mooeypoo

I don't understand this point... you said yourself that all we need to do is use the BBT math. But you claim that your theory *expands* on the BBT. If that's the case, you can't eat the cake and leave it whole, pywakit. If your theory is expanding the BBT, you should supply math for the expanded part. The mathematics for the BBT prove the BBT, not your theory. I'm not sure what there is for me to know, though I do appreciate your compliment about my amazing'ness. You were shown where the problems exist, and you excuse them. I know it's making you angry, and I don't mean to - this isn't personal - but the answers we're looking for will not be settled by long posts or circular excuses. You need the math. No question, no doubt, no one will publish this without the math even if you had 10 published scientists backing you up for a publication. You MUST have math. You *MUST* have falsifiability (I am not sure if I missed the list or if you didn't answer it, I'm just reminding you that this is a point to look for). You *MUST* have evidence for your theory *that are separate* from the evidence for the big bang. Look. If your theory and the BBT have the EXACT same evidence to their favor, but your theory goes that much further to make a claim that is yet to be experimentally proven, then by definition the 'better' theory is the simpler one, which is the BBT. You must supply some reason for your theory to replace the BBT, otherwise there's no reason to. The BBT is expansive enough and is well supported. You need to show that something that *doesn't* work for BBT *does* work in your theory, and provide actual evidence for it. Mathematics are crucial; they are the language that is used to describe physics. But you can start with a suggestion for an experiment to be done. Stop being offended. This is the "lite" version of a peer-review process. If/when your theory is published, you'll get much worse. You might want to prepare yourself for the process. I'm saying you excuse stuff not as if you're lying or cheating, I'm saying that your answers aren't good enough, and I explained why. ajb and Klaynos have also explained why. You post very long posts that are a bit tiring to go over (again, this isn't personal) but they don't have the substance that the posters are asking for. You were asked for math and you were asked for predictions, instead you posted long posts explaining why those aren't needed. They are needed. Excuses as to why you think they don't serve nothing for the validity of the theory. That's what I mean about 'excusing'. I have no doubt you're not doing this intentionally. You do need to be aware that it's not enough for the scientific process, and not just for us here in scienceforums. Right, that's fine, but I am saying that a sponsor will request the SAME THINGS WE DO. You should be ready to explain them. Thoroughly. I don't want to be condecending and it's absolutely not my meaning, but pywakit, there's a reason physicists spend so many years studying the mainstream basic (and advanced) theories before they go off trying to find NEW theories. You have to know the basics *EXTREMELY* well. You have to know where they came from mathematically and historically. You have to know how to derive them because that's how you know *why* things are the way they are. So when a physics expert asks you about a specific aspect, it's not to offend yuo, it's because that physics expert knows the derivation and consequence of those mathematical formulas and where they *don't* fit your idea. You must deal with this or you will *not* get funding. No one will pay for a theory that can't explain already occuring phenomena. I'm not syaing yours can't, I'm saying yours have problems. Go over the thread once more. I am not the one who claimed that the theory is ready and should be 'mainstream'. You did. You claimed that your theory has no more problems, and no one managed to dispute it. You are wrong. I am sorry I'm irritating you, but you need to stop taking things personally when people disagree with you. And I'm getting quite annoyed and tired with your condescending manner. I am TALKING with you, we are debating, I'm putting forth my points and your emotional blackmail will not help you here. Please don't ask me to ban you again, it's inappropriate. We're not having a discussion out of my power as moderator, but if you continue to beg me to kick you out, I might consider it, and it will definitely not come from my "lack of desire" to debate you. I wouldn't be wasting my time posting these long replies (which I spend time thinking about before posting) if I just wanted to upset you. Believe it or not, I have better things to do in life. I post what I think and what I know, and I expect you to be as respectful to my points as I am to yours. Disagreeing with you does not equal ridiculing you. Seriously, it's getting annoying. This is a rational debate. Drop the emotion, pywakit, or I too will give up on you, and tho it will earn you a technical "win" it will not do anything to validate your theory. Not a thing. ~moo

I think you should re-read THEIR points, though. I quoted a small portion for reminder, that's not fully what they said.

Not good enough. Same math will prove BBT, not your expansion of it. No, it lacks more, read the rest of the thread for the reminders.

You shouldn't take my arguments, pywakit, I just showed you that your claim that the experts shared "opinions" and that you don't have a problem with your theory is just not true. You should go over the claims Klaynos and ajb made to you. And about publishing -- it's true that a formal university helps, but there are ways to publish a revolutionary theory without having the backing of a university. And if you think that the peer-review you're going to go through in a mainstream publication is anywhere less than what you had here, or that you'll be able to get away with the claims like you tried to here, you are going to find out you are completely mistaken. Your theory has a lot of problems. You managed to excuse through them, but the excuses are not good enough. That's why Klaynos and ajb stopped posting. They tried, they stopped. Your theory is still lacking. You don't need my points to 'refute', you need the points made by them (they are MUCH more expansive) and you are in need of actually solving the problems, not excusing them. ~moo

First off, you can buy a stylus even for the iphone that simulates a finger press and is more accurate. I think iPad will have to go into that direction at some point (IE be a bit more accurate, either scribbling/writing or drawing) to get into these markets. I would use it as a notebook if I could, but I wouldn't want to type on that keyboard (seems EXTREMELY uncomfortable) or scribble with my finger when I have quantum mechanics to listen to. I assume that they'll go into a direction that will end up giving them money -- the eBook market is probably one of them. Scribbling/drawing seems to me to be another.

I thought this was amusing: I think that at the moment the iPad is probably not good enough for actual use, but I can see a lot of potential for it. Specially in terms of a viable alternative for the eBook readers. It's not too far off their prices, and it'll have more features. There's a market for Kindle and its friends, so even if for nothing else, as a fancy eBook I'd see the iPad succeeding. And, of course, it all depends on what applications will come out and how powerful the iPad will end up being. I can see some use for it in the drawing/artist industry if it is strong enough to run good drawing applications. If scrawl-writing will be recognized well enough, it might be very useful for schoolwork - I'm imagining my textbooks *and*notebook all in the iPad, where I can scribble and write word-like documents. That will make it quite useful. I think we need to give it a bit of time, though. It's a first-release. First releases are usually not quite good enough. It has potential. ~moo

No, they didn't, you just wouldn't accept their claims and tended to avoid the subjects you're not too well versed in. I think you should re-read what they wrote. Here's some highlights: You didn't answer this one. And it's still a problem. Your claim that the BBT makes predictions and therefore yours too is false. Your theory makes additional claims, and therefore needs additional math with predictive power. Otherwise, the current mathematical model is evidence for BBT, not your theory. And as Klaynos, ajb, swansont and myself pointed out, your opinion about mathematics is irrelevant. A scientific physical theory must have mathematical model that supplies prediction, otherwise it's not a theory. And it will DEFINITELY not be able to replace or improve current theory without that when the current theory *DOES* have mathematical model and predictive ability. Physics and mathematics go together. You can't have a physical theory without math. You can argue against it forever and it will still not change that fact. You didn't really answer this one, you simply stated that's not your only evidence. Seeing as it's not quite right, it's one less evidence. You have yet to answer neither the first nor the second part of this question. Falsifiability is crucial. What would falsify your theory? I know you answered Klaynos that you posted 20 ways your model can be falsified, but on the quick run=through I did over the thread I didn't see them. Can you tell me the post number? Or repost the list. Please don't say "whatever will falsify BBT" because that AGAIN would mean your theory is no better than BBT, and you are atm in need of proving YOUR theory (or your proposed extension) and not the BBT. Then, there's these issues: And immediately after: And there were more, I'm not going to repost the entire thread. I think you should go over what the experts said, because they exposed quite a number of problems with this model that show it is definitely not in the stage of a working theory. Those aren't opinions, pywakit. Those are counter-claims that you answered *with* opinion. ajb gave up. So did Klaynos. They didn't concede, they got tired of arguing circular claims. ~moo

What's stopping you from publishing this in a peer-reviewed publication, then?

There's a difference between opinion and stating a fact, pywakit. The experts shared some problems your theory has and what it is missing. That's not opinion. And, as you were told, your theory doesn't quite offer "A+" when the current theory is "A", your theory suggests other effects that need to be demonstrated first. ~moo

Your post is very long, pywakit, and I have no time to go through it point by point, but I will say that the experts that were on this thread told you what is needed to make your theory stand on its own. It doesn't YET. It might have potential (though it does have problems too, as the posters told you and explained where and why) but it isn't there yet. You need the experimentation results -- and that those will support your claim, and ONLY then your theory will stand on its own. Your claims rely on something we *don't know* yet; the current theory suggests A, you suggest B - both suggestions are equally possible, only the current theories explain otehr things as well including math and predictions. THE ONLY WAY to solve this is by getting the answer to the experiment. Then and only then will your theory stand on its own, and not a moment sooner. And one last point: Be careful what you say about "ALL theories". Hve you read *ALL* alternative theories that you can make this claim, pywakit? I am sorry, but I doubt it. I doubt they *ALL* need some form of magic. Yours require some form of magic too for now; it makes a claim on something that is untested. *WHEN* you test it, it'll become valid. Until you do, it's empty prediction that can be hopeful thinking. ~moo

Also, believing in an absolute closes your mind to alternatives.

No one ridiculed anyone. Asking a question for clarification (as Phi did) or pointing our logical fallacies doesn't constitute "ridiculing", it is part of a logical scientific debate, which is what we - here at scienceforums - do. Disagreeing with you DOES NOT EQUAL ridiculing you. ~moo

I didn't attack anything,I made a point, and if instead of going into 'defense mode' you'd have read my FIRST part, relating to your point about this source (and the previous one) making your theory more valid (which it does NOT), you might've not missed the bigger picture here. There are three things here: Even if the stories are 100% correct and the current theories are false, or lacking, or to be replaced, that does not give *your* theory any special credence. The only evidence that will give your theory credence is experimental and/or peer-reviewed. You supplied two articles. my point was a general one, but then doubly-so about your second reference, which is just emphasizing the idea of peer-review papers. Seriously pywakit, the fact I disagree with you doesn't mean I disrespect you. It's getting really tedious to excuse my points all the time with an explanation why I didn't mean to offend or ridicule anything. And, finally, could you please link to the *actual articles* and not to the general sites? If you found an article in NASA site, link to it, and not the nasa.gov site. I know the NASA site, I want to read the article so I can actually understand the content and context. But seriously, my only generl point was that bringing up the idea that the current theory might not be perfect has *no bearing* on whether or not YOUR theory is true. You theory needs to stand on its own feet first, be able to explain current experiments and be validated by them, math, and predictions. ~moo Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged String theory is a bad example, pywakit, seeing as it's in dispute and pretty much unfalsifiable *experimentally*. HOWEVER, it's mathematical model is extremely sound, something you don't have. While it has no experimentation, it does have facts on its side and strong mathematical ground. Your representation is not accurate. Not exactly. You seem to be nitpicking the facts that you think might support. If you had an experimental evidence, you'd have facts supporting it. And the same goes to the evidence. No, there's nothing in your arsenal of proposed evidence to suggest why your theory is better over the current one, which is required to say that you have EVIDENCE for your theory. Otherwise, you just have fitted your theory to the evidence and are lacking elsewhere (hrm, like math and predictions) As swansont pointed out (as well as Klaynos and ajb) untill you provide such experiments, you can't claim the hypothesized results to your favor. Your theory might be corroborated by experimentation, but it hasn't yet. Sure. But it doesn't prove yours. My proposed theory of splitted-pink-unicornism can fit the math too. And the observation. but that doesn't mean that it's a viable substitution; Even merely by okham's razor. BTW, you were comparing to string theory -- uh, string theory has no problem with neither Quantum mechanics OR relativity, that's why the string-theorists are so happy to say it's a unified theory. So if this was an attempt to show how string theory (which you claim is accepted, but.. it's not EXACTLY mainstream, yet[?]) then it's not quite a success. I was meaning to ask you to give us an example of a falsifiable condition on your theory, this is as good a time as any: What would falsify your theory? It seems like you're thinking about this as if the only options are either current theory or YOUR theory. That's just not true. It's a logical fallacy (false dichotomy). Even if the current theories are wrong, there are MANY MANY MANY other models that might be a viable replacement along with yours. You need to show your theory is VALID FIRST -- on its own! -- before you can make the claim that it's better than the current theories. ~moo

Just a comment about logic, here -- the idea that the current theory might require adjustments does not lead to necessarily YOUR adjustments being the right ones. That is - your theory needs to stand on its own regardless of any other theory and be supported by facts, evidence, experimentation and mathematics, and only then can it be considered as a replacement for any current theory that already has those. That said, I will be careful trusting the wording of articles in popular-culture magazines. The journalists, a lot of the time, pick one or two subjects inside a study that they think will be sensational and aren't necessarily the actual information given in the study - or what the study focused on. ~moo Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Ahem, specially from the dailymail. To be blunt, if the Daily Mail would have an article about gravity, I'd start doubting the validity of gravity. I think you should choose better sources. Like peer reviewed ones ~moo

I want to remind the debaters that the thread is about Space, and not about religion. We do not have religious or theological discussions on this forum. Please get back on topic.

I didn't forget -- your explanation was of the premise, which I disagreed with the fact it's a FACT. And I still do. While I see your point, I disagree with stating it's factual. Unless you base it on actual data and not anecdotal observation, it's not fact, it's opinion.

Ponderer, if you want to start a thread with these questions about gravity and gravitational potential, please do, but please keep this thread on topic.

I see your point, but tha'ts not a fact, it's an opinion... to make this factual you need to back it up with some data. I'm not too sure you're entirely correct, either, seeing as we CAN find "poor people" that are considered beautiful and ugly people who are rich.

It's a definition that *describes* a phenomena, it's not a phenomena by itself. It's like saying 'seconds' weren't invented. Of course they were; units of time help us count time, but they're *our* definition. Same with numbers.

That the person proposing is irrelevant. The evidence is. If you can provide half the amount of evidence to your last assertion as to that of evolution, then it becomes worth considering. Otherwise, it bcomes a theological argument (which we're not going to have). In any case Pascal's Wager has been answered quite a lot by philosophers and is not much of a logical argument. ~moo

I agree with you generally, I thnk I've read some stuff about that too, but I still maintain that the external factors (like cloths, makeup, your attitude, your "vibe", etc) is as important (if not more) to the consideration of attractiveness.

Are we talking about the western world where everyone seem to be subjected to the same style of "attractive" style in newspapers, magazines, internet stes and tv? Because if we are, then that's a bad example. We're way too interconnected and influencing one another to measure that. Try going to a relatively separate society and measure this effect, and you'll find a MUCH larger difference. That's why I gave the example of eastern europe - you don't need to go as far as remote places in africa or china where they not only have less exposure to the media that influences you and I, but they also have different looks.. just go to eastern europe in places where the influence is *less* predominate and see who they put up as 'beautiful'. I do agree that symmetry is important, as well as skin "softness" or however you'll put it -- but both of these are correctable with wearing certain types of cloths and emphasizing certain aspects using makeup. Some of the actresses and actors that we consider "hot" and "beautiful" can be quite horrifying without makeup on. Just saying. ~moo

We do map it out, but you seem to be asking for a specific gene for "beauty" which, as we are trying to point out, doesn't exist. It's a mixture of many aspects that are genetic and social and external that makes someone attractive. When I was in 10th grade we had a girl in class that had a twin. They looked almost perfectly alike, with VERY small variations. And yet, one (her sister, actually) was - in the opinion of most of my friends and myself - just strikingly beautiful while the other was relatively simple-looking. It was *some* genetic aspects (perhaps one had her nose just a *little* bit different and her lips *a tiny bit* different) and some social aspects (the sister was *much* more confident, and gave off this confidence vibe noticeably, unlike her twin) and external features (let's just say the "how to math colors and dress stylishly" trait is, quite obviously, not genetic, specially not in their case). As a result, you start from almost-perfect twins (which are more "copies" of another another, genetically, than parents-kids) and yet one twin is strikingly attractive and the other is not. I would be surprised, because traits, as we keep saying, are mixtures of things. When we give you subjects to read we don't mean to be a pain in the behind - we intend for you to see that the research into the genome shows not correlations between traits-genes ('beauty' gene, 'homosexual' gene, 'short hair' gene) but rather biological traits that are much more localized. A grouping of a lot of those traits can lead to a bigger one that may result in a person being considered attractive, or a person being beautiful, etc. You're making this a bit more simple than it actually is. We would all *love* to find a gene for every trait (though that *would* create some ethical dilemmas, which we won't get into in this thread) but that's just not the way the genome works. ~moo

Actually, I'm not sure it's the fact he's 'beatiful,if not womanly gorgeous' seeing as I (not having a crush on him ) don't think he is. It is true, however, that some men seem to give off that 'vibe', as do some women. Usually I wait to judge through a personal meeting - so I see the way they carry themselves, etc. It's an interesting question though and if my "gaydar" would be *always* correct (which it's not) then I might've been convinced that there was a pattern there, but it's not always corrent. In fact, it's probably more wrong than it is right, and when it is right, it's usually due to the fact I use this 'gaydar' on men an women who frequent the same clubs as I do, which are gay clubs. See, that's a pretty decent indication, right there. I disagree with you, but that's less relevant than my other points that I was making earlier: "Attractiveness" has to do with how you carry yourself as well as how you're "built". For that matter, if this guy would have neglected himself completely, become fat and had his hair longer (and not in a stylish haircut), then you might've not said he was as beautiful. I do agree, though, that some people are more 'nice looking' than others and sometimes you can see it *despite* things like clothing or being overweight. What I was saying earlier, though, is that it's enough that the daughter/son have 3-4 *slight* improvements in their physique to get them to be EXTREMELY different than their parents in terms of beauty. Think about it, how do you usually "ugly" someone for a theater show or movie? You give them ugly overly-thick (and unsuitable to their faces usually) glasses, have their hair tangled and bad clothing. All those have nothing to do with genes. Then, you might put a small bump on their nose, a few zits and have them scowl. Those are genetic, but they're relatively *minor* changes from a previously different face. So, small changes *can* absolutely change the facial features of a person -- and produce a beautiful child to "ugly" parents. Specially seeing as your definition of ugly is not *that* different than your definition of beautiful, judging from the photos you posted I think you're getting too hung up on the genetic side. It's true that there are people who are more prone to things that society considers as "more beautiful" but those are not *MAJOR* changes from a previous generation, and the fact this guy has VERY well-maintained stylish haircut, no eyeglasses, stylish clothing and his smile and demeanor imply confidence, you need to admit that there's *some* part that isn't genetic. It's not just one claim that "trumps" it all.. the combination of many aspects together makes this a not-too-surprising conclusion. That's my point ~moo

Read about recessive genes. Read the other answers people made on the thread. I actually disagree with the first picture. The guy you're showing us (specially in the second pic) rattles my gaydar. The last black-and-white picture is not much of a proof either. My dad was a photographer - and not a bad one at all. If you know how to play with light/shadows and you take about 2000 pictures so you can choose the best *one*, you tend to get really really beautiful people.