Anilkumar

It is the, scientific spirit, which is responsible for the success of Science. I attribute the success of Science to the spread of scientific spirit. If Humans had not adopted the scientific spirit, there would be no Science. It is this scientific spirit, to encourage innovation and exploration by giving scope to the Right ideas and correcting the wrong ideas. Certainly, propagation of what is already there, alone, is not doing Science. And discouragement of everything new is not doing Science. What is the meaning of ‘Establishing the old & Discouraging the new’? Are we ascertaining regimes here? Logical discussion of prevailing concepts and new concepts, to understand them better, to bring out the drawbacks in them, is doing Science. This is wrong and a terribly misleading fallacy. The methodology of Science has not been attacked anywhere in the thread. It should be stringently noted here that; the methodology of science has not been attacked, but instead the attempt to INSERT the foul, biased, ‘Behavior’ like Derision, being Inconsiderate, being Pejorative instead of conducting issue based discussion etc into the Methodology of Science has been attacked. To simply put; the methodology of Science has never been attacked but the attempt to legitimize Derision, Inconsideration, etc as scientific methods to deal with new ideas, has been attacked. And shall be attacked, because those are not scientific methods. Those who are doing that are not doing Science. And they have no place in Science. They are ‘bad characters’ who are found in every field, who want to make the field into, a regime of their own. And those are not methodologies of Science but are tricks to pursue selfish bias. The thinking that Derision & Being Inconsiderate are parts of the Methodology of Science is a very poor & bad understanding of the Methodology of Science. These are not exceptional cases. ‘It, happens.’ because there is Immorality. And this Immorality is not found in only exceptional beings. Every human being has his/her share of immorality. Only the percentages are different. And this immorality can only be countered by strict adherence to the scientific method. And ‘issue based discussion’ is a part of that methodology, that has the ability to address the nuisance of this Immorality. I would like to say this here; We cannot separate all the good human beings of the world on one side and all the evil beings on one side. Because, no person is absolutely good. And no person is absolutely evil. If only there were evil people, somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? — The Gulag Archipelago (1958-1968) by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn [Russian activist, Nobel laureate, literature 1970] Nobody would destroy a part of his or her own heart. Instead, they would strive to legitimize, the evil part of their heart, as good. So, it is necessary that we make this discussion [Or any other discussion on the forum or elsewhere], strictly adhering to the scientific spirit, presenting Logical arguments to the best of our abilities with Honesty, Truthfulness, and Justice in our hearts. And not biased by Selfishness, Dogma, Prejudice and channelized by any kind of Regulations & Restrictions not concerned with scientific exploration and then must accept any conclusion we arrive at, selflessly. Only then, we will be doing Science, and be Just & Truthful. Moreover, it would amount to us all adopting the scientific spirit, if at all we wants to adopt it. Humans, shall never be free of the worst influences of their weaknesses. Only, strict adherence to the scientific method and issue based open discussion, can keep our works free from those influences or can at least minimize them. This is another misleading fallacy, from the pack, repeated for the nth time. Who has asked for the acceptance of wrong ideas? From which rule of the scientific spirit, do we come to this great noble & scientific conclusion? I won’t give any rep to this. I think this warrants banning; not from this forum, but from Science. Every scientific theory, before it comes to be said as scientific; gets [the flaws in it] mended by several contributors. Even now there are flaws in our accepted theories and are being constantly discussed. And certain new hypotheses are so flawed that, they cannot be mended. There, there is high probability that, the premises that the person has derived her conclusions from are wrong. There what is to be done is, mend the premises, by educating her. This is how Science gets proliferated. People seem to think that Science, is the sole property of some. No. Science is the Realm of those who are Scientific in their demeanor. A child who refuses to believe but instead wants to Think logically and Reason, is being scientific, so is a Scientist. A Scientist however high up in the hierarchy of the field of Science; whose any decisions are plagued by human weaknesses, is not being scientific, so is not being a Scientist in that particular case. Logical thinking & Reasoning, is the basic requirement of a person who wants to do Science. In addition, accepting that which stands up the Logical scrutiny, is also in the scientific spirit. If something is denied its place by not having a scientific approach towards it, then one is not being scientific. That’s great of you. I said this; Some people don’t think Science is money. They think it is enlightenment, knowledge that needs to be refined and spread. Read below; Which all were debunked? Instead of asking people to learn about their nugget, the right approach or the scientific method to scrutinize a new idea is to make the wrong in it, evident. On this forum, when a person proved a point in a logical, falsifiable, experimental, method; it has been evaded. I have seen that. ------------ 0000000 ------------ This thread has long back shown and concluded that Scientists are not devoid of human weaknesses. I am not saying this. People who did some real science, and were true scientists with true scientific spirit in their hearts, who were victimized by those unscientific human weaknesses, have said it. And those human weaknesses have marred Science in the past and shall continue to do so as long as, weaknesses in human beings exist. Only misleading fallacies are repeatedly being brought up now, on the thread, to save face, to falsely create the delusion that this thread has not concluded.

Let us not discuss individual cases. Let us generalize things. It is not the question of one individual. I think we have discussed this in post #62. Nevertheless, let me put it in this way. There are two aspects here. In extreme cases, if an entirely proficient person gives the points, she; could be absolutely right, would be mostly right. On the contrary, if a totally unknowing person gives the point, she; could be absolutely wrong, would be mostly wrong. Since there is a margin of error in both cases, [less or more], the need for discussion arises. Why do you think I am trying to derail the thread ??? Are you scaring me !!! After all those mod-notes, trials, and sentences; the words, derailing the thread, thread hijacking, moderators have become scary words to me. The inserted comments are facts that I have endured; not stated to nag someone. A childhood incident comes to my mind; I was a kid then. All the children in my neighborhood, used to gather and play cricket in an immediate area. There was this buddy ‘Ananth’, fondly called as ‘Antya’. He was not good at playing cricket. He couldn’t bat well or bowl well and never used to do the fielding. If he was asked to field, he used to just look at the ball pass beside him and never run behind it. If he was asked to bowl [Each one of us had the share of bowling two overs.], he would give a great time for the batsman [All the batsmen loved him!] and a hell of a time to the fielders. Before going for his batting skills, I need to tell you something. He had a grandmother. She was the eldest person and the scariest person of the neighborhood. All hell would break lose, if anybody disobeyed her. Now when it was the turn of ‘Antya’ to bat, he was the darling of the bowlers. He used to get out in one or two bowling. However, he had a trick up his sleeve. He immediately used to start crying loudly, slowly inching towards his house. And his grandmother would arrive, furious over who hurt her darling. She would ask ‘Antya’ about what happened. He would complain, ‘these guys don’t let me bat. They bowl me out so quickly!’. And the lady would come towards us saying ‘Hey let the little one play. [He was elder than most of us!].’ She would snatch the bat and give it to ‘Antya’ and ask us to bowl and would go to the nearby shade and watch from there. We obliged, humbly, without saying a word. And ‘Antya’ played to his fill. It is a different matter that, we later on changed strategy, by also stipulating two overs for each batsman, irrespective of whether he gets out or not. I am already scared. Please don’t scare me further. I am dealing with it, in the little space available in between. The doors of Justice/Truth/God are never closed totally. Only, one has to keep knocking at it. Without question. I would like to say something here. There is an aura of Tranquility, Deliberation, Prudence, Selflessness, Civility, Understandability, Calmness, Affability and Poise around some people. Usually, they are the mature seasoned & well-read people. And usually such people don’t err much and if at all they do, they accept and change, if it is made evident. So the acts [Like the giving of a positive rep, said by you above] of such people are equitable and necessary for society. Their decrees are like markers for the rest of the immature world, to tread on. I feel, people who lack those qualities must refrain from, Decreeing. [Considering the fact that a secretive rep point is; a decree.] What they should do instead is; place an opinion in the public domain, and seek its approval. I don’t think a person who is, Turbulent, Impulsive, Hasty, Selfish, Playful, Incomprehensible, Hostile, and Ignorant should be allowed to decree. Imagine the number/percentage of the people of the former kind and the latter kind. We can’t allow for decrees to be made indiscreetly for the sake of its recreation value. Thank you Hello Spyman, I was fulltime into something. That’s great. Pretty consoling. That was a nice one, Spyman. This gives a mission to the community, to check the drawbacks inherent in the system. No doubt, this would counter balance the drawback, if the community is serious and willing, which it should be. Also the fact, that the, staff are able to see who votes what and can take action if needed, too is consoling. Having said that, I would like to know your opinion on this; However, one thing is lurking in my mind & I would like to bring it onboard, that, every opinion has its share of bias [except in case of some technical issues] attached to it [more or less]. There may be people who are correct in every decision made by them, though their number is very few, I suppose, we need to consider the fact that vast majority are not total perfect beings, who don’t err. And I feel, this factor of ‘bias/error’ can only be countered by discussion. Both, yours & Michel’s opinion, were partly addressing the ‘motive’ behind the Rep system. Thank you

Why do you contend that I assume that my opinions on the matter are more valid than the opinions of others who disagree? I am making an argument, here, in an open discussion. Why don’t you make yours, instead of substituting with assumptions about me? I suppose Max Planck must have presented in a rigorous, rational, formalized manner. I don’t think he was hand waving. We need to acknowledge the fact that, Scientists are human beings, no disrespect intended. They would behave like human beings, irrespective of their profession. The human weaknesses are integrating parts of all human beings, irrespective of what they do. Otherwise, they would be Super-human. Those who derive sadistic pleasure and just say things, don’t heed these things. In place of deriving sadistic pleasure, the sadists should care to read books, which is a better alternative hobby and by that they would come to know such facts as below; I hope this stops the one from making pejorative comments. If this is not sufficient, I can give more substantiation of similar kind. Just saying . . . Doesn’t help, anybody. Being Just helps; one, and all others. Cap’n, The scientists, whom Planck indicates [above], were not being skeptical. The skeptic would analyze. Here they were neglecting, setting aside without even perusing it. They were being inconsiderate. Take a look at this; [Highlighted by me.] All this, is not, skepticism. This is human weakness or prejudice. The followers of the older ones are always Inconsiderate, to the new. This is very different from being Skeptical. We should be careful & well aware not to murk the line between ‘Being Inconsiderate’ & ‘Being Skeptical’. And ACG52, Deriving the pleasure of being pejorative, doesn’t help in getting hold of such a subtle matter. Another of the right answers off the mark, i.e. not relevant to the issue. The issue here is not rushing to change mind or discarding Truth, reality and facts. Nobody is asking for that. The issue is, ‘intent and considerate perusal of new ideas’. It is clearly evident there is a lack of it, not because the new ideas are substantiated/unsubstantiated or because most of the new ides are wrong; but because it is human weakness, like being Inconsiderate, Prejudicial, Intolerant to everything that opposes one’s adherence or standing and disturbs ones subjective way of thinking & even existence. To label that ‘Being Inconsiderate’ as ‘Being Skeptical’ is a misleading fallacy. The two are different. The skeptic would analyze [using the scientific method]. The Inconsiderate avoids. Any new scientific issue needs to be treated by reasoning scientifically and not by being inconsiderate. During a scientific reasoning, the Self is to be totally left out and the focus should be only on ‘searching for the Truth’. When the scientific reasoning brings up a truth that is contrary to what we hold, it must be accepted justly with the scientific spirit in our heart. There the self should not come in our way. To do the scientific reasoning and to bring up the Truth, we must stop being inconsiderate to new ideas and must peruse them intently. It is not sufficient if Truth is God to Science. Truth must be God to us too. And only when we too consider that Truth is God, we become truthful, not plagued by self interest/taste/liking, and we are eligible to do Science. Is Truth God to us too? We would accept Truth as God, ONLY, when we leave out the Self and consider ‘search for Truth’ as a deed above self interest/taste/liking. Yes, cooperation, conflict, selfishness are the ones that have made our life, what it is. Cooperation and conflict on issues come under the ambit of scientific spirit. However, selfishness has no role to play in Science. Human life and Science is marred by the, unfair acts of selfishness. And, the Inconsiderate & Prejudiced handling, by the followers of the old, of the proponents of the new, is one of them. However, there are selfless beings, who are considerate towards new ideas. I have discussed that in the beginning of this thread. Thank you for being sympathetic. ------------ 0000000 ------------ When a person brings a new thought, whether substantiated or unsubstantiated, what is important is that the person is interested in doing Science. That should be valued and nurtured. To do that, one must peruse intently what the person has brought and if it is well founded, it must be given scope, if not, the person must be educated. That is how we practice and propagate Science. That is what, is doing Science. Being inconsiderate to new ideas is, not doing Science and is being unscientific.

Don’t be concerned, I can handle it. Nevertheless, it is not what you need to be worried about. You should be more worried about the unsubstantiated wrong feedback, whether it is a social or scientific feedback. I never said we should behave like journal publications. I simply said that, the rep system has the drawback; that anybody who cannot substantiate their vote, can give a rep, and it fails the very purpose of the system. While you are right that it is also a social venue, however the community on this forum believes in the scientific spirit. We can’t make this an amusement park. We need to substantiate our opinions. As long as there is the opportunity to slap an unsubstantiated, unjust rep point, the system doesn’t have the scientific spirit, it is false amusement. Your telling me to go somewhere else due to my criticism of the Rep system, shows you love it much. However, you would definitely enjoy it more if those points were genuinely substantiated ones, and they are repealed subsequently, if in the ensuing discussion, it is proved that the point given was unfounded. How do the rep points, show the love of science and a passion for learning about the universe or help us to learn about the universe. Are the points the measure of our love for Science or learning about the Universe; those unsubstantiated, merciful, points?! They are just Amusement; Like C.E.M. Joad, puts it; ‘Treacle toffees of the grownups’! [The story of civilization (1931)]. I agree. Yes they can be, if they are not wrongly given. Spyman, Hi there, Glad to interact with you after long time. Interaction with you was bliss. It always comes to my mind. You are absolutely correct. Evidently, the system has been introduced, to get/imply a measure [as Michel123456 puts it] of the ability of a person to; help the community, give accurate information, just & gentle behavior, compassionate demeanor, give guidance, place logical arguments, present genuine solutions, and at the same time also to, object Falsehood, illogic, etc. On the contrary the system is being used to; settle scores, put down opposition [imagine a person, who strongly believes in something, discards all logicality, cannot counter a logical argument that falsifies his wrong belief, but is dissatisfied with his belief being stripped, so bangs with a neg rep and runs off! This is like giving a fool a gun, to maintain his supremacy.], do tomfoolery, build the strength of a post even when it is false because it supports his belief, put down a logical post by giving a +ve rep to the post in opposition even when doing so is not right. ------------ 0000000 ------------ I am not against the Rep system. I have given some +ve points on the forum. I am against its drawbacks, against its falsity. Why can’t the person who gives it, justify it by discussion and make the points genuine? And then, a question presents itself before me; when we give a good reply/post, be of help to someone, present a logical interpretation, of course yes, it is pleasing to both the giver & the receiver. However, it ends there. What is the necessity of carrying that pleasure in the form of green feathers in our hats? Treacle toffees?! Similarly, when someone is wrong or does wrong, we can correct the person by giving substantiated opinions. Why smear the person’s face with Red. For the pleasure of it?! Like they throw stones in the public to punish someone; in some countries.

Zapatos, Nice meeting you, Sure, I agree with you, that the Rep system is meant for that. However, it is mostly not used for that, and even if it is solely used for that purpose [suppose we invent a system that senses & prohibits & maintains the Rep system so that it is used solely for that purpose], even then, the problem with the system, is that the system is secretive. You never know why the person gave the rep. Instead of giving the Rep for the above mentioned reasons, those same words could be used to say what one wants to say, by which everyone including the person to whom it is directed, knows one’s feelings and the reasons behind it. Moreover, that way, it is more effective, because reasons are stated and issues are brought up. I would like to discuss on the examples mentioned by you as a case study; Let’s take the Negative Rep example 1; Here instead of saying it in the above words, if one gives a rep, what happens is the reasons are not made clear and the issues are not brought up. The reason & issue in this case are; Reason: I don’t want to repeat the same thing. Issue: You are not heeding the explanations. That would make the person, answer to why she/he is making one repeat, and why she/he is not heading the explanations. The person is forced to become accountable for, her/his wrong actions. And let us remind ourselves that the other way round, could also be true. That is; What we have held that, we have repeated it many times over, may not have actually even touched the issue raised by the other person. We could have made a mistake in actually identifying the issue raised by that person. May be the person is not at all saying that ‘Einstein and Shakespeare were the same person’. On the other hand, maybe the other person is saying that both Einstein and Shakespeare are identical in the sense that they both have made a profound effect on the world. The essence of Discussion/Debate is patience. We can’t get rid of our responsibility, by giving a Rep; and also we can’t deprive the other person’s right to explain for herself by hitting her with a negative rep. We just can’t say ‘I told you three times now, you have reached a point where enough is enough’. When we are bent on making the other person become ‘Aware’, we never reach that point where enough is enough. If you say that, your mission fails, there. Only if we are bent on making the other person, ‘Submit’ or ‘Tread our path’, we pick the Gun. Yes, a negative rep is a gun in the sense that it doesn’t give the other person the opportunity to explain for herself. And the spirit of the free world is, never closing that Opportunity. What we are doing here, is, we are trying to find and give solutions. We have not gathered here to give or take Reputation. Moreover, I am not interested in knowing the person who gave it. I have no business with him/her. I want to know the REASON why it was given. It helps me decide, conclude, to change my mind or to become firm. Reputation is Unscientific. Reasoning is scientific. And we are on the science forum. Thank you for coming.

This is getting repetitive. I am not blaming anybody here. The problem is, the repeated failure to recognize the issue. The issue is repeatedly abandoned & needs to be repeatedly brought to the table. This issue has been discussed several times over. The above is a perfect answer. However, it is off the mark. Off the mark; because, there is failure to recognize the issue. Nobody is advocating here, for the acceptance of ideas not supported by evidence. Everyone knows here, the definition of ‘that idea’, which is acceptable to the scientific world. What we have to recognize is; the fact that ‘Basically we live in a Selfish world’. Selfishness fails to recognize the value of a thing and recognizes that thing as valuable, which better suits its self interests. Now let me try to explain this, in this way; What has been said in the above post, summarily is, ‘There must be scientific value in an idea for it to get accepted.’ To make my point clear, let me generalize the above statement. ‘There must be VALUE in anything for it to get accepted’. Or ‘The thing that has value gets accepted/recognized’. Let us take the example of the Miss world pageant. ‘The woman who is the most able, or according to our generalized definition, the woman who has VALUE, gets the crown’. Now is this as simple as it sounds? This is similar to saying ‘The scientific idea that has scientific value gets accepted’. Are both as simple as they sound. I can change the values of the variables and give different examples. Let me do it by changing one at a time and then both variables at a time. ‘The Actor who has value gets the Oscar’. Then to - ‘The Actor who is best in acting gets the Oscar’. ‘The Athlete who has value gets the championship’. Then to - ‘The Athlete who is best in the concerned sport gets the championship’. ‘The politician who has value gets elected’. Then to – ‘The politician who is most concerned about the people gets elected’ Now let me change both variables at a time; ‘The person who is innocent gets vindicated’. ‘The person who is guilty gets the blame’ [is recognized as the culprit]. Are all the above, true? If one has the time & money and is ready take the trouble, one can find and meet the women who are more beautiful and able than the woman crowned this year as the miss world. Many beautiful women are left out because of many varied reasons; like they are, deprived of opportunity, deprived of endorsers, social/economical/political hindrances, some are pushed aside, etc. They can’t come up. It is not that everything that has value gets its true value. What I am trying to show here is; behind every JUDGEMENT, [ACCEPTANCE/RECOGNITION of the THING THAT HAS VALUE] there is the JUDGE. Behind every Judgment, there is the human element, which tends to be selfish. It becomes hard even for Truth to get recognized due to the selfish human element. To say; ‘The thing that has value gets accepted/recognized’, is easier said than done. Because; We live in a selfish world, which fails to recognize the value of a thing and recognizes that thing as valuable, which better suits its selfish interests. I am forced to repeat here; because the issue has been discussed already, but has been raised again, it is bound to happen. The following are the very alarming words of no small persons. “In the temple of science are many mansions, and various indeed are they that dwell therein and the motives that have led them thither. Many take to science out of a joyful sense of superior intellectual power; science is their own special sport to which they look for vivid experience and the satisfaction of ambition; many others are to be found in the temple who have offered the products of their brains on this altar for purely utilitarian purposes. Were an angel of the Lord to come and drive all the people belonging to these two categories out of the temple, the assemblage would be seriously depleted, but there would still be some men, of both present and past times, left inside. Our Planck is one of them, and that is why we love him.” — Albert Einstein [Address (1918) for Max Planck's 60th birthday, at Physical Society, Berlin, 'Principles of Research' in Essays in Science] “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it”- Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers, trans. F. Gaynor (1950), 97. Quoted in David L. Hull, Science as a Process (1990). These persons had ideas that had Value. Despite of that, these persons said those words. Imagine the hardship they must have faced in this selfish world, to get the true value to Truth. What an irony. We have to struggle to bring Truth; it’s Value. This selfishness in the world is nauseating.

I liked the new look & features.

There is a serious drawback about the rep system. It enables one to give a subjective opinion [Almost all opinions are subjective, except some. And rep is a subjective opinion.] without substantiating their opinion. We are on a discussion forum. Every opinion must be substantiated. An opinion without giving a substantiating argument, i.e. without giving reasons why one likes/dislikes something, is wrong. One cannot do something and be unaccountable for that. Giving a negative rep or a positive rep is not a great thing. Substantiating one’s opinion is the great thing. Any fool can hit & run. Calling something Right/Wrong is not a great thing. Substantiating it is the great thing. Having said that; when one wants to give an opinion, one cannot afford to be lazy. It is an oxymoron. One should stay away from giving an opinion that one cannot substantiate, whether lazily or due to lack of information. The result is the same; no substantiation. And lastly, when a person gives a rep and subsequently substantiates it with an argument, and that argument is found to be unfounded during the course of the ensuing discussions, the person who gave the rep should do justice and retrieve that rep, whether positive/negative. If this is not possible, then the reps have no meaning & have no value. I consider ‘the giving of an opinion without substantiating & being just’ is like shooting a person without giving her the opportunity to explain for herself. I give reps only after the conclusion of a discussion. An opinion is not a small thing to cast it any way we like. The Opinion, is the basic requirement of the free world we envision. Conclusions are derived from it, which will affect our own lives in return. Therefore, we need to be honest in giving opinions and take care that they are not colored by our personal bias. And it is the most valuable thing of our lives and works properly in the intended way or serves the intended purpose, only when it is accompanied with a substantiating argument. Let us remind ourselves; we are not always correct/right. We will know whether we are correct or not, only by substantiation & further discussion. Not by giving reps. Thank you

If neutrinos are mass-less, they must travel at c. However, if they have mass, they cannot attain c. What if neutrinos have a velocity greater than the speed of light [even by a fraction]? Does that violate SR? No. I am aware that there is a lot of debate going on, on that. However, I have different opinions. If the speed of the neutrinos is superluminal, then what happens is; the value of c changes. That's all. And it also shows that the mass-less photons lose [that there is some hindrance, that we have not been able detect] some of their speed during their journey, and we have not been able to detect/accommodate that. Since the neutrinos mostly do not interact with other matter, they don't lose their speed. Therefore, it is natural that they could show superluminal speed. However, that doesn't change the fact that 'the speed of a mass-less particle in vacuum is a constant denoted by c'. What if neutrinos have superluminal speed and yet have a slight mass? Then, the value of c changes further, and we will have to struggle harder to determine the exact value of c [or realize the exact length of the meter since c has been exacted]. SR will not be violated. SR is mathematics. There could be error in measurement, but there can be no error in mathematics. Einstein aptly said, and I side with it. "If facts don't agree with the theory, change the facts". c remains constant and inviolate. It is the unhindered speed with which mass-less particles and fields including Gravity, travel in vacuum. How much is that speed? We don't know exactly, would be the answer, if neutrinos are superluminal & massive. As found by Einstein 'the parameter c has relevance outside of the context of light and electromagnetism'. c is the speed at which all mass-less particles and fields including Gravity, must travel in vacuum. Any of the changes to c [the unhindered speed of the mass-less particle in vacuum] would be fractional. I feel that, the invariance of c was, the first law written by nature in its constitutional book before creation. However, as of now I have inadequate logical proof to show that. All this is hypothetical until we have concrete evidence on the speed & mass of neutrinos and the measurement of the µ & ε of perfect vacuum. It is better not to discuss hypothetical issues at this instance, I suppose. Whether neutrinos are superluminal or not, SR will not be breached because; SR is a physical law which says, every observation [m, l, t] made in this Universe is a function of Speed [i.e the ratio of Speeds of the measured/observed quantity to the speed of light or to put it exactly; highest Speed light can achieve at that instant. There is no denying that. Observations are not Absolute. They are relative to the states of reference frames from which the observation is made and the observed quantity is into. And these observations shall continue to be the functions of the ratio of the above mentioned speeds, irrespective of what is the value the Speed of the Neutrinos!! And the law that observations are the functions of the ratio of the above mentioned speeds; itself is SR. Vacuum permittivity and vacuum permeability are dependent on 'perfect classical vacuum'. Perfect classical vacuum is difficult to achieve, which could be the reason where light loses some of its speed. Both theory and experiment show that this vacuum still contains measurable energy. Both µ & ε are directly proportional to the energy density. It therefore follows that any increase in the energy density of the vacuum will not only result in a proportional increase in µ0 & ε0, but will also cause a decrease in the speed of light, c. c was not revealed by SR but by, Maxwell's equations. So, what the value of c is, does not affect SR. I.E. though Speed of Light is related to both Maxwell's equations & SR, the relation is entirely different. I.E. what the exact value of c is, is related to Maxwell's equations. However, only the fact that c, 'has a finite value', is related to SR. These are entirely two different aspects. To put it more simply, SR does not concern itself with what the exact value of c is. It only concerns itself with the fact that, Light, with which we observe the world, has a finite speed. And this law [sR] is mathematical, which just takes into consideration that Light, has a finite speed, with the help of which we observe the world, i.e. our observations are dependent on that very c. So, SR cannot be breached. Only the absolute value can be perfected. __________________------------ 0000000 ------------ I was referring to the very 'creation of a pair of mass-less particles by annihilating massive ones and vice versa', itself as 'transformation of matter from massive to mass-less'. And also, I never spoke anything about the conservation of energy during the process. You felt/assumed it. Whatever I said was strictly about the 'swapping' of mass & c, in nature. I was only referring to the fact that, Nature restricts that; "you can have either mass or c, and in both cases, you have momentum, because mass is nothing but E/c2 and just because mass became [or is converted/transformed/anything else] E/c2 the momentum doesn't disappear. Mass & E/c2 are one and the same thing, but with different attributes and physical units but both can have momentum". If use of any word doesn't give the above meaning or gives any superfluous meaning, from my last post, that word needs to be changed. If the use of the word 'transformation' leads to a semantic error and leads to assuming of the violation of a physical law, we could use a different word like 'creation' as you said. Alternatively, perhaps, you could help and correct the semantic error. To put it simply, I have not discussed anything about the conservation of Energy or Momentum. What I have attempted to do is to compare the identical mathematical equations and answer the question; 'How could a mass-less particle [like photon] have Momentum?', or make it comprehensible, or just get an idea of, how Matter behaves, by comparing the identical components of the two identical equations. Momentum = factor 1 x factor 2 ---------- = Attribute of Matter [mass or energy] x Velocity ---------- = Mass or energy x respective velocity ---------- = m or E/c^2 x v or c respectively I was saying that, in the equations, since the factors are identical i.e. mass and energy are identical and the other factors [both are velocities] too are identical they lead to identical products i.e. both massive particles & mass-less energy have momentum. And consequently, I have tried to derive the physical meaning by comparing the identical mathematical equations i.e. 'Matter can Either be massive with lesser velocity than c OR it can be mass-less at c but in both cases it has Momentum'. Or still simply, 'The Matter in motion, in all its manifestations, cannot be devoid of Momentum'. If everything above is not convincing; we can put this in another way. Consider this; when a force does work to increase the kinetic energy of a particle it also causes the mass of the particle to increase by an amount equal to the increase in energy divided by c2. [some of us don't like the statement that mass increases with speed, they feel that the word "mass" should be restricted to only the actual mass or the rest mass of an object.] In fact, this result is exactly true over the whole range of speeds from zero to very near the speed of light. Alternatively, work done on the body, i.e. its kinetic energy, is just equal to its mass increase multiplied by c2. And here, the mass of a photon is all kinetic energy mass. I.E. a photon is all kinetic energy. For example: Consider an electron moving at a very high speed. The energy of the electron would be, However, in the equation, the kinetic energy of the electron would be very high compared to its mass. Therefore, we can neglect it. Then the above equation reduces to; Similarly, for a photon, which has no mass, it still has momentum. The momentum comes from its kinetic energy. A photon is all kinetic energy.

Hello Michel123456, hello everybody, We have to see it like this. This sounds a bit offbeat but it gives the necessary insight. I am not being speculative here. I am just trying to give the theoretical interpretation of the mathematics. The nature is governed by this law, [subject to correction by the knowledgeable]; "Any particle with mass cannot move at the speed of Light. And any particle without mass moves at the speed of Light." Here Mass & c are constraints on matter. Matter has either Mass or c. If Matter has mass it has no c. If it has c, it has no mass. Accordingly, Momentum has two definitions. It is either mass times its velocity or it is Energy conveyance [light propagation] at c. There are dual definitions because Matter is dual in nature. Its manifestations either have mass or is pure mass-less energy at c. I.E. Matter is either a mass moving at a velocity less than c or a mass-less manifestation [named as Photon] at c. Therefore, accordingly. Momentum of Matter is either a mass moving at a velocity less than c times it's velocity or a mass-less manifestation moving per c. To put it simply, Matter either has mass or c and accordingly Momentum is, either m*v or E/c. Or, Matter/Energy either has mass or c and accordingly Momentum is, either m*v or E/c. Let me put it in another way, 'If you transform a matter particle with mass into a mass-less one it starts moving at c and vice versa'. So, Matter either has mass or c and accordingly Momentum is, either m*v or E/c. It is the same thing. A massive particle moving at less than c or a mass-less particle at c. Both have Momentum. They don't lose that Momentum when they are transformed into one another. That Momentum does not vanish just because Matter gets transformed into a different manifestation. If we are concerned about the units, even there too there is nothing much complex to understand. And, This thread has become interesting, with the why? and other things. Let us see if the OP gets answers to his why's & how's. I liked Steven Weinberg thoughts & Juanrga's 'the descriptive science is just a part of science. Answering "why" is another part of science'. I think man will be able to answer everything including all the why's in the very near future. Have a nice day.

You are absolutely right. Science is Amoral [if Amoral means, not concerned with morals i.e. Science is neither moral nor immoral]. [i have reservations here, for later]. The knowledge that Science is Amoral, is a higher level awareness, difficult to attain in this enticing world. However, to stop it at that would be akin to giving incomplete information. Because, people in the Science world [or any other field] are not Amoral. They are moral and/or immoral. Why is Science Amoral? It is Amoral because, it is a Tool, it is Information, Knowledge, Awareness, Truth. All Tools are Amoral. Now, then comes the Complication. This tool, OR Any tool, can be used for both the Deeds, Moral & Immoral. As I said earlier, behind every deed there is a doer. Now where does Science fit into this? It fits like this; The Doer does the Deed with the help of the Tool. Moreover, A Just Doer does a just Deed with the help of an Amoral Tool, and An Unjust Doer does an Unjust Deed with the help of the same Amoral Tool. All Tools are Amoral and so is Science. My reservations now; However, as you said, Science is adherence to a particular method of investigation. This makes Science; also a Deed. Strict Adherence to the Particular Method, is being Just to Science, and so a Just deed. By adhering to the particular method of doing something, one is being Just. Here, Strict Adherence is the act of being Just. In addition, Intent Perusal, scientific analysis & scrutiny is THE PARTICULAR METHOD which is to be strictly Adhered to, to deal with New Ideas, which is the scientifically Just process to deal with New Ideas, and not with Disregard & Derision, which is not the scientifically Just process to deal with New Ideas. One who adheres to the Particular scientific Method, is the Scientist, and is being Just. One who does not adhere to the Particular scientific Method, is not a Scientist, and is being Unjust. Now, You say the Nazi experiments on Jewish prisoners were scientific. The question here is not about being Just, while doing experiments. Also the question here is not about whether Science is Amoral or not. The question here is about doing Justice to new ideas. How can one who is not Just, do justice? How can one who does not adhere to the particular method [Perusal, scientific analysis & scrutiny of new ideas] of doing Science; do Science and be called a Scientist? Now, would you give my mark back? You took it so recklessly, even before listening to my side of argument. I call this as being Unjust. I have lost quite some like this. [i already have very few of them owing to my offbeat thoughts, I suppose. Some have even been stolen by clowns fooling around. Of course, I don't protest. Because I don't care. I doubt anybody cares. You know I have given a lots of positive marks on a thread; but only after the conclusion of the discussion. And I have not given a single negative mark until now. Not even to those who stole mine. Because I am aware that I am a small person, not the final judge. All I can do is Reason & Appreciate.] I capitalize words to highlight them. No other meaning is to be attached to it. I have made it clear earlier in this thread. You can see I have capitalized other words, too. Oh no, Truth cannot be bettered. Truth is Absolute. And Science is not the quest for the better explanation, it is the quest for the Best Explanation. And that Best Explanation itself is the Truth. The best is that which cannot be bettered. And so, Science is the quest for Truth. How? Let us see; 2 + 2 makes 4. This is the Absolute Truth. And cannot be Bettered. It is the Best. Truth cannot be Bettered. Our Perception of the Truth [which we don't know] is the thing, which we endeavor to Better, and that process/endeavor of Bettering our Perception of the Truth [which we don't know] is the thing, which we call Science. Through Science, we endeavor to Better our Perception of the Truth [which we don't know]. We don't Better Truth. Truth is Absolute it can't be Bettered. Let us not go adrift from the current issue. We have here gathered, not to decide whether Science is the quest for Truth, or is it the quest for Better Explanation. One thing is true here; that whether Science is the quest for Truth, or is the quest for Better Explanation, for both cases, we need NEW IDEAS. Moreover, we also need, the Intent Perusal & Scrutiny of those ideas and Correcting them if they are Wrong and Furthering them if they are Right. And to do that i.e. to decide whether something is, RIGHT or WRONG one must be JUST. Because, Unless; One is Just, one's decision or verdict is not going to be Correct. And so; For the scrutiny of new ideas and the spread of the scientific spirit, we need people who are Just & Morally sound. New Ideas, their Intent Perusal, Scrutiny, Correction, Promotion; is an important activity of Science. And one must be Just in doing it. *************** Proximity, Thank you for the compassionate support. Yes, you got me Right. I was not referring to, 'my perception' of the Truth [or the subjective Truth Perception. Subjective perceptions may/may not, be the Truth]. Truth is not Subjective. Perceptions of the Absolute Truth, are Subjective. Oh, how nicely you have put it. Science is a Culture! Great. Yes, it is a culture, of adhering to a set of Methods [as Arete said], adhering to a set of Principles, besides being also a Tool [as Phi For All, put it]. And Derision of, and Disregard for, new ideas don't belong to that culture. And those who do it, don't belong to Science.

Phi for All, Thank you for coming. I did not say we should be having explanations that are outside accepted science in the main forum. That is why I said we should have an additional sub forum. I suggested as below; The mainstream forums: For the student seeking better grades. The hybrid [or the explorer's forum]: For the person who has her reservations regarding a mainstream theory and would like to critically learn & check with other alternatives and new ideas, which have gone through the scrutiny on the speculations forum. Where both mainstream & new ideas sweat it out. The Speculations forum: For proposing and getting scrutinized a new idea. Thank you for taking note. No regrets. I bow down to the decision of the moderators. I have promised to abide by the rules of the forum, and I shall stand by my word. I would like to quote here, an old Indian logical theory. There are a few blind men. They are asked to describe an Elephant. Each of them gets access to touch and feel the Elephant. They touch the Elephant and give their descriptions. The one who touched the leg said, 'it's like the trunk of a tree'. Another one who touched the trunk [nose], said 'it's like a big snake'. Another one who touched the ear said 'it's like a big hand-fan'. Another one who touched the tail said 'it's like rope with a hairy tip'. Another one who touched the abdomen said 'it's like big rock'. They try to reach to a consensus. However, their consensus view will not be the real picture. To come to the real picture, the exploration should continue, and additional views are to be taken into consideration, and then tested again. Well-founded additional views cannot be neglected. Each blind man's conclusion of the Truth, is a subjective perception of the Truth. Therefore, to arrive at the actual Truth they have to arrive at a Consensus. However, that Consensus is not the Ultimate Truth. It still may not be the complete Truth. So then, what we must do is, keep the final Consensus version of the Truth, open to correction. And as & when new perceptions arrive which are well-founded they must be incorporated into the final Consensus version. Moreover, here the consensus view that 'space-time curves' is unable to answer the objections raised. It sure shows that it is defective. In addition, the view expressed by me is scientifically well supported and also makes the defects in the consensus view, absolutely clear. This is a grave situation. We need to change our Perceptions. No Consensus view is Final. No Consensus view can neglect the well-founded objections raised and well-founded remedies presented. It must be corrected when inconsistencies are made obvious and new well-founded perceptions/opinions arrive. To disregard well-founded objections and well-founded alternate opinions by saying that a Consensus view cannot be wrong, is Unscientific. It is in this context, I said that, rigidly sticking to the view that Consensus view is the Final, is Unscientific. The claim that a Consensus view is final is Unscientific. We can't afford to disregard well-founded objections & alternative opinions. Shouldn't we be, responsible towards what our knowledge of the world should be? We certainly cannot continue with a defective knowledge. Science is not about sticking to Consensus views. It is about refining the Consensus view with any well-founded additional views. Science cannot disregard well-founded additional views. It is not the way, we do Science. The matter of being right or wrong cannot be disregarded for the sake of anything. This implies helplessness. Being right, abandoned! For the sake of some constraints? Out of helplessness?! Instead of abandoning the Right, the correct approach should be to device new & better ways, I suppose. Is the forum being run for the propagation of the mainstream theories alone? Are we intending to make this forum an alternate/Extra Text book, an alternate/Extra Encyclopedia, an alternate/Extra Teacher. I don't think so. You have the Speculations section. I don't think you have created the Speculations section for merely making fun of the speculators, and thumping the seal of the mainstream science world on their foreheads, showing that the mainstream Science triumphed over the rebels and shoved its flag and established its institutional supremacy. We certainly don't consider Science a kingdom and the mainstream Scientists its Rulers. I suppose you created this Forum with the great intention of giving a place to express the Reservations regarding the mainstream theory and presenting innovative ideas and scrutinize them so that people learn if they are wrong and if there is a good idea further it. What is the motto of the Speculations section? What are we going to do with those ideas which genuinely bring out the inconsistencies in the mainstream theories and suggest an innovative idea? Dump them? I think we are all responsible Science/Truth Lovers. Aren't we going to give encouragement to the ideas, which genuinely bring out the inconsistencies in the mainstream theories and suggest a well-founded innovative thought? Are we doing here a propaganda of the mainstream ideas? Aren't we discussing Science here seriously, critically, earnestly & honestly? Are we not interested in doing Science and only interested in upholding what is Mainstream? Aren't the Schools sufficient along with our own mainstream forum for teaching the mainstream ideas? Or do we [the forum] intend to become the flag bearers of the Mainstream Ideas, whatever they are, however they are? Shall we not create a Great place for the Quest for Truth? Shall we not become the flag bearers of the Quest of Truth? I am not against the Mainstream Science. I am aware that there is less room for correction in them. They are well tested and well-founded. But certainly there is room for improvisation. And Innovation is the only answer. Sticking whatever is Mainstream is not Science. You have taken the great step of giving a place to the Innovations. Why make that place merely a chamber where the adamant rebels are beaten and made to accept the mainstream convictions or run away dejected so that they know shockingly that, if at all there is a place in this world, it is for the Mainstream convictions and any Innovators 'mind it', they will be beaten and condemned to death? Are the Mainstream Scientists saying that "Look, we have taken a lot of pains to learn it. We are holding this Flag, since long. We have put a lot of efforts and made it our domain. How dare you say we are wrong? How dare you try to dislodge us from our domain?" However, we all certainly don't want to make 'Untruth', our domain. We certainly want to make 'Truth' our domain, because 'Untruth' however well guarded is not going to help anybody. Why not love Innovation, and make it your Domain? It too needs Expertise, badly. In addition, it leads us to Truth. Yes, Innovation and its strict Scrutiny lead us to the ever-Prevalent Truth. And that is what is called as doing Science, not the upholding of what is Mainstream. Why don't you see yourselves instead of, as the flag bearers of the mainstream convictions, the strict scrutinizers of the innovative ideas and gallant promoters of well-founded new ideas? You have it in you. Who else can do it? In the domain of the scrutiny of the innovative ideas and the gallant promotion of new ideas; the Expert is the Absolute King/Queen, if one wants to be that. Moreover, there, in that domain, the King/Queen has the holy duty of promoting the new 'well-founded-but-yet-un-accepted-recommended-for-wider-scrutiny' idea. He/She doesn't have to keep guarding what are widespread convictions even if they are wrong. And I will respect my King/Queen sincerely with love, like he/she is god, because he/she is the one who would lead me to the Truth. And I promise you, under any condition, I am not going to consider the Ruler of any Crap Conviction respectable. I am going to hate him, and I am going fight him. Nothing, not even the Mainstream reputation can influence me to think unscientifically or illogically. I am going to dissent and I am going to argue, all the while abiding by the rules I have agreed to keep, and all the while being logical. But I will promise you, I will not consider what I found as the Truth; until you, my King/Queen, the Expert, Concurs. Only you people, the experts, can correct me, can lead me to Truth. However, Logical Reasoning, would be the only means, by which you can correct me, and no other tactic can convince me. I appeal humbly before you to, please reconsider your decision. It's not about how we run the Forum. It's about Knowing what is Correct. It's not about knowing what is Mainstream. It's about knowing what is the Truth. A consensus view is not the Ultimate Truth. When inconsistencies in it are made obvious & well-founded opinions are given, they need to be heeded. It is necessary that you and the rest of us, build Science. It is not necessary to protect Mainstream convictions. Truth needs no protection. It can protect itself and also be helpful to everyone. It is only necessary that one keep adherence to a set of Methods and a set of Principles to meet the ever-prevalent Truth. It is Falsehood that needs protection, but always helpful to none. I thank you immensely for giving me the opportunity to place my views. I thank everybody who took pains to place their valuable views in this discussion. Thank you. Good wishes & god bless us all.

Everything else is not Meaningless. Everything else is Human. If everything else were meaningless, there would be no Science. It is Humans, who created Science. Behind every deed, there is a doer. Behind every Unjust deed, there is an Unjust doer. Behind every Just deed, there is a Just doer. Science, being a Quest for Truth, is a just deed, and just deeds are done by Just Humans. Therefore, Science needs Humans who are Just. Gentleness and being Understanding & compassionate are also the other qualities of Just Humans. Derision, Reluctance, condemnation etc, the negative qualities, pertain to Unjust Humans. Unjust Humans do not do Science, because they do Injustice and Injustice does not lead to Truth. Thank you

Being Logical ≠ Being Adamant. When those who don't have Logical Arguments but still stick to their stand, are defined as Adamant. This is an old Trick: "When you run out of Arguments; Start Ridiculing by, Chatting among Yourselves." You have any Logical arguments to support? Bring them. No amount of Tricking is going to save that space-time curvature hypothesis. Soon you will run out of these Tricks too. Do you Respect Logic? Do you Respect Science? Do you belong to Science? [Don't show me your certificates. Tricksters get hold of them first, somehow. Give logical arguments, not ridicule. The fact that you use Ridicule for scientific discussions, shows you don't belong to Science.] Are you on the Science Forum or on the streets? Do you have basic decency? If yes, then act like you are on the Science forum and bring logical arguments; don't chat among yourselves by ridiculing. Do you remember what lovers of Science do when they face criticism of scientific ideas? They argue scientifically. They don't stoop to ridicule the critic. Ridicule is the trick of Tricksters & lovers of street chat. Science did not come into existence by the tricks & chats. Tricks & chats don't belong to Science. Science came into existence by scientific arguments, not ridicule & chat. Note: I am on the SFN to discuss my scientific thoughts and so are the other people; Not to entertain you guys by indulging into arguments with anyone you ask and on any subject you say. Find someone else, like yourselves and better, some other forum for such things. This forum is not meant for such wasteful activities. This forum is for those, who know its importance and maintain its sanctity. Science is being done here. Do you know that to deny a statement you need logical arguments; and that no amount of ridicule can deny that statement? Deny the statements with Logical arguments, if you have. You don't do that and you want to entertain yourselves by utilizing me. Do you know that you have entertained everyone, by now with your trivial act? Hope you stop clowning around. One need to concern themselves, with what they got to learn first, before concerning themselves about what others have to learn. If you have objections, raise them. This is a forum for raising scientific objections and placing scientific arguments. Not for tomfoolery. It was nice of Ophiolite, not to have participated in this spite, despite getting incited. Thank you.

When a new theory is proposed, Science deals with it only in either of the two ways. Either Reject it by making the flaws in it scientifically obvious, or if that cannot be done, then the only other option that remains would be to Accept it. Any & all other acts of criticism do not belong to Science. Moreover, there is no such thing as 'Acceptance' in Science. A theory is Acceptable until it becomes inconsistent. Then, when a theory becomes inconsistent, it is modified. However, if Science cannot modify it consistently, it is rejected. Now for example; I have shown that GR is inconsistent in its attempt to show that Gravity is space-time curvature. Then, I have depicted a modified GR as; the tool to measure the observational discrepancies crept in due to the illusory Relativistic effects and said it is not a theory of Gravity. Moreover, I have said that Gravity is nothing but the Influence of the Affinity of Matter towards Matter. What I have said is consistent with observations. My views are Logical and Falsifiable. Moreover, it makes GR, again consistent. What more is required for the Acceptance of a view? In fact, what I am asking for is not Acceptance. I will discuss it later. When one's views are undeniable, then obviously they logically attain the status for Acceptance. Whether one is individually willing to accept it or not, is different. If one does not want to accept a new idea that is scientifically well supported, one has to deny it scientifically. Any other act like Reluctance, derision, disregard, dealings [Journals etc], routes [Referees etc] etc are unscientific acts. Don't we have responsibility towards Truth? When we come across a Truth, should we promote it or suppress it? Why should Truth be the victim of dogmatic events or channels, why can't it travel through the pure channels of Science and reach everyone? Why can't it travel on the back of the promoters of Truth? Why does it become a victim of the Reluctant, Derisive, and Believers in dogmas? When a new view is presented in the scientific world, the scientific dealings that it should face is pure scientific scrutiny. Then if it answers the objections raised, gives logical proof, gives falsifiable methods, gives evidence; it has to be accepted. However, what happens is; one section of the scientific world deals it with Derision and another section of the scientific world deals it with Reluctance and another section of the scientific world asks for dogmatic qualifications and another section of the scientific world checks whether it has come through traditional/dogmatic channels and another section of the scientific world waits for others to accept and another section of the scientific world says those who are doing it for a century can't be wrong etc and a very small section of the truly scientific world deals with it scientifically and does pure scientific scrutiny. It is a pity that, a scientific thought has to go through all these unscientific processes. Are we having a pure scrutiny in the scientific world? Why can't a group of proficient few, just scrutinize a new idea and decide whether it is right or wrong through scientific discussions with the proposer and then if it is wrong reject it giving scientific reasons and if found promising recommend it for wider scrutiny. Then if wider scrutiny finds it correct, it is accepted or else is rejected. Why can't we do Science in this way? That is what I am asking for. Why all this Reluctance, derision, disregard, dealings, routes and other dogma? I am a fan too of any process that strives to test and promote Truth. However, I hate any process that strives to suppress Truth; and Reluctance, Derision, Dogmas etc are parts of such a process. Reluctance, Derision, Dogmas etc are not parts of the process of the scientific scrutiny. They are spurts of human weaknesses. And I hate them from the bottom of my heart. They are detrimental to Science, they are detrimental to Humanity. Swansont, What I expect is; when someone presents an idea for the scrutiny by the scientific world. The scientific world should peruse it thoroughly with interest. Then scrutinize it with Just disposition. And if any Truth is suspected to be contained in the new idea, promote it with Gallant disposition for further & larger scrutiny. This is what is 'doing Science' and those who do this are the True Scientists. Rest everything, is not Science. And those who do the rest [Reluctance, derision, checking for dogma etc] are not being scientific. For a person to become scientist, one should be Just & Gallant first, among other things like possessing the scientific spirit and sticking to the scientific method. These are the basic qualifications. Then only can she find Truth & Uphold it. We can't expect from someone who is Unjust, Fearsome, Selfish to Uphold Truth or seek for it. All one can expect from them is Reluctance, Derision, Demanding for dogmas etc. I exactly don't know what are those steps that you are mentioning. But I am ready to answer any inquiring questions to the best of my ability regarding the idea I put forth. Moreover, I have given adequate methodical scientific proof. But the last thing I would do is, go through dogmatic dealings. I hate the dogmatic realm of the world sincerely. It's crap. In addition, I will never take the Truth I found to each and every door step seeking its acceptance. What I would do is, make it known to my nearest people with whom I have easy access. I strongly consider that it is the responsibility of every responsible human being to make aware, their fellow beings, of the Truth they come across. And my responsibility ends there. I expect the world to seek Truth and spread Awareness. When I make a Truth known to me, known to others, I do it because I expect that they would make the Truth known to them, known to me. And this is how I think the world will make itself Aware. And this is why responsible people are running this fantastic forum. I expect my fellow beings to find fault with what I am saying and correct me. If they don't find fault and know it is a Truth, I expect it is their responsibility to give it to others. If they don't want to give, it is not my responsibility. My responsibility ends there. My responsibility is limited to give answers I know, to any inquiry on it. It is an Idea. Its legitimacy increases as when the evidence to support it increases. Until now, I have answered any questions raised on the idea given by me. I have given Logical proofs, Evidence, Falsifiable methods, Experiments. A discussion on a forum like this one, is sufficient to begin the process. The rest should follow on the back of society's motive force of seeking Truth. Whether the idea put forth by me is worth enough to be carried forward, is to be decided by the part of the Society or part of the scientific world amidst whom I have kept the idea. I have no say in that decision. I have done my part. It is their responsibility whether to carry it forward or drop it here. But I shall keep questioning the wrong, if it is put forth. It is the responsibility of everyone to seek Truth. It is the responsibility of everyone to keep the Truth they find before everyone. It is the responsibility of everyone to scrutinize the Truth found by someone. It is the responsibility of everyone to correct it if wrong and further it if correct. It is NOT the responsibility of ANYone, to make it be accepted by ANYone. Everybody's responsibility ends there. Everybody should Seek, Scrutinize, Accept and Give Truth; no excuses. Doing that is Science. Whether one is willing to do, is different. However, whenever the occasion rises, everybody is entitled to raise their voices and present what they think is True. No sensible person would disagree with that. Demands for secure evidence - Scientific & just. Derision --------- -- --------- Unscientific & unjust.* Condemnation ------ --------- Unscientific & unjust.* Gentle --------------- ----- - Scientific & just.* Understanding-------------- - Scientific & just.* Compassionate------------- - Scientific & just.* How is derision & condemnation advantageous over being gentle, understanding and compassionate? Science is; not for granting titles of genius. Science is; quest for Truth. People in Science are not sitting there to distribute genius titles to anybody. They are sitting there looking for Truth first. I have asked for considerate perusal, of which there is a dearth. Considerate perusal helps the spreading of the scientific spirit and that eventually helps Science & humanity. Whether it is a court of Law or the court of Science; the Judges, the Prosecutors and the Defense need to be JUST; for Truth to prevail. Unjust practices from any side will lead to derailment of the trial and eventually suppression of Truth and ultimately failure of the process i.e. the Law or the Science. Science is the process of search for Truth. What role do Derision, Condemnation, Reluctance, Dogmas etc have to play in this process? Derision, Condemnation, Reluctance, Dogmas etc are not the parts of the process of scientific scrutiny. They are not scientific scrutiny. They are human weaknesses. Gentleness, Understanding, Compassion, Courage, Gallantry etc are human strengths. They are necessary for nurturing Truth or Science. Any new idea, has the possibility of bringing Truth. And it is this 'possibility' that is to be treated with kid gloves. Science should never & ever take up the act of treating the proposer. Science has no business with the proposer. It should only have business with the idea proposed. *Derision, Condemnation, Reluctance, Dogmas etc are Unscientific & Unjust because they work toward suppressing Truth/Science. Gentleness, Understanding, Compassion etc are Scientific & Just because they work towards promoting Truth/Science. That which nurtures & promotes Truth/Science is scientific. That which suppresses & demotes Truth/Science is unscientific. Science requires your favors elsewhere, not in granting titles of genius. Your favors are required in intent perusal of new ideas, their correction if wrong, their furthering if correct. And this favor you are doing it to none other than Truth, Science; not the fools, not the geniuses. And remember, the favor done to uphold Truth and Science, is the highest favor in this Universe. And that 'favor' is nothing but doing Science; upholding of truth. The rest everything is not doing Science. "To show that which is Truth as Truth and standing for it, and to show what is Untruth as Untruth and discarding it; is the practice of doing Science". And one who practices that, is the Scientist and she is Gallant, Truthful, Just, and is Indifferent to the pleasures of the material world. Lack of information, or the right premises to think upon, does not make anyone a fool. The person who does not have the scientific spirit, the desire to uphold Truth, the desire to shed dogmas, the desire to come out of Untruth, is the real fool. The person who accumulates the scientific information and gets certified for that, follows the dogmas of the scientific world, makes a living in the science world; is not a Scientist, is just an ordinary human being. All the other beings that are not human also do the same thing that he does; 'making a living'. The immense desire to make a living; makes a person choose all else instead of Truth. And that is the reason why I hate the 'desire to make a living' so much. I have the greatest disrespect for those who live to 'make a living'. There is one holy purpose for life, and that is, 'Quest for Truth'. Rest everything is Crap. I respect those who are on the quest for Truth, no less than Gods. And Albert Einstein, whose theory I am criticizing, is one of them, because he aimed a major portion of his life, for the Quest of Truth.

Here is a Johns Hopkins University, recent research news on the subject; Excerpts - Helping the song remain the same: New insights about timbre could improve hearing prosthetics: ". . . Based on experiments in both animals and humans, they devised a computer model that can accurately mimic how specific brain regions process sounds as they enter our ears and get transformed into brain signals that allow us to recognize the type of sounds we are listening to. The model was able to correctly identify which instrument is playing (out of a total of 13 instruments) to an accuracy rate of 98.7 percent. . ."

Ophiolite, However, Most/Almost all ≠ All. Thank you.

There is no such thing as 'Fabric of Space & Time'. space-time is the 4D coordinate system. Any Coordinate system or its coordinates cannot be affected/distorted by its contents. Moreover, the Space & Time, the ingredients of space-time, are not physical bodies, to possess STRUCTURE and display Distortion. Structure and its related effects like Distortion, are the attributes of Physical bodies which have internal forces that give them the Structure. Space & Time do not have any structure or any internal forces holding them in that structure. These things have been discussed extensively & repeatedly by me in the related thread under the Speculations section. You need to take a look.

Ringer, Sorry, for the delayed reply. When someone does not have counter ideas to find & pinpoint the errors in the criticism, of the idea with the most evidence, they ask the critic to go and learn the idea in the way they learnt it. Such unscientific & vacuous tactical arguments do not prove or disprove anything. And are helpful to none. You need to read the previous posts to get the idea. Unfamiliar with basic Science/Physics? [Moreover, there is contradiction in this statement. You judge the idea as 'wrong put forth as right' and at the same time say, 'it cannot be judged by people unfamiliar with the area'.] This is another unscientific & vacuous tactical argument, that does not analyze the wrongs of the criticism and clearly shows the lack of scientific arguments to counter the criticism and so the correctness of the criticism. 5, and 6:- I have given it umpteen times now and one will not find it, if one is not willing to see. You need to go to the relevant threads [you know which; while this thread is about that example itself] and put forth your scientific analysis [many honorable people have done it] but not unscientific & vacuous tactical arguments and try to prove it wrong scientifically, I assure, you have all the possibility of getting an appropriate example. Repeatedly asking for example, doesn't shroud the existence of the example.

The list you have given are mere accusations. Present the instances. For instance? Is this good sense? I have attacked what is wrong and have substantiated with testimonies, which have not been challenged but the wrong ones are repeated. Is that scientific method? I have demonstrated. Give your requisition to show where I haven't and show that this accusation of yours is not false. Please give the unfounded assertion that I have attacked with. Show which waffle have I attacked Logic with. Example? Show one instance, where I have done it, without the other person doing it to me first. If everyone stuck to just that, this forum would be on cloud nine. We would not be doing this unconcerned quarrel. I thanked you. Instead of showing your feelings, if you could establish your accusation, what you said would not become a nonsense. I would always welcome you, when you change your mind, because there is a part of you that I have liked. Emperor Akbar the great, always wore a ring, on which was inscribed, 'These days will be gone' and he looked at it in sorrow & happiness. I like to follow that. I will look forward to the day when you will come back, to welcome you happily. Here is a news for you, that you already know but pretend not know. What I have said is logical, and so cannot be countered. So you lost that battle [debate/argument] and since you did not have a valid counter argument, you blasted me with that statement as a retreating tactic. You should have gracefully stayed away instead, respecting the Truth and Truthful discussion, though accepting it, would have been the better & Righteous option. You just can't hit & run, on a Science forum. I have no hard feelings that you have punished me with an aggressive statement. I understand it is part of the business. However, is not the right form of business. This is a surprise from you. Did you enjoy the aggression on me, really? [i am asking, not accusing. Really, I want to come out of my surprise.] Isn't placing arguments and not coercion by being aggressive, the Right option? Arguments were placed to the OP and I placed my counter arguments. Instead of disapproving my counter arguments with valid arguments, I was blasted with aggressive statement. You endorse that? What is my charge? OR What am I being personally attacked for? OR Why does the Aggression on me become justified? Can Aggression do what Worthy Arguments cannot do? I thought Aggression is political coercion! Not the tool of the knowledgeable, whose tool is valid arguments. Aggression demanding Humility. Isn't that an irony, so a surprise? In a nutshell the argument that took place on the main topic was; Besides this, other off topic issues were discussed. Now which of my above arguments are wrong/illogical or are such that, you find that [as said by you] 'Humility did not work. So eventually Aggression was attempted'. How Ophiolite is justified in saying this [below] for the above arguments; Where in the above there is attack on the good sense, on the scientific method, on the principle that responsibility for demonstrating a case lies with the proposer, on the established science with unfounded assertions, on the logic with waffle. These are baseless spill of anger, supplemented to fill the absence of logical arguments. Let us put a hold on this for a moment and take time-out. I plead for Poise/holding in suspension these aggressive discussions, for the moment. They could be taken up later if necessary. Why the following arguments are wrong? Going by Consensus is Unscientific. Science is neither Mainstream nor Offbeat. Science is scientific. So, allow whatever is scientific, either Mainstream or Offbeat. Allow the mention of the 'genuine criticism which made the inconsistencies obvious & gave Logical, Falsifiable, Experimental evidence', along with the mainstream theory and do justice to the inquirer, science and humanity. Thousands of people saw that the Earth is at the center of the Universe, or that there is Ether, but that did not increase the probability of them being the truths, a bit. So numbers does not substantiate anything in Science. An argument on an offbeat theory with the proficient on the forum, is not different from the argument with the referees for a journal submission. Once the alternative thought stands up against the scrutiny in the speculation forum, it should be considered an Alternative thought and mentioned along with the mainstream theory. [What is wrong in doing it?] Not allowing genuine criticisms which were scrutinized in the speculations forum to be mentioned along with the mainstream theory, amounts to misleading and keeping the inquirer in dark. Mentioning it as an alternative thought is Righteous and being sincere to the scientific spirit. If we get a well-founded speculation, it could be mentioned as an alternative thought along with the mainstream theory.

Well, you have all the time in the world my friend. Take your time. Keep exploring. Good luck. We would drift off-topic by discussing on this, a futile one I think. I suppose there is no bar on supposition.

.

I was just digging in to find the Relationship between Music & Life. I found some interesting areas which I thought I should share with you and seek help. I don't know if this classical physics forum is the right place for this thread, but I have posted it here for obvious reasons. I leave it to the Moderators to give it the appropriate place they think is. MUSIC Pitch: Pitch is a perceptual property that allows the ordering of sounds on a frequency-related scale. Pitches are compared as "higher" and "lower" in the sense associated with musical melodies, which require "sound whose frequency is clear and stable enough to be heard as not noise". Pitch is a major auditory attribute of musical tones, along with duration, loudness, and timbre. Pitch may be quantified as a frequency, but pitch is not a purely objective physical property; it is a subjective psychoacoustical attribute of sound. Historically, the study of pitch and pitch perception has been a central problem in psychoacoustics, and has been instrumental in forming and testing theories of sound representation, processing, and perception in the auditory system. Musical Notes: Music is is mainly composed of 'Notes', which are said to be the 'Atoms' of Music. A note is; A sign used in musical notation to represent the relative duration and pitch of a sound. A pitched sound itself. In traditional music theory pitch classes are represented by the first seven letters of the Latin alphabet (A, B, C, D, E, F and G) (some countries use other names). The eighth note, or octave is given the same name as the first, but has double its frequency. In Italian, Portuguese, Greek, French, Russian, Flemish, Romanian, Spanish, Persian, Arabic, Hebrew, Bulgarian and Turkish notation the notes of scales are given in terms of Do-Re-Mi-Fa-Sol-La-Si rather than C-D-E-F-G-A-B similar to the Indian 'Swaras', Sa-Re-Ga-Ma-Pa-Dha-Ni-Sa. When notes are written out in a score, each note is assigned a specific vertical position. Each line or space is assigned a note name. These names are memorized by musicians and allow them to know at a glance the proper pitch to play on their instruments for each note-head marked on the page. The Musical score above shows the notes C, D, E, F, G, A, B, C and then in reverse order. Listen to the music/sound of the above score here. Musical tone: A musical tone is a steady periodic sound. A musical tone is characterized by its duration, pitch, intensity (or loudness), and timbre (or quality). A simple tone, or pure tone, has a sinusoidal waveform. A compound tone is any musical tone that is not sinusoidal, but is periodic, such that it can be described as a sum of simple tones with harmonically related frequencies. Now let us move on to Musical melody. Tone color/Timbre/Tone quality: In simple terms, timbre is what makes a particular musical sound different from another, even when they have the same pitch and loudness. For instance, it is the difference between a guitar and a piano playing the same note at the same loudness. Experienced musicians are able to distinguish between different instruments based on their varied timbres, even if those instruments are playing notes at the same pitch and loudness. Musical melody: A melody also tune, voice, or line, is a linear succession of musical tones which is perceived as a single entity. It also is an exponential succession of musical tones which is perceived as two entities. In its most literal sense, a melody is a combination of pitch and rhythm, while, more figuratively, the term has occasionally been extended to include successions of other musical elements such as tone color. Mathematics and Physics of music : Music theorists sometimes use mathematics to understand music. Mathematics is "the basis of sound". In all technicality, music can be composed of notes at any arbitrary frequency. Since the physical causes of music are vibrations of mechanical systems, they are often measured in hertz (Hz), with 1 Hz = 1 complete vibration per second. For historical and other reasons, especially in Western music, only twelve notes of fixed frequencies are used. These fixed frequencies are mathematically related to each other, and are defined around the central note, A4. The current "standard pitch" or modern "concert pitch" for this note is 440 Hz, although this varies in actual practice. Without the boundaries of rhythmic structure – a fundamental equal and regular arrangement of pulse repetitivity, accent, phrase and duration – music would be impossible. A musical scale is a discrete set of pitches used in making or describing music. Each pitch corresponds to a particular frequency, expressed in hertz (Hz), sometimes referred to as cycles per second (c.p.s.). A scale has an interval of repetition, normally the octave. The octave of any pitch refers to a frequency exactly twice that of the given pitch. Cymatics : Cymatics (from Greek:"wave") is the study of visible sound and vibration. Typically the surface of a plate, diaphragm, or membrane is vibrated, and regions of maximum and minimum displacement are made visible in a thin coating of particles, paste, or liquid. Different patterns emerge in the excitatory medium depending on the geometry of the plate and the driving frequency. The apparatus employed can be simple, such as the ancient Chinese spouting bowl, or Chinese singing fountain, in which copper handles are rubbed and cause the copper bottom elements to vibrate. Other examples are a Chladni Plate or advanced such as the CymaScope, a laboratory instrument that makes visible the inherent geometries within sound and music. The study of the patterns produced by vibrating bodies has a venerable history. One of the earliest to record that an oscillating body displayed regular patterns was Galileo Galilei. In Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems (1632), he wrote: On July 8, 1680, Robert Hooke was able to see the nodal patterns associated with the modes of vibration of glass plates. Hooke ran a bow along the edge of a glass plate covered with flour, and saw the nodal patterns emerge. Ernst Florens Friedrich Chladni (1756–1827) was a German physicist and musician. His important works include research on vibrating plates and the calculation of the speed of sound for different gases. For this some call him the "Father of Acoustics". In 1787, Ernst Chladni repeated the work of Robert Hooke and published "Entdeckungen über die Theorie des Klanges" ("Discoveries in the Theory of Sound"). In this book, Chladni describes the patterns seen by placing sand on metal plates which are made to vibrate by stroking the edge of the plate with a bow. Cymatics was explored by Hans Jenny in his 1967 book, Kymatik (translated Cymatics). Inspired by systems theory and the work of Ernst Chladni, Jenny began an investigation of periodic phenomena but especially the visual display of sound. He used standing waves, piezoelectric amplifiers, and other methods and materials. One of Chladni's best-known achievements was inventing a technique to show the various modes of vibration of a rigid surface. A plate or membrane vibrating at resonance is divided into regions vibrating in opposite directions, bounded by lines of zero vibration called nodal lines. Chladni repeated the pioneering experiments of Robert Hooke of Oxford University who, on July 8, 1680, had observed the nodal patterns associated with the vibrations of glass plates. Hooke ran a bow along the edge of a plate covered with flour, and saw the nodal patterns emerge. Node: A node is a point along a standing wave where the wave has minimal amplitude. For instance, in a vibrating guitar string, the ends of the string are nodes. By changing the position of the end node through frets, the guitarist changes the effective length of the vibrating string and thereby the note played. The opposite of a node is an anti-node, a point where the amplitude of the standing wave is a maximum. These occur midway between the nodes. Click here for the Gif image of a wave showing nodes. The red dots are the wave nodes. Chemistry: In chemistry, quantum mechanical waves, or "orbitals", are used to describe the wave-like properties of electrons. Many of these quantum waves have nodes as well. The number and position of these nodes give rise to many of the properties of an atom or bond. For example, bonding orbitals with small nodes solely around nuclei are very stable, and are known as "bonds". In contrast, bonding orbitals with large nodes between nuclei will not be stable due to electrostatic repulsion and are known as "anti-bonding orbitals" because they will be so unstable as to cause a bond to break. It is due to this that the noble gases will not as likely form bonds between other noble gases. Another such quantum mechanical concept is the particle in a box where the number of nodes of the wavefunction can help determine the quantum energy state—zero nodes corresponds to the ground state, one node corresponds to the 1st excited state, etc. Chladni patterns: Chladni's technique, first published in 1787 in his book, Entdeckungen über die Theorie des Klanges ("Discoveries in the Theory of Sound"), consisted of drawing a bow over a piece of metal whose surface was lightly covered with sand. The plate was bowed until it reached resonance, when the vibration causes the sand to move and concentrate along the nodal lines where the surface is still, outlining the nodal lines. Variations of this technique are still commonly used in the design and construction of acoustic instruments such as violins, guitars, and cellos. Since the 20th century it has become more common to place a loudspeaker driven by an electronic signal generator over or under the plate to achieve a more accurate adjustable frequency. Samples of Chladni figures produced by sound vibrations in fine powder on a guitar: Psychoacoustics: Psychoacoustics is the scientific study of sound perception. More specifically, it is the branch of science studying the psychological and physiological responses associated with sound (including speech and music). It can be further categorized as a branch of psychophysics. Often listeners are able to identify the kind of instrument even across "conditions of changing pitch and loudness, in different environments and with different players". In the case of the clarinet, an acoustic analysis of the waveforms shows they are irregular enough to suggest three instruments rather than one. David Luce (1963) suggests that this implies "certain strong regularities in the acoustic waveform of the above instruments must exist which are invariant with respect to the above variables". However, Robert Erickson argues that there are few regularities and they do not explain our "powers of recognition and identification". He suggests the borrowing from studies of vision and visual perception the concept of subjective constancy (Erickson 1975). Psychoacoustic experiments from the 1960s onwards tried to elucidate the nature of timbre. One method involves playing pairs of sounds to listeners and then using a multidimensional scaling algorithm to aggregate their dissimilarity judgments into a timbre space; the most consistent outcomes from such experiments are that brightness or spectral energy distribution (Grey 1977), and the "bite", or rate and synchronicity (Wessel 1979) and rise time (Lakatos 2000), of the attack are important factors. Hearing is not a purely mechanical phenomenon of wave propagation, but is also a sensory and perceptual event; in other words, when a person hears something, that something arrives at the ear as a mechanical sound wave traveling through the air, but within the ear it is transformed into neural action potentials. These nerve pulses then travel to the brain where they are perceived. Hence, in many problems in acoustics, such as for audio processing, it is advantageous to take into account not just the mechanics of the environment, but also the fact that both the ear and the brain are involved in a person's listening experience. The inner ear, for example, does significant signal processing in converting sound waveforms into neural stimuli, so certain differences between waveforms may be imperceptible. Data compression techniques, such as MP3, make use of this fact.In addition, the ear has a nonlinear response to sounds of different intensity levels, this nonlinear response is called loudness. Telephone networks and audio noise reduction systems make use of this fact by nonlinearly compressing data samples before transmission, and then expanding them for playback. Another effect of the ear's nonlinear response is that sounds that are close in frequency produce phantom beat notes, or intermodulation distortion products. The human ear can nominally hear sounds in the range 20 Hz (0.02 kHz) to 20,000 Hz (20 kHz). The upper limit tends to decrease with age; most adults are unable to hear above 16 kHz. The lowest frequency that has been identified as a musical tone is 12 Hz under ideal laboratory conditions. Tones between 4 and 16 Hz can be perceived via the body's sense of touch. Frequency resolution of the ear is 3.6 Hz within the octave of 1000 – 2000 Hz. That is, changes in pitch larger than 3.6 Hz can be perceived in a clinical setting. However, even smaller pitch differences can be perceived through other means. For example, the interference of two pitches can often be heard as a (low) frequency difference pitch. This effect of phase variance upon the resultant sound is known as beating. The intensity range of audible sounds is enormous. Human ear drums are sensitive to variations in the sound pressure, and can detect pressure changes from as small as a few micropascals to greater than 1 bar. The psychoacoustic model provides for high quality lossy signal compression by describing which parts of a given digital audio signal can be removed (or aggressively compressed) safely — that is, without significant losses in the (consciously) perceived quality of the sound. It can explain how a sharp clap of the hands might seem painfully loud in a quiet library, but is hardly noticeable after a car backfires on a busy, urban street. Click on this [6284 KB] to see for yourself the patterns of sound emerging. Also see this Harvard university link here for knowing how it works. Please give your opinion and throw more light to show further the relation between Music & Life. Thank you. Resources: Wikipedia.

“It is pitiful to see, when some respond with pain, when they face the Truth” -Robert Kennedy. The signs of the emergence of Truth appear when the other side runs out of Reasons and it has Emerged completely when Aggression appears. Prove that what I have said are delusions. Come up with Objections if you have. I have seen Humility demanding for Humility. But, Aggression demanding Humility !!!!!!!!!! Note - Don’t come up with such bad-tempered plans or shift to Plan C, D, E, F . . . as the previous fail to tackle Reasoning, because I will not be responding to such. I will make that Unsubstantiated accusation & waste Aggression of yours bite the dust and save this Forum from belligerent Aggressors like you from screwing it. Come up with Objections if you have. Make yourself aware that you are on a Science discussion Forum, come out of the delusion that aggression can take you wherever you want, and stop playing such tetchy games. Aggression is not your own sole property. Anybody can become aggressive. You give argument. I give argument. The life becomes a get-together. You spit venom. I spit venom. The life becomes poisonous. You started with Jack Nicholson, changed plan to Aggressiveness, concluded with ‘Screwing'.

Do you agree that, Matter occupies space; that it needs empty Space to occupy? Where would two spatially extended objects exist? Isn’t it stringent evidence?