mooeypoo

swansont, but the universe is expanding faster than the gravitational pull slows it down, isn't it? The "big crunch" theory depends on the escape velocity of objects to be lower than the pull from gravity for the universe to collapse back on itself. And as far as I've read, though it's possible for "Dark Energy" to, eventually, perhaps, change signs (and allow for the 'big crunch') it's not what we're seeing at the moment, and the evidence we currently have do not fully support this. Relying on dark energy acceleration to switch signs (and hence to allow for the "big crunch") is not supported by observation at least until we fully understand what causes dark energy and can describe its nature.. Correct me if I'm wrong here. ~moo

Yes. It would. The entire point is that we expected the universe to slow down the expansion, and yet it doesn't. That's why there was a need for "dark energy" - the universe continues its expansion away and stronger from the forces of gravity. So, no, two black holes will not swallow the entire universe. Two massive black holes would exert force on one another even from "septillion" light years away, but - as was pointed out before in this thread and others - that force will be countered, and likely cancelled and overcome, by gravitational pulls from closer (even if smaller) stars and by the acceleration already existing on the object by the expansion of the universe. If the universe is empty and there are no other forces on those black holes then you can have twenty three and merge them, and you don't even need the hydrogen atoms; if NO OTHER FORCE exists on those objects their gravities would attract them together. All items with mass attract one another, so you don't need a hydrogen atom; in fact, if there were ONLY three massive black holes and a hydrogen atom in space, then the force exerted by the tiny atom would be overcome a billion-billion-billion times by the force from each of the black holes, which means that for all intents and purposes, you can ignore it. If there were no other items in the universe, that is. But in reality, forces DO exist, and do COUNTER this force. We see it observationally as well as mathematically. ~moo

This might sound like a cop-out, but if all else fails, you could always open up a blog. Seriously, in our day and age, publishing something for the world to see (and keep) is easy. The question is more about credibility. Try and see if you can get an organized publication to accept it, then, if all else fails, you can publish in a blog or viXra to get somewhat of a peer-review. Get ready for that, btw... peer-review.. it's usually brutal, though supposedly non-personal. Don't publish if you don't plan on getting smashed by other scientists, they practically live to dissect publications.

It gets better, Baby!* Within an empty universe, a tiny flea's own gravity can pull on a HUGE PLANET a trillion light years away. Of course, the planet would pull it too, but so would another flea. So there. * Your nickname was just WAITING to be (ab)used this way at some point, mah friend

The point of the egg 'drop' experiment, many times, is to demonstrate how the brain and skull work. Usually, you would take an egg, put it in a bag full of water, and throw it off a certain height to see that unlike an unprotected egg, the 'protected' egg survived. The impact from hitting the ground is spread around through the liquid, and the egg remains safe. Following this logic, I would cover the egg with something soft and 'bouncy' (i am not sure how you made those springs, but crumpling pieces of paper and putting them around the egg should be okay) and then encapsulate that entirely with the masking tape so you essentially have a shell filled with some bouncy/airy(yet fairly tight) stuff to absorb the impact, and in the middle, your egg. When you said you have 6 pieces of paper I immediately thought that this could be their intention -- crumple each paper to produce a "springy" cushion and the 6 sides are covering the entire egg from all directions (like the 6 sides of a cube) so no matter where it falls, it's fairly cushioned. On top of everything, if the catcher is allowed, (s)he would do better to catch the egg while following its movement -- that is, to provide another layer of 'cushion' to the movement and slow the fall instead of 'hitting' it head on. Good luck! come back and tell us what worked

That's a nice challenge. It took me a bit to think about how to explain it, but then I thought about fractions. Middle schoolers should know fractions and in general it's usually better to translate decimal to fractions anyways seeing as it's easier to see trends. So, that would mean that: [math]x = 0.5 = \frac{5}{10} = \frac{1}{2}[/math] WHEN [math]y=2[/math] [math]x = 1[/math] WHEN [math]y=1[/math] [math]x = 2[/math] WHEN [math]y=0.5=\frac{5}{10}=\frac{1}{2}[/math] [math]x = 4[/math] WHEN [math]y=0.25=\frac{25}{100}=\frac{1}{4}[/math] This will show a trend. The only "different element" here is the first one, when x=0.5, but ask your cousin to put it in the same 'trend' as the rest, like this: [math]y=\frac{1}{x}=\frac{1}{0.5}=\frac{1}{\frac{1}{2}}=\frac{2}{1}=2[/math] And he can see that it works out. From here, finding the rest is easy. Did that help?

You might want to consider using paragraphs to make your chunk readable if you intend for anyone to be willing to read your theory, JHAQ. And a proper title.

Obviously I am not in total agreement with you, while knowing the differences between math and science. I was hoping I could get an explanation from you so I am either convinced or so I know what to refute.

I think you should separate good doctors and bad doctors in today's medicine. The purpose of medicine today is to deal with the cause and not the symptoms. The reality is that many doctors (specially in a hospital) don't have the time to delve into the problem and give out medicines that treat symptoms. That's not the *purpose* of mainstream medicine today, though. But isn't that the way most of science works? Before astronomy, space observation involved astrology -- until astrology was shown to be totally irrelevant and unhelpful, at which point astronomy split off into a mainstream practice while astrology remained an unsupported pseudoscience. That's the point.. science is about improvement. Yeah, a lot of pseudoscience relies on that to make money. Sadly, a lot of modern medicine *BUSINESS* relies on that, too. That's not to say real medicine is only about that (it's absolutely not), but the businesses that are behind the medicines tend to be, which makes our job that much harder when advocating for the benefits of modern medicine. I think it took more of a back seat in the media and in people's minds and less so in actual science research. I completely agree, but I don't think it's totally because of modern medicine or technology. It's more about the capitalist nature of modern companies. This exists in other countries, but in a lesser degree, at least I can talk of my own origin (Israel, which tends to follow more of a European approach). It's a mix of many things (consumer protection, government oversight, good medical coverage, education, etc etc) but you don't see as much a "rush for drugs" in Israel as you do in America. Also, it's by far not even CLOSE to being as expensive to go to a doctor in Israel as it is in America. That might be partially the cause. My point, though, is that there are many more reasons than 'just' modern technology for our current predicament with the 'rush' for drugs. Pseudoscientists take advantage of it by making the consumer feel like he is the only one they are treating, or giving him a treatment that is supposedly "perfectly adapted" to his body (even when that isn't true). Most of the time it's more about psychology than it is about any sort of technological advancements. And the drugs companies want a share of the profits, and when they oversight is limited, they reign with whatever method they see fit to lure you to use their drugs. ~moo

Not too surprising considering that in the late 1800s we didn't yet have the technology to recognize between real science and things that don't work. Homeopathy was considered a medical concept, along with other concepts we consider totally bogus today, now that we have the tools to measure them better.

Why?

Please avoid using inflammatory titles or name calling to the people you are talking about. It contributes nothing to the validity of your arguments and only serves to degrade the discussion into an emotional and/or angry one.

Anyone doing more than 12C leaves nothing in the water, guaranteed, that's the point of Avogadro's Number. It defines itself as one, usually, by stating that it's collecting multiple results from multiple studies, rather than making an actual claim/test on its own.

Actually, 12C is 10^{-24} which is larger than avogadro's number, the ratio representing the lowest possible dilution in which 1 molecule of the substance will be available. In such dilution, the statistical possibility that you have a *single* molecule from the original diluted substance is so low, it's practically nonexistent.

The FDA acts "backwards". You need to show that a supplement is dangerous for the FDA to take it off the shelves, while the supplement company has no obligation to prove itself. Their claims are so vague and politically-correct that they're allowed just the do what they please. They can't make absolute claims like "cures cancer" but they *can* make vague claims like "boosts your immune system in fighting disease" or "strengthens the body's natural defenses" and other crap like that. As a result, the drug is FIRST released and, if needed, recalled.

The australian skeptic society ran a "10:23" project, protesting Homeopathic "vaccines" and other shams from being promoted as equivalent to mainstream medicine: http://podblack.com/2010/01/1023-event-filming-in-sydney-with-the-skeptic-zone/ Hundreds of people in Austrlia and the UK took hundreds of homeopathic pills at once to prove this case. Homeopathic 'drugs' have no active ingredients whatsoever. And the official site: http://www.1023.org.uk/ That said, I would like to point out that in Australia and the UK these "supplements" *are* under the supervision of their equivalent FDA, which means that you can actually trust the ingredients on the package. Unlike in the USA, where supplements are *NOT* supervised and only god knows what's inside the bottle. It might *claim* to be homeopathic but actually not be, and contain hazardous substances. Sources to that incident: http://www.druginjuryattorneyblog.com/2009/06/fda_links_zicam_to_permanent_s.html http://www.examiner.com/x-6964-Portland-Wellness-Examiner~y2009m6d16-FDA-reports-Zicam-smell-loss-complaints http://www.fda.gov/Newsevents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm167065.htm So.. don't go around swallowing random pills. This project was a protest, and it was planned and executed carefully. Just saying. Safety first.

blood_pardon if you insist on ignoring our rules repeatedly, you will not stay here. DO NOT open a preaching thread again. Please read our rules. ~moo

Yes but that can be simulated, Cap'n. You know, keep the pen on one spot longer and the line gets thicker.

Those pens aren't working on pressure, they simulate a finger touch. Here's an example: http://www.thinkgeek.com/electronics/cell-phone/a31f/

Ahem, debate is two-ways Also, just a reminder, there's no room for 'opinion' in science, only for empirical evidence. You might want to take that into account before looking for a "good mathematician".

And with this, I'm out, but by no means does this mean you have a working theory, or that I concede. I am just not quite seeing where we're going with this other than (again) in circles. Good luck in the future, pywakit. I hope you will come back here and post a link when your theory is ready for publication.

But I can. I merged your two threads, all replies are now on a single thread here http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=47660 Welcome to ScienceForums!

I don't think you need that -- there are pens for the iPhone that mimic the touch of a finger (I'm totally not sure how, I think it's about the electrical resistivity of the skin?), they act like stylus for the iphone, I'm sure they will work on the iPad..

Absolutely not, I didn't say that, no one said that but you. I said you *shouldn't* compare to string theory. It's NOT comparable to your model. There were a few others but these seem to be a good start. No, it just means that you might not know everything that is involved in the phenomena you're trying to describe. You are oversimplifying this. A trained mathematician or physicist could describe the phenomena BETTER. Not necessarily all of them. Better than someone who's not trained. Again, your comparison to string theory is irrelevant. It's not "yours OR string theory". String theory is a separate theory that isn't yet mainstream, that has SOLID mathematical grounds and problems with falsifiability. Even if string theory is wrong that doesn't make your theory right or not, it has nothing to do with your model. Totally irrelevant. pywakit, here is the list you supplied: Okay, I won't go over the other problems that might show the above is true. Fine. All three boil down to the same thing: If it doesn't follow the obervations and experiments we already have. That might be fine, but that's not a falsifiability claim. How would you suggest we do that? Is there any way to conduct an experiment or make an observation proving this true (or false) ? The above two (6 and 7) are statements that are, themselves, unfalsifiable. There's no way to show what you claim in 6 physically (that's EXACTLY the problem of the unfalsifiability of string theory) and no way of finding out 7. Probably not ever. Those aren't falsifiability claims if on their own they're NEVER falsifiable! Also take into account that while String theory might have unfalsifiable claims, the sheer amount of mathematical solid ground is enough to bring it up as a CONSIDERATION. It's far from being accepted mainstream science, but the fact the math just works out so beautifully in string theory makes it just a little bit more worth our attention. Yours, I'm sorry to say this again, doesn't have that. I don't understand this, but regardless, you are again making a claim without telling us what we need to find out in order to prove/disprove it. This isn't a falsifiable claim, in order to make it falsifiable you need to tell us what experimental result is needed for us to achieve the above conclusion. Is it even possible? If the answer is "no" or "not at the moment" then the claim is not falsifiable. Same as 8, 7 and 6. This is not falsifiable unless you bring forth a mechanism to MAKE IT falsifiable. Look. What you're doing is bringing up more CONJECTURE and call it 'falsifiability', while in reality each one of those claims is a hypothesis on its own tht, on its own, requires its OWN FALSIFIABILITY. Think of this: I make a claim "fairies exist, but we can't detect them". I now bring forth a falsifiable condition: "If we find that unicorns eat red berries, we know fairies don't exist"./ Ignoring the shaky logic I'm making, my own 'falsifiable claim' requires, on its own, a falsifiable condition; how do I prove that unicorns EXIST!? Your falsifiable claims are the same, and as a result, you have no valid falsifiable claims. Except, perhaps, this: Which, judging from the fact we haven't yet actually SEEN a black hole (we've only so far detected its surroundings, predicted it through math, etc) this might take time. But this is also one of the *conditions* for your theory to work. Thart is, your theory depends on black holes to NOT be infinitely dense and we don't know that one EITHER. So.. you need to wait for such evidence to produce itself either here or there - either proving or disproving your theory. ----- I'm sorry, but you were given an explanation from 2 members why this is not true. Einstein's math didn't just come off the ether; it emerged out of PREVIOUS equations, evidence and experimentation. You don't just 'tweak it' to make it work your way; you need to show WHY you tweak it, what's the reason for the NEED to tweak it (it works just fine with no tweaks) and hwo you tweak it. I know you keep saying that a 'good mathematician' will do that, but you're wrong, and other than telling you to go study at least one university-level course in special relativity(that shows you where the math came from) I am not sure what else to do to make you understand this point. Again, what you assume is irrelevant. You're wrong. [...] I need to go out, so I'm skipping the rest for now -- the above shows most ofthe big problems anyways, there's no need to continue for now. We can leave the rest for later. I will say this, though: I, too, spoke to Dr Neil DeGrasse Tyson, but I *doubt* he told you the problems in your model in depth. He is a very good astrophysicist; you might have had time to graze over the interesting basics, but I am VERY VERY doubtful he actually heard your theory and accepted it. That said, and again, I don't want any emotions here, but I think part of the problem is that you're confident. A scientist should always suspect something's wrong with a theory; they should always search for flaws, problems, missing stuff, they should always listen to criticism to strenghten their own theory so that the theory will emerge STRONG and impossible to shatter. You tend to be overly confident. So much so, that you seem to dismiss our claims offhand. ajb and Klaynos did not "fail" pywakit, they GAVE UP. There might be potential in this theory, sure, but you have GOT to start listening to criticism. If your plan is to publish this, I guarantee that the criticism you're getting here is a gentle cuddly kind compared to what will happen after publication. ~moo

Yes, don't think you're the only one. People didn't just leave this thread because they wanted to get ice cream. The frustration is on all sides. You are constantly trying to eat the cake and leave it whole. You already had a discussion with a mathematicial physicist (ajb) and with a physicist (Klaynos, and to a lesser degree myself) and they both showed you flaws in your theory. Stomping your feet on the ground and insisting that the flaws aren't flaws will not *solve* those flaws. You claim that "you're not a physicist or a mathematician" but you refuse to accept the claims of either a physicist or a mathematician. you argue vehemently against these claims but then when I repeated my request to you for answers you again revert back to "I never claimed to be a physicist or mathematician". Choose pywakit. You were shown the flaws. It's up to you what ismore important to you -- your ego or your theory. The only reason it's not a rational debate is because you insist to insert emotions into it. The claims we were raising were objective and independent and had nothing to do with your 'character', your obvious passion or your personal appeal. You are being very tiring, and quite unfair, when you let your emotions get the better of you and the argument then shifts to emotional claims like 'this is offensive' (what?! that we say you don't have math??) or 'you can ban me' (oh, come on). Science is about empirical evidence and objective truths. Stop putting emotional appeals into your claims and the debate will become much more rational. Now, as I told you before, here's the crux of things: There are VAST amount of evidence for the BBT, the mathematical model is sound and produces predictions. If your theory has nothing that can prove itself right *independently* than the BBT, then there's no way of objectively analyzing if your theory is *better* than the BBT. For all intents and purposes, the BBT would be better even just because it has math at the moment and does not require "finite energy for black holes" which is *not* a proven fact. You cannot claim that your theory uses the BBT set of evidence as a good enough reason for it to be better. You *must* supply a set of evidence (or even PROPOSED evidence!) and falsifiability that are independent. Think of Einstein's 'expansion' of Newton's gravity. Einstein didn't render Newton's gravity laws *wrong*, they're still right, but he expanded on them. The evidence that was used for Newton's theory *fit* Einstein's theory. *BUT* Einstein's expansion rquired independent evidence -- and he did supply them along with the math. And his "expansion" required independent falsifiability, which he supplied. You must do the same, or your theory is not a theory. For all intents and purposes, that's unfalsifiable. Come up with something falsifiable, or the theory is bunk. Now you're making *me* angry. I did not say it was expansive enough, I said it was SUPPORTED by evidence. If you propose an expansion you must support that expanded part by evidence too. Considering your use of logical fallacies, I would be careful what I call irrational, pywakit. You stated yourself you're not a physicist and not a mathematician. Don't argue, then, against physics claims and mathematical claims that are brought to you by people who study these issues. You don't have to toss the theory away but you can't claim ignorance on the subject and then claim expertise on the subject. It doesn't work that way. I'm not going to argue a cement wall. ajb and Klaynos both LEFT this argument because you insisted on stomping your feet on the ground and IGNORE the problems they raised. I asked you to read their 30+ posts not to tire you, but to try and get you to go over it again, this time calmly, and see what thy're saying. Nope you did not rebut it, and I even showed you why string theory is *not* a valid argument on your part. Please read my first or second post in this exchange, I am getting tired repeating myself and constantly having to go back and forth to older posts to re-post my points. I just did, after ajb showed it to you and Klaynos showed it to you. You need to stop churning water. If you want to improve this theory to a workin model, there MIGHT be ways to do that, but you have to stop being "holier than thou" and start cooperating. The fact, which you admit to, is that you *dont* know all the physics and mathematics involved. There are people here who do, and who were tryingt o actually *help you*. You took this help as a form of attack and chose to protect your ego rather than try to improve your theory. We will not have this discussion long, if this keeps going on. pywakit, stop telling me I "anger you". You anger yourself. I am not going to stop telling you objective questions just because you insist on guilt tripping me into submission. Your posts are insanely long, as I mentioned, and, quite frankly, you *coudl* be a bit less condecending and just tell me where they were or post them again, seeing as that's what I asked for. If you think I was going to go over your huge posts over and over, you're sorely mistaken. A good mathematician told you where your model fails. You chose to argue against it instead of trying to find ways to improve it. Good luck finding a 'good mathematician' that ignores these problems, pywakit. Okay, I'm having enough of this. I have nothing more to say. Stop being emotional because all that will get you is people frustrated with you. The universe doesn't care about anyone's ego, and you have to start being rational and not emotional. You can insist your model has no problems until you're blue in the face but that will not change the fact that it *does*. Did I make you angry wit this? Too bad. You need to make a choice here, pywakit: either you let your ego rule your model and - in all likelyhood - never improve it, or you control your ego, sit down seriously, listen to teh problems people raise, and try to EFFECTIVELY fix them. Your brandished explanations about why 'black holes have finite mass' is not a problem doesn't make it not a problem. It just convinces you that you're right when you're not. You need to make a choice here, I can't make ti for you, but I can tell you that I won't continue participating if you don't lay off the guilt-trip 'you make me angry' comments and start arguing objective science. ~moo