Greg H.

As I said, that was my final effort to get you to demonstrate some scientific integrity. And you did, to the extent that you've basically admitted you essentially picked the number out of a hat of other numbers, any of which could have been more important. And you've been forthcoming enough to state that you can't back up your ideas with any kind of mathematical proof. So essentially you're just asking us to take your word for it that this is right. Sorry, no. If we did that, the earth would be a 6000 year old flat disc, and leeches would cure disease. You want us to listen to your idea, you need more than "It sounds right to me" to back you up. Agreed.

Andromeda is blueshifted because it's approaching us. Is that what you mean?

If I come as pompous or holier than thou, I do apologize, that's not my intent, but I'm growing slightly disappointed by your refusal (or inability) to answer questions about the methods used to make these predictions, or the derivations used to choose the movement of the galaxy, but not the solar system. You can't just pick and choose what matters and what doesn't - there needs to be some definable reason, demonstrable in the math of your theory, as to why that particular number is the only one that matters. Otherwise we will, as you put it, hyperventilate about your inability to answer our questions and convince us that your theory is any more than bilge. (Actually I don't think any of us is any state of panic about your continued inability to overthrow a fundamental part of physics - if anything, we're just tired of you continuously dodging the questions). So I will put it to you one final time. Demonstrate the equations, with derivations, that support your idea, accounting for the local variances in velocity, as well as the fact that gravitational attraction demonstrably varies with distance. Remember that these equations should answer the questions presented to you previously (i.e. why does gravity not change, despite substantial local variations in velocity).

Well, if it helps at all, bismuth is safe enough to be used in a variety of consumer products: It's also used to make low metling point alloys for such things as automatic sprinkler systems2, so chances are, your customers (whoever they are) are already using, have used, or at least been exposed to products with bismuth in them on a recurrent basis. 1 - Bismuth - Wikipedia 2 - Bismuth - More Uses

While there are individual cosmological objects that demonstrate a blueshift with respect to our solar system/galaxy, there is no "cosmological blueshift" in the CMBR - that would imply we live in a contracting universe, and the available evidence indicates that is not the case.

As the secret non-vegan in our society, I'll just wait until the rest of you pass out from exhaustion and take over, restoring us to our natural meat eating ways.

So you just picked the largest number you could find at random because it was the largest number? So your logic goes something like "Eh, this one seems right. We'll use it." Doesn't that strike as being somewhat arbitrary and completely unsupported? Also, 220 km/s second does not pale in comparison to 600 km/s. It's a significant fraction of that number and would cause a noticeable effect in the measured gravitational force. Your idea, the logic behind it, and your reasoning are all ludicrous. I'm done here. Enjoy.

They can have my hamburger when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.

Oh. Wow that makes even less sense. Thanks for pointing that out. @pgharvey Math, my friend. Show us the maths.

Actually this is wrong, on two counts: The earth, as was pointed out earlier will not always be moving at 600 km/s with respect to the galactic core due to its own orbital velocity around the sun. Why don't we see periodic fluctuations in the earth's gravity as we orbit the sun? You can hand wave them away by saying they're insignificant, but I don't call a 5% change in velocity insignificant. Second, you're math is wrong. The solar system orbits the galaxy at closer to 220 - 250 km/s, not 600. So the difference in velocity is actually closer to 12-13%, which is a significant margin. Now, it's time for you to show your work, as it were. Let's see the equations, with derivations, that will allow us to make a firm conclusion about the accuracy of your claims.

Now there's an interesting math problem - how much mass would you have to slingshot around Jupiter to destabilize it's orbit and cause it to fall inwards towards the sun? The obvious answer being a metric arse-load, but is there a way to put a number to that? Orbital mechanics are not my strong suit.

I haven't read that update yet, but I'll head over and check it out. I think more parents need to be involved in what their kids are learning, and more importantly, what they are going to be expected to know when the reach the college level, and insist that the schools provide the appropriate curriculum.

What confuses me is why parents are willing to risk their children's futures bu deliberately limiting their educations because the subject matter appears to contradict their faith. Is their faith so important to them that they're willing to deliberately blind and fetter their children with the shackles of a substandard education in science and math? I'd be curious to see what the history books actually contain, too, for that matter.

Of the ones on your list, I like peanuts the best. However, walnuts are my preferred variety.

The universe spat him out. Nothing more to see here - move along.

You apparently stopped reading immediately after the word fun. First and foremost among them being when you make an assertion, you provide some kind of justification for that assertion. And the more fantastical the claim, the impressive the evidence is going to need to be. We're not upset at your speculations (or at least I'm not, I can't speak for anyone else), but science isn't done by ignoring the bad feedback and basking in the good. If you're only interested in positive comments, go start a blog where you can delete all the people who tell you your idea is unmitigated nonsense and demand that you back it up with some kind of rigorous mathematical treatment. And while you're quoting rules, you should make sure you're actually quoting a rule, not just the mission statement of the forum. Selective quote mining is a tactic used to push pseudo science and by science deniers, not folks doing serious science. If what you're really trying to do is the latter, then you should be prepared both for negative comments and to provide the math behind your reasoning.

Another idea I read in the original blog post (linked in the OP) was that they disagree with the idea that you can have multiple infinities since, as they put it, the only infinity is God. Did we suddenly fall back into the 16 and 17th century and no one told me? Should I be looking for the blue box and a ride back to the time when things made sense?

I'm still waiting for the math that backs up why that experiment would be any more useful to this than sticking my head out the window and checking for rain. Come on, good fellow. Show us the numbers that indicate that your assertions are more than, as Moontanman would say, horsefeathers.

Yeah, but that doesn't even seem to be what they're on about. They want to actively cut out parts of mathematics: From the A Beka Book website After all we don't want to burden our kids with all those pesky math skills.

I am sure you can demonstrate the math behind this prediction. Right?

I'm coming to the conclusion that you're spouting gibberish, and this is the point where I ask for the experimental evidence and/or the math to back up your assertions.

First, and foremost, common sense is a really bad judge of reality, especially those areas of reality that common sense has not evolved to handle (like near-relativistic speeds for example). Relying on common sense to explain reality in those instances is a terrible idea. Second, no frame of reference has some unique reality to it. The Earth's frame of reference is no more or less valid than any other, and using it as some kind of absolute guide is simply incorrect.

What are you planning to do once you have the stencil? IOW how do you plan on transferring the stencilled design to the surface you need it on?

How is the Scoville rating calculated in the first place? Edit, after a bit of googling, you could convert your scolville values to ASTA pungency units (see Scolville Scale on Wiki), which are given in parts per million. This would let you calculate a weighted average based on the % of the final mixture and the original parts per million, and you could use that average to determine the final Scolville value.

Ran across an interesting blog entry at Evolution Blog which reads, on part Of all the crazy things! What could possibly be wrong with set theory? I had not heard of this objection to mathematical principles, but I thought I would bring the discussion "home" as it were, as well as ask - has anyone here run into this denial of mathematics before? This is the first I am hearing about it.