md65536

I will forgive you for the increase in crackpot index. Please see attached invoice. I'd lost interest but I'll check it out anyway since you axed. I'm running the qsaclean.txt source attached to post #11. 1). The line for (kk = 0; kk <= 20000000; kk++) { causes a segmentation fault at qsaclean.cpp:98 But your suggestion for (kk = 0; kk <= 10000000; kk++) { avoids this. 2). Segmentation fault at qsaclean.cpp:185 ex1[mk] = (double)edx1 / ((double)f1)- (0.5 * int(w*d1))+.5 ; You have for (mk = 2479778; mk <= 500000000; mk++) but you declared the array with a size of only double ex1[90000]; I don't understand how you could have got the program to run at all, even with some of the suggested modifications. Without the array overruns but with the current loop counts, would this program take centuries to run??? Is there an example version that can run in like a minute and produce rough estimate data? Some suggestions: - Use something like "#define SMAX 18230000; long long S[sMAX];" and use the same define in loops that iterate over that array, rather than using explicit numbers everywhere. - Also add some bounds checking, since you're using math to calculate some array indexes. E.g. #include <assert.h> and then add some "assert( int(w*p) < SMAX );" --- must then run in debug mode. - More-descriptive variable names is a good habit. - Description of the output would be good, eg. a line of column names at the top of the output and yem.txt. Sorry, I can't keep track of where all the output values are coming from and what they mean. I'm looking for like one paragraph (in the style of a paper's abstract) to explain what value I should be looking at and why I should find it interesting, before I'll be interested enough to try to figure out why that value is or what it might mean. So without having done any serious analysis, my guess is still that you have an interesting simulation that's been tweaked to coincidentally but purposefully get some values that you want it to get, and that you're simulating a process whose data is only roughly the same shape as the data you're looking to emulate.

The sphere is not a Species Collectorbot, but is instead a Pleasurebot from the planet Sexulon 5. It pursued the man in order to invoke the ancient Sexulon tradition of snoo snoo. When the man tripped he scraped his knee, and the pleasurebot was a bit grossed out. Also, having ADD, it soon was distracted by a butterfly and wandered off to watch it. Seriously though, from your replies it's clear that you didn't give enough information to solve the puzzle, but you're giving us additional clues so that's not so bad. Here are the clues we have so far: - The intention of the sphere is to collect species, and it intends to collect a human (otherwise it wouldn't chase him), and it does not yet have 3 of them. - Weight is an important factor, and the man's weight is acceptable while he is chased. - The count of specimens may be important. They want 3 of each. - The act of tripping is important. He remains alive and recognizable as human, but possibly injured or dirtied or otherwise changed---or perhaps inaccessible?---and this is important. Am I on the right track? He didn't fall in mud, but he was wet from the pond. I can't think of a good answer. Perhaps he scraped his knee, and the sphere, being a psychotic perfectionist, dumped him. Perhaps he took the Lord's name in vain when he fell, and the sphere, being a devout Christian, dumped him. Perhaps he cried like a child, and the sphere, being shallow, went off in search of a "real man".

He fell in some mud. maybe he dies

But the observation of anything only happens at your location in your present. Also to interact with anything remote, you must interact with it in the future. I don't think that this kind of rhetoric is helpful for an understanding of time... it heavily depends on what you're defining past/future etc to mean, and without being meticulous about that, it's too easy to allow hidden implied meanings to slip in where they don't belong, when trying to talk about where an object "is" in time. Thinking along those lines though---that remote things are observed in a past state and interacted with in the future---it might be possible to equate time with something to do with the minimum separation between casually connected remote events or whatever. (To do so I think you'd need to find some measure of distance in all time-related processes including decays of particles where there's no such known measurement???) Events are static in spacetime, not objects. The objects change coordinates. These are just abstract representations with names people have given them. Multiple representations may validly describe the behavior of things. I don't believe either of the options you give can be shown to be incorrect.

False. All clocks measure time, to varying degrees of accuracy and precision. A broken clock is a non-functioning clock and does not functionally measure time. Does only an ideal ruler measure distance? False. You are confusing the delayed observation of an object with the object itself. False. There is no universal past. Causally connected events have a unique ordering allowing for an absolute past. There is no absolute ordering for all events because they're not all causally connected. The thrown baseball is causally connected (and causatively as well if you want to differentiate and if the difference in meaning is what I think it is) to the guy throwing the ball; the event of the guy throwing the ball is in the absolute past of an event of the thrown ball being observed at any point. I apologize if these answers are wrong or have been covered already; I didn't read all the posts.

It can't. Move a charge into some space, and the change to the field propagates all around it. Then you have a static field. Remove the charge and that change propagates also... the static field doesn't remain without the thing that effects it. Compare this with say atoms of matter, with always-changing kinetic energies and are constantly propagating those changes in the form of thermal radiation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation

I'm hoping someone will correct any mistakes I'm making. Yes. Except that you would not be able to measure a virtual photon and there is no measurable behavior that indicates it must travel only at c. When thinking about "real" particles travelling at c, it is possible (and often easiest) to consider it from your reference frame, in which you're at rest. Well I don't think that speculating about specifics of gravitons is the best way to understand because there's no accepted theory of their behavior. But like it's mentioned in the link I posted, the same things apply to a black hole's charge as to its mass. Yes, the spacetime curvature is continuous (and monotonic?) through the event horizon. Some of the responses to "how do (particles) escape a black hole?" talk about virtual particles being able to tunnel across the horizon. The gravitational or electric field around a black hole is a static field. I don't know what the best way to think about that is, but it's as if it is fixed in space relative to the black hole. It doesn't need to be continuously generated. Only an excitation (or change, say if you add some mass to the black hole) would require a propagation of information (as waves and/or particles) across the field. Or say you suddenly created a black hole. The change in fields would propagate through space at c, and then it would just "be there"... remote locations would not need to keep receiving new information from the black hole to know that it's still there. You would not even be able to receive new information from the singularity. Anything that you can know about the singularity would have to be obtained from the fields around the black hole. Eg. the mass of the black hole affects the curvature of spacetime at your location, so you can be affected by the singularity's mass without receiving any new information about it. Specifically, it might be that all the information you can get about what's inside the horizon, is somehow encoded on the horizon???

Meh... physics isn't an exact science anyway. I'm sure that "foggy" is still better than whatever they got so far. Whatever that is.

I wonder if any of the other unknown heroes who ever risked their own lives to save another secretly wish they were mayors of a big city. Then they too could be famous for saving a life. "Sure you saved a mom and her child from a burning building, and then you went back in for the cat, and then you went back in again for the cat's favorite toy, but did you do it all WHILE CARRYING THE RESPONSIBILITY OF OVERSEEING THE BUDGET OF A LARGE MUNICIPALITY? If no, then who cares!"

How does your unifying field theory correspond with all the other accepted unifying field theories in the Speculations forum which also successfully explain all of physics or solve the universe etc? What sets it apart?

I looked back and noticed this second half of your post. If you google "how do gravitons escape a black hole" there are a few answers. The most useful or understandable for me are a few of the different answers here: http://physics.stack...pe-a-black-hole - No information needs to leave a black hole because it's all on the horizon. Theoretical gravitons would only need to travel from there? - Propagation of gravity (excitation of the gravitational field) is not the same as the static gravitational field itself. Gravitons would only be necessary for carrying information about changes to the gravitational field??? Any change in a black hole's mass would come from matter falling into it, and the information would come from there, not from inside the black hole. (Does that mean that the distribution of mass within a black hole's event horizon is static according to anyone outside -- because no time passes inside according to an outside observer???) - The static fields can be described with virtual particles that don't need to obey the speed limit of light. etc. Note: Oops, your post wasn't talking about gravity but I think the same answers apply to a black hole's charge, and static electric field, and virtual photons?

Can you explain this thought experiment again in detail? It sounds like you're speaking of travelling at 0.99c in some absolute sense. You wouldn't travel at that (or any) speed except relative to something else. So you're wondering about exchanging force carrier particles with some object that you're moving relative to??? But stuff relative to "your rest frame" that you're talking about (like your atoms, or particles that you shoot away from you) will behave exactly as if you are at rest.---Perhaps someone else can make more sense of this than I can.

I had no problem saying it in English. Edit: I should read the other posts before replying.

I must confess that I did, and I also brought up some points from past threads (probably closed ones). Is it possible to respond to posts without repeating the specific things you've been warned about? I think it's possible to defend your stance without soapboxing your stance---that is, explain why you think your stance should be considered instead of just repeating what your stance is. I think the problem might be that you are hiding the preaching of an opinion under the pretence of an open discussion of opinions. It's a subtle difference I think... but I don't think anyone wants to stifle productive discussion. Apparently owl is forbidden to reply to any of the specific examples above, so I'll give it a shot. "Common sense." As per the Buddhist quote, "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." Likewise, if something agrees with one's common sense, it ought be believed. Baloney. Science deals with things beyond the normal realm of human experience, things for which we can't possibly have any common sense about. Until our intuitive understanding of the universe catches up to our scientific understanding, common sense will be lagging behind by decades or centuries. Where common sense disagrees with experimental observations, the former is wrong. Common sense must bend to the will of the universe, not the other way around.

On one hand you're saying that scientists ought to answer "what it is" even if there is no measurable way to test such answers, and on the other you're rejecting the answers that they provide when the answers withstand testing. Why then would you accept anyone's answers about "what it is" where there's no evidence, when you reject answers for which there is evidence? It's been answered many times before. What curves is spacetime. Spacetime is what curves. The specific meaning of "spacetime" and "curves" is defined precisely enough to be useful to those who understand it. By the way, scientists don't just hear the words and make up their own meanings for them. The words are purposefully defined to not hold extra meanings (as in, the types of things you want them to tell you) that are useless, misleading, or untestable. You've been given an example ontological answer to "what is spacetime?" It is "tie-dyed rabbit pelt", or "pink faeries holding us up". Take your pick. Now, can you tell me if this is a satisfactory answer? If not, why not? Back to the topic, would it matter if my opinion was that it was one but not the other?

Oversized stink glands. Unnatural environments, greater contact with others and with a larger array of materials than we would naturally; wearing clothing; eating stuff we wouldn't naturally eat. Psychological conditioning, convincing us that sterile environments are good and that natural smells are bad. Mental illness, possibly creating an unhealthy aversion to the scent of people. Also, you've obviously never spent a night inside a Tauntaun.

The equations and constants must correspond to measured values. If this was truly done "without any idea" so that the numbers didn't matter, and there was no measurable difference if you used one number instead of another, then just like if you used one ontological explanation in place of another where there is no measurable difference, then those numbers or equations wouldn't matter. (Not all philosophy is irrelevant; not all maths matter. It is common for crackpots to use meaningless maths.) Perhaps that answers "what does matter?". You could ask something like "What is a force?" and perhaps no one could give a complete answer, but it can be answered in terms of the properties we know about forces, how they relate to other things like mass, what equations describe their behaviors etc---and all the acceptable answers should be testable. One aspect of all this that's not so clear-cut is in interpreting the meaning of the equations or properties. Often the simplest or most "common sense" interpretation is the most accepted, but sometimes there is no simple explanation (as with the different interpretations of QM). I believe that a good scientist would not pick a single interpretation to "believe in", but would consider all valid interpretations as possible??? (This is probably not the case though because there are some outlandish interpretations out there.) Perhaps ontology is useful for coming up with interpretations, possibly preferred ones. What you can't do, though, is use an ontological interpretation to prove that a theory is wrong, when the theory isn't invalidated by measurements (such as special relativity including length contraction).

I don't know VB so consider this pseudocode... dim Digits(0 to 8) as Integer Digits(0) = 1 Digits(1) = 1 Digits(2) = 1 Digits(3) = 2 Digits(4) = 2 Digits(5) = 2 Digits(6) = 2 Digits(7) = 2 Digits(8) = 3 for x = 8 to 0 step -1 ' select a random index from 0 to x Index = Int(Rnd * (x+1)) Num = Digits( Index ) ' Remove that digit from the array (effectively we're shrinking the array, and overwriting the used digit) Digits( Index ) = Digits( x ) next x It might require some debugging.

You could keep track of how many of each digit you have left and "reroll" if Num is a digit you've used up. I assume though that this isn't what you want, because the last boxes will tend to be a 2 more likely than the first boxes. I'd probably just put the numbers (1,1,1,2,2,2,2,2,3) in an array and randomly select an index, and remove that choice from the array.

Anyone can address the question. IF addressing it produces results, the results (not the question, I think) may be considered science. For example, knowing what a material is in terms of chemical composition yields predictions of how that material will behave. To answer your original question in this thread, I'd say that if opinions such as theses didn't matter, things would be pretty much as they are now. Further I'd say that opinions such as these don't matter. (Prove that spacetime isn't vital and my opinion is irrelevant. Prove that addressing "what it is" makes a difference in predicting or modelling how things behave, and your opinion becomes accepted science.)

No bias. What precise predictions does ontology make?

You are correct. It is the thoroughness and the preciseness with which the theory's predictions match experimental observations that make it the accepted theory of gravity. As swansont has pointed out, any QM theory of gravity will at least correspond to the experimentally confirmed predictions made by GR before it is accepted. If evidence of gravitons is found, it will not be evidence that spacetime isn't curved, unless the evidence also somehow invalidates GR in some spectacular fashion. If you want to prove that spacetime isn't curved, you need an alternative that precisely explains all of the phenomena that otherwise confirm that spacetime is curved. There is no such alternative yet.

I can't speak for everyone, and I would say that you've lost credibility here, but I don't think you had any at the start. If you want to prove that your idea is valuable, then finish the work. Get a job, live with your mom... or keep on begging if you want. Perhaps someone can help you with how to get a grant. I imagine that you'd have to prove your idea is valuable before you'd get a grant, though. The way that you present your ideas, I have the feeling that you're talking about stuff that you don't really understand, but that you're hoping that someone who can understand it will read it and be able to put your ideas into practice, and derive real results from them. So I think maybe your "finished work" will be just a beginning, just an idea that you hope others can start with. The liberal use of technical-sounding terms, but without their meaning ("supersymmetry", "spatial language of chaos") seems to me to be cargo cult science, and is not helpful. I would suggest aiming more realistically, perhaps presenting your ideas as a principle or conjecture. Then, you can start small and derive some real (if small) results from them. If you think that your ideas can lead to a complete replacement for some set of accepted theories, it may be an interesting conjecture, but I don't think you have even the start of a fraction of the actual results and predictions that would be needed. You have ideas, not a theory. - Present your ideas as ideas. - If you can, show how your ideas can be used---some new prediction maybe, or show that some existing result can also be expressed as precisely using your stuff. If you're hoping that others will figure out how to apply your ideas, that might not happen. - Avoid overly technical terms unless their meaning that you understand is the same as what others understand. Don't try to make ideas sound like a finished theory with jargon. Express it simply as possible. Disclaimer: I am an idiot. Now I regret wasting time replying to you.

It's true! All the physicists were playing beer pong the night it happened. Ah, an excellent idea for n4t3; Perhaps you can work in a patent office to cover the "eat and sleep" part of your needs. Pray tell, was this office worker who developed modern physics also in school at the time, that is 1905, the year he completed his thesis for which he earned a PhD (in the field of office work, I imagine) from the University of Zurich? n4t3: It's sad that so many people are forced to do work for other people in order to get by, but if your work is really important it will get done and recognized regardless of what other responsibilities you're forced to take on in order to get by. It just won't be quick and easy.