John Cuthber

Has anyone noticed how little respect nature has for humans? It keeps wiping us out in droves.

"So the excuse that they were "forced" somehow is bogus." "The fact that untill forced they did nothing to make sure their engineerred code did not escape is worth noting" nuclear fallout, napalm and nerve gas constituents Nope, not the scientists- that was the military. "tetraethyl lead aerosols" Anyone who aerosolised TEL is likely to be dead. "asbestos" Seriously? the stuff was used by the Romans, yout you are trying to blame science for it? "various teratogenic and carcinogenic "consumer" products" Which ones? Do you mean beer? "That's without even mentioning cigarettes," Good, unless you can show that they were a product of science. "That's without even mentioning ..., fertilizer," Now you are pretty close to literally talking S**t And so on. Of course the real issue with nearly all of the things you mentioned is that they were introduced before testing became the norm. You may have missed this, but things are now tested quite extensively. So, unlike DDT (roe example) the scientists have done the tests and they are now making an informed choice to live in the same world as GMO.

Keep going. 3.14159 26535 89793 23846 26433 83279 50288 41971 69399 37510 58209 74944 59230 78164 06286 20899 but it already looks like you had to pull the two 9s and a 5 out of a hat. The next few digits are 323846 and the next fibonacci numbers are 13, 21, and 34 Too many 1s and not enough 8s I think

Quite.

There's nothing in maths that can't be written out in words (though it's usually tedious). So, perhaps you can explain what you think you are on about and, while we are at it, until you have something which can make predictions, you still won;'t have a theory.

"Bt pesticides (they are a family of related chemicals each adapted to a particular pest or type of pest) are generally as benign a pesticide as we know of, but their effects on such things as human intestinal flora under long term steady dosage, pregnancy and other such conditions, etc, have not been studied" Guess again. Since they have been used for a long time and no effects have shown up we know that, at worst, they don't have much effect on, for exapmple, pregnant women. There has been no carefully controlled trial, but the practical truth is that we know they don't do much damage. Of course, this may reflect that fat that pregnant women don't generally eat much raw cotton. That's just as well because cotton is known to be toxic to humans http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gossypol#Toxicity_and_potential_food_source "But they do not bioaccumulate, poison indiscriminately, etc - so their loss of effectiveness, a very likely to inevitable effect of genetically engieneering them into landscape dominant monocultures, is one of the serious costs of GMOs as we have them" so, your complaint about GM is that it won't work for ever? A bit like conventional pesticides the, isn't it? Anyway, because the stuff isn't sprayed about it only reaches the target organisms (those that eat the protected plants) so it can only expect to induce resistance in those insects. that reduces the pressure of the "insects in general" genome to come up with resistance. So, targeting only those bugs we want to kill will lead to less selection pressure for resistance to evolve. "The increase in their opportunity for profits and economic power was not invisible to them." Nor to their opponents. So? "The fact that untill forced they did nothing to make sure their engineerred code did not escape is worth noting" Yes, it indicates that they were happy to live in a world where these things were "free" in the world. So they must have known that these things were safe. Now, I contend that those people know more about GMO than you (or I) do. They are happy to let these organisms out into the wild i.e into their own living space. Is you reluctance built on evidence or prejudice?

"But what about unemployed people working the garden for the community?" Why not pay them to be gardeners?

Funny how nobody noticed this in the scripture in all the years it was available, until science pointed out the black holes. Then suddenly religion wants to jump on the bandwagon. Anyway, lets look at another translation. http://quran.com/81 And when Paradise is brought near, A soul will [then] know what it has brought [with it]. So I swear by the retreating stars Those that run [their courses] and disappear And by the night as it closes in And by the dawn when it breathes [That] indeed, the Qur'an is a word [conveyed by] a noble messenger [Who is] possessed of power and with the Owner of the Throne, secure [in position], Obeyed there [in the heavens] and trustworthy. And your companion is not [at all] mad. At best, it predicts that stars die eventually.

"To make it clear, energy could be defined as the process that physical objects use when they transform from one form to another, such as electricity into a light (bulb). " That doesn't make it clear. You could define it that way, but nobody does, because it wouldn't fit with all the other definitions.

Even more word salad.

I could explain that QM is really rather complicated but that I would explain a simplified version to them. That does not require dishonesty. Religion would be lost without those lies, and I don't think our members of parliament would just have been awarded a pay rise of 11% without such lies.

"Really a Theory of everything must relate the base units of: Temperature; Kelvins Mass; Kilograms Time; Seconds Chemical constant; Mol Light; Candela Electricity; Ampere Distance; Meter" Why? All those were arbitrary decisions made ages ago. They are nothing special. Any consistent set of units should work just as well as any other. "He's suggesting that image, the square with a central node, is a mathematical system that can be used to figure out any intangible physical property, So its the bases for maths." He may be suggesting that to you, but it's not clear from what he has written that he means anything like that. You seem to me to be reading your own preferences into his work. Perhaps it's better to wait till he comes back to comment on your interpretation because, as far as I can see, it's still word salad.

Why do you think that "The OP thinks he has a system that is the basis for all mathematics, such a basis is not waste of bandwidth because it is required for all other mathematics."? He said ( in the first post) "In science..." "We are energy and as well as elements of the stars. Electromagnetic Energy can pass objects. Higgs Boson suggests a simpler solution ..." "understanding magnetism setting up positive position of a + negative alternating grid for electromagnetism wave" "With this I can explain easy how the world works. NOW I have not gone into how rotation, gravity mass, sound and elements ..." And so on. He's not talking about maths. He has spotted a mathematical trick: if you add reversed numbers together you get a multiple of nine (generally n-1 in base n). It's interesting, but it's not new.

"exactly my point....... when you heat the wood in vacuum with high pressure applied, then the wood could melt rather than getting decomposed......" No, it doesn't. "What I meant was- polymers are usually or certainly homogenous in nature whereas , wood , for example, is a heterogenous mixture." Polymers are often, at least at some scale, heterogeneous. Wood is a mixture of polymers. Cellulose is a polymer, it's homogeneous or not depending on how you consider polymers of different molecular weights.

Yes it is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deception It may be lots of other things, some of those may be worthy and good, but it is deceit. In the end the kid's dog's still dead.

If you look really carefully, you will find that I did. Here' what I first said. "It's not a theory. It has no predictive power, and it's not even properly explained." I draw particular attention to the first bit there. It explains why your assertion that "Its also a theory not a proof which indicates" is a waste of time. It's false, and documentedly so.

It's a similar process, but may I remind you what you actually said "The math is actually called 2's compliment" Well, it's actually not called that. There's no wriggle room here. You were flatly wrong. More importantly, he wasn't talking about that. What he said was "We reverse the sequence: 28457" Now, if you take a number 549 reverse it 945 and subtract you get a number which is a multiple of nine (if you are working in base ten). That's vaguely interesting, but not new http://www.algebra.com/algebra/homework/word/numbers/Numbers_Word_Problems.faq.question.666248.html

"I demonstrated the exact same method on decimal,.....did i not?" No. You may wish to look up nines and tens compliment (which are what you are talking about) and also look up twos complement, which is not what you (or the OP) are talking about. Having found out that you were wrong about that you might want to consider the ideas that my logic says "no one would come up with new theories ever" which is also bollocks of the first order. Nobody does ever come up with a theory. They come up with a hypothesis. If it's tested and found to work then it might become a theory- but that's different isn't it. So, you have demonstrated that you don't know what a theory was (and you tried to argue when you were told) and you didn't know what 2's complement was (and you tried to argue when you were told. That really is a waste of bandwidth.

Pick one.

It's not a theory "In science, the term "theory" refers to "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." it's word salad. "Thats pretty harsh, with a little bit of understanding its clear the OP is trying to create a fundamental theory for mathematics" I's far from clear what he's trying to do but this "Fine Here is the Basic building bock of life (.) and its resonating (wave) factors:" makes it clear he's not trying to codify the whole of mathematics. (and that's before we get to whether or not the incompleteness theorem tells us he's on a wild goose chase if he is trying to do that) "I feel saying "Your life must suck to make this concoction and to reveal it to us" just makes people afraid of revealing anything they find for the potential fear of such criticism. So, instead of wasting bandwidth " The op is a waste of bandwidth. If you don't agree, please let us know what use it is. Does it, for example, present information not widely known? Does it permit us to make predictions that we were unable to before? If something makes no sense then it's not a waste of bandwidth to say so. As it stands, it fits this category http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong BTW, re "The math is actually called 2's compliment, it works in decimal as well as it does in binary." No it isn't. Twos complement arithmetic only has ones and zeros.

"So somebody - and it sure won't be any of the self-described "scientific" folks here - has to plow through that "selected" pile of papers, and see what's up. " Already done. It's called peer review.

"Rydberg formula is from 1888 year, pre-quantum physics era. Rydberg had no idea about E=h*f equation, nor any quantization." Yes, I know, and it clearly doesn't matter. His formula still predicts the wavelength of emitted photons. Why did you bother to mention that his work is part of the foundations of QM? ​Did you think it made some difference to the conclusion? "But your example n1=1,000,000 and n2=1,000,001 gives me 45.5 million km wavelength, not 50 km. And frequency = 0.00658 Hz." Oops, I must have pushed the wrong buttons on my calculator, but it doesn't affect the conclusion does it? . "How do you want to detect such photon with frequency that can't be even called long radiowave?" For a start, it can be called long wave radio. ("They're starting at 3 Hz.." is entirely arbitrary: the name doesn't make any difference to the outcome) For a finish I don't care how you detect it. The point is that it exists. However, in the interests of science, I will tell you how, in principle, you can detect it. You shine it onto a hydrogen atom in an excited state that's , for example, the n=1000002 state. The energy of the photon will be enough to ionise that atom and if it's in an electric field, you get a current flow. OK the detector would be difficult to build (and it would need to be big), but that's just an engineering problem. The photons still exist.

How obvious is it that you can also do that calculation with 0.5 Hz? What about 0.0000000001 Hz? The error is where you say "where xxx is any integer number, and floating point numbers of frequency are forbidden." There's no call for it to be an integer, fractions (and irrationals) are allowed. Consider the energy levels of a hydrogen atom ('cos the maths is easy) I can make lambda as big as I want by choosing two very large values for n1 and n2 Say I choose them to be 1000000 and 1000001 R is about 10^7 That gives me a wavelength of about 50 km . Larger values of n1 and n2 will give me correspondingly longer wavelengths. Why do you think there is a limit?

Fundamentally, you don't seem to understand what chemistry is. You say ", I'm asking will chemistry (i.e. lab synthesis of organic compounds) have any place during the Jetsons.". Most chemistry isn't done in labs, it's done in industry. Do you understand that everything is made from chemicals? The physicists may like to claim that everything is physics, but, if you actually want to make something, you need chemistry (unless you plan to carve it from wood with a flint knife). ​The computer screen you are looking at is a massively complex array of synthetic materials. The chips driving it are built by chemically etching silicon (or GaAs or whatever) made, in turn, by chemistry. The idea that chemistry will become obsolete is only credible to someone who doesn't understand what chemistry does.

So, more word salad then. For example, " Here is the Basic building bock of life (.)" Nope, it's a moot point whether the basic building block is DNA or a protein. But the basic building block of life is not a bunch of punctuation marks. And the numerology bit just makes you look silly.