is often a long and difficult process involving lots of correspondence between reviewers, authors, collaborators and the journal editorial staff.

That doesn't even attempt to answer swansont's question. He didn't ask about the cause of solar maxima. Read it again, try again.

It's still appearing in red and in large size on my browser (latest Firefox). Are you copy-pasting from a word processor? A lot of code gibberish is also getting rendered with your post as you may be able to see in the quote above.

Ah, low blow. But I have to (painfully) agree. Though I have yet to meet a physicist who can work a multi-body potential bound fermion problem like a quantum chemist. Unless you count all that solid state band structure Green's function stuff...but that's just voodo . I like you ajb. You're so cool I almost forgot you worked in the wrong field .

My apologies. I just figured it would be a trivial task for someone who so confidently asserts that "the math is exactly the same". So now it comes out that you don't know the math is exactly the same, by your own admission. I can't see how you can know that it is the same as SR when you just admitted to not know the math of SR . But that's just me being frustrated by intellectual dishonesty and is of little consequence to the validity of your assertion (though it sure doesn't inspire confidence). Please, by all means, take all the time you need. I'm not going anywhere. Let me know if you need any help with the LaTeX.

How about a derivation for that as well. Still waiting.

Fair enough Let's see the math then. Do you know how to use LaTeX? If not there is a tutorial available here on site. Did that really make a difference? Don't copy and paste. Do the derivations. Use equations and the relevant prose. This is standard stuff. You made the claim, you construct an original derivation showing the equivalence of your theory with SR. It's very simple really.

Bold mine Let's see the math then. Do you know how to use LaTeX? If not there is a tutorial available here on site.

As ajb stated, you need to consider quantum electrodynamics. The standard non-relativistic treatment of atoms and molecules evokes the Born-Oppenheimer approximation where the nuclear motion is said to be on such a different time scale than motion of the electrons that they can be "held motionless" when solving the eigenvalue equations for the energies of the electrons. If you are working on a many electron system you can use variational methods to solve an optimization problem minimizing the coefficients of the basis states for the wavefunction in the time independent potential of the nuclei. This is actually a very good approximation for many atomic and molecular systems. IIRC it starts to fall apart for large nuclei where spin-orbit coupling and relativistic contraction of orbitals become non-negligible. As previously stated QED can be used for greater accuracy but I really only have a rudimentary understanding of such things and they are largely above my pay grade so I'll leave that to someone more qualified.

Okay, the part I bolded clears it up. Thanks.

The only case you can rest is whether or not I attempt to follow the forum rules. What's funny about this thread is the fact that it is you who is resisting a paradigm change, not the scientific community at large. I want you to have a look at the banned/suspended users list in the forum announcements sub-forum. Many, if not most, of those members had a "theory" of everything. Were they all correct? I want you to answer this question and not dodge it. You have been shown many times by people who actively work in the fields of theoretical and applied physics that your ideas are lacking in some way or another, actually multiple ways. You've also presented no mathematical justification for your ideas. The grilling you and many other speculators on this forum have received has paled in comparison to the one you would receive from submitting to a journal or giving a university talk. I once saw a discussion in a university talk carry on for about twenty minutes concerning just one signal in a spectrum presented for a novel molecule. The presenter was eventually able to justify the anomaly in his spectrum after an intense discussion of instrumental methods and theory. This guy was already a reputable chemist with a history of good work and about an hours worth of slides full of hard numerical data to present. In contrast, many of the people that come here present no experimental data, no mathematical justification, and display no knowledge of the current state of affairs in the relevant discipline. How can they expect professionals to take them seriously? Please answer this question as well. Crying censorship or scientific dogma is not a valid way to argue in this arena. It really shows that when some people have their egos checked they simply refuse to accept the bashing they've been given and would rather lie to themselves than display some humility or learn something. I challenge you to provide one example of a current scientist being denied the due process of rigorous scientific examination in the 20th or 21st century. remember that from 1900-to present day the current paradigm in physics shifted from a classical (Newtonian, Lagrangian) view of the universe to a relativistic quantum mechanical view (think QED, QCD, QFT). I'm a chemist, and as far as chemistry is concerned we have come from valence bond theory viewing electrons as semi-classical particles orbiting collections of nuclei to, at the highest levels of theory, a relativistic quantum mechanical view where molecules can be built up in terms of second quantization of fields of electrons dynamically interacting with other fields of fermions representing nuclei (a notion we borrowed from modern QFT). Ophiolite showed you that the major paradigm concerning the geological history of the Earth has radically changed within his lifetime. We've presented evidence, it's your turn.

Glad I could help. That's why I post here; the off chance that something I say might lead to someone else furthering their knowledge or the other way around, someone posting something that might further my education. I declare this thread a success!

Your answer was more than adequate. I had no intention of belittling it. I was just pointing to further reading iff dragonstar57 happens to be interested. I'm a bit of a linear algebra fanatic. Can't help it. Edit: Definition of mathematics stolen from my multivariable calculus professor: mathematics-the study of reducing hard problems to linear algebra

To the OP, If you want to dig a bit deeper you should read about Gaussian elimination or Gauss-Jordan elimination. Basically you can formulate systems of linear equations as a "vector of variables" (not always strictly a vector in terms of tensor transformation rules, but a column matrix anyway) multiplied by a matrix of coefficients set equal to another column matrix of constants. Gaussian and Gauss-Jordan elimination provide a number of operations you can use to solve the system in this matrix formulation. Multiplying a row by a constant and adding/subtracting it from another row is one such operation. This will typically be covered in the first few lectures of an undergraduate linear algebra course. Not essential to your question but I think it would be a good thing to look up if you want to learn more about systems of linear equations.

That came to my mind as well. iNow, Do you know if the soup kitchen is set up as a 501©3? If so, I don't think they are allowed to participate in politics of any sort IIRC. I feel bad for these folks. We need more apolitical organizations devoted to the greater good. Even though they are "faith based" (which you know my sentiment regarding faith) I tip my hat to them and hope they don't befall any legal or IRS troubles as a result of Ryan's ass-hattery. Do you know of a way I can make a financial contribution to them? Edit: ah...the forum turned my [math] © [/math] into a copyright c. Gotta hate that it's a censorship conspiracy.

Let's just please not hijack this thread further.

I'll bite, though I don't really know why I'm wasting my time. You clearly don't read the peer reviewed literature. I do daily, and I'd be willing to bet my car title that ajb, swansont and the other physics PhDs (I don't have a PhD for the record, only a B.S.) around here do often as well. What evidence do you have of your assertion? New ideas are accepted all the time. You act as though science hadn't progressed in the last century.

Athena, I think of forum communities as 24-7 social events. Blike is the owner IIRC so we are guests at a party in his home. Have you considered that perhaps you just don't fit in with the crowd at this party? It's alright to not fit in. I would not fit in at a Christian prayer forum, or a homeopathic medicine forum. I just think it's rude that you are at the owner's house drinking his beers and sitting on his couch all the while screaming about how his party sucks. When the other guests (members) and party organizers (staff) politely ask you to take it easy you start ranting about Nazi Germany and the US constitution. Effectively evoking Godwin all over the party organizers. That's just obnoxious. Kindly go find another party.

It's true that almost all our equations have some sort of approximations in them. For example classical equations of motion only approximate the relativistic equations of motion, and quite well might I add for velocities much less than c. But it is not true that there exists a better (more accurate/precise/consistent) way to describe nature than the mathematical modeling used in quantitative science. For complex systems like in some sub-disciplines of biology there is inherent complexity that prevents us from making the models quantitative but ultimately we know that in theory, perhaps not in practice, we can reduce these systems to mathematical models of simpler constituent parts. The imprecise and subjective nature of everyday language just doesn't cut it. As has been said above, the "truth" is of no consequence to science. We care about observation, modeling and predictive power. Let the philosophers argue about what the "true nature" of things is. You'll notice they haven't made much progress in the last several millenia either. I fear we are drifting off topic though so let's split this off or end it here.

It is more than enough. How much have you paid for our services? We are volunteers who give our time for the advancement of science education. We don't do work for you either. Please take the time to craft a post explaining what you already know, what you need to know, and why you are unable to simply google it for yourself. That way everyone can benefit from the knowledge shared in the thread. That would be a more courteous way to approach this.

Do you bother to recycle your own sweat, urine, blood, feces, or farts? Even if there is some small benefit, I think the gross factor and psycological trauma induced (unless you're into that kind of stuff, and I would hazard a guess that most aren't) would more than negate it.

Don't be angry. Just provide valid evidence. I have no hostility toward you friend. Your idea is just not so good.

A-wal, Ringer's comment IS relevant. He is using a modus tollens on you. He's showing that your hypothesis has implications, and those implications are absurd! So if your hypothesis (A) necessarily leads to Ringer's implication of your hypothesis (B), and it does, and B is false (it is) then A is necessarily false. Understand? If animal brains are powered by solar neutrinos, then larger and denser brains (per animal body mass) will interact with more neutrinos (per animal body mass) and presumably be more "powered" (this is so silly I can't type it with a straight face). This ain't the case. Your hypothesis is false. The only place you may have any recourse is were I said "presumably" above. I made an assumption that more neutrinos leads to more brain power. The only hope you have of not being falsified is if my assumption does not represent your hypothesis. I'm sure you'll say it doesn't because all the "evidence" you've presented thus far has required you to ignore physics and substitute it with your particular brand of gobeldy-gook deep fried insanity. You may think I'm insulting you A-wal. Let me assure you that I am not. I'm merely frustrated that you've simply ignored the fact that there is NO WAY an appreciable amount of neutrinos can interact with biological tissue with a collision frequency comparable to the rate at which neurons fire in the brain. Have you ever read anything about neuroscience or neutrino physics? If not, you are insulting all of the hard working scientist and students who are striving to better those fields or who have already bettered it. Science is not a: let's see who can make up the coolest story contest. That is just nonsense. Do you want to be a pusher of nonsense or a collector of knowledge who is willing to learn from others? All of us who get paid to do science began as people who didn't know jack-shit and we learned from authoritative books and professionals. Please join us.