Greg H.

Again, it depends on how you define the word murder. Some people seem to think it's equivalent to the word kill. According to the Cornell University Legal Information Institute Under that definition, then no, there is no rationale to commit murder. However, prejudices are not rational.

In regards to the title of the thread, that depends entirely on your definition of the word murder. Also, regarding your link - not sure what you aiming for there?

And you have no idea how ironic that statement is, do you? It is obvious that further discussion with you on the matter is pointless. You are unwilling to actually consider what is being said to you. To paraphrase Epictetus: You cannot teach a man what he thinks he already knows.

And this is exactly why you're failing to grasp this: You see the perspective as unimportant, when in fact, it's at the heart of what GR tells us. From your perspective, your personal clock runs the same speed all the time, regardless of how fast you personally are moving. It is only from the perspective of an observer outside of your frame of reference that any differences will be noticed.

First, I would shoot all the politicians that turned our kids' educations into the steaming pile of excrement it is now. Call it retribution for No Child Left Behind (but No Child is Allowed to Get Ahead Either). Now that the detrius of stupid is removed we can begin to make progress. Next, let's define some terms Elementary Education: Kindergarten through 5th grade (roughly 5 to 10 years of age). Middle School: 6th to 8th grade (11 - 13 years of age) High School (Secondary School): 9th through 13th (yes, I added a grade - 14 - 18 years of age) Elemantary education would focus on language (including foreign languages) development, basic math and science, music, physical education (with a focus on group play), and social skills, as well as basic ethical behavior (share, be nice, don't steal, etc). Middle school would focus on advanced language skills, with the goal of all children being fluent in reading, speaking, and writing in at least three languages by graduation from Secondary school. History, Geometry, Algebra, Biology, basic logic, and more advanced ethical concepts would be included. Kids moving out of the eighth grade should know how to solve a basic algebra equation, perform a simple science experiment and correctly interpret the results, use a computer proficiently, and be able to craft a logical argument to support a position. High school is where the real fun begins: Trigonometry, Introductory Calculus, chemistry, physics, life skills, advanced logic and ethics, an overview of philosophical thought, sociology, history with an emphasis on interpretation of historical events and their effects, writing, continuation of multi-lingual skills, continuing physical education with an emphasis on organized team activities, basic mechanical engineering with a focus on how simple machines work, and WHY they work, tying back into the physics behind them. That's all I can think of at the moment, and I am sure I have missed some important subjects. The basic gist is, we need a complete overhaul of the education system, one that goes back to actually educating children, not teaching them pass specific tests.

Do you know why helicopters have tail rotors? (And yes, this is relevant).

Look: the same crap in a new wrapper. Illuusio, I hate to break it to you, but this isn't science. This isn't even pseudoscience. Your equations do not follow observed results, nor do your two axioms. You still haven't even shown us why those two equations matter at all, much less why they are the correct ones to use. Your equations fail at explaining even the simplest actually observed interaction, such as why the moon would stay in place around the earth, or how we would actually land a space craft there, and the whole idea feels like a fever dream you slapped down paper. We have given you multiple chances to present actual evidence for your idea, to provide derivations for your equations, to explain those equations, and to explain how your idea would account for already observed phenomena and experimental results. You have failed, repeatedly, to do so. I am reporting this thread, and asking the moderators to close it, as per the rules of the speculations forum.

And yet, there's no proof of this. No more than there is proof that natural laws require a law-giver. Define "finely tuned" in an objective way. Irreducible complexity IS the argument from incredulity I was referring to. Just because something seems irreducible does not mean it is. While I admit we do not have all the answers, using supernatural explanations tosses science out the window. If we're going to invoke the supernatural we may as well say demons cause friction, and reindeer keep airplanes up. Oh...ok, so you're a crackpot who will never change from their preconceived notions and belief that Goddidit. Good to know. I can spend less time thinking you're seriously debating the topic as opposed to just preaching.

Unfortunately PfA, in this case I believe that "funny" means "things I don't understand". I too was disappointed.

The irony of this sentence fragment is just stupefying. Aliens seeding the earth would be more logical than God did it. God did it is not logic, it's a jump to a preassumed conclusion to fill a gap in present knowledge. It isn't science, and it certainly any kind of actual logic. Because thus far science has not failed to find natural explanations for any other process in Nature, and there is no reason to expect science to fail us now. It does not necessarily follow that an answer does not exist just because it's not obvious or easy to find. Intelligent design is, at its heart, one huge argument from incredulity. It's not inferred from science at any level. The fact that it's wrapped in fancy sciencey sounding words does not change the fact that the entire idea is built on a giant fallacy, and has one purpose - to make sure people stick to the God did it answer. On the other hand, at least its is obvious. Proofs, only in mathematics. The let me rephrase what doG means: Failure to find evidence for any given hypothesis does not provide evidence for any other particular hypothesis. If you want to prove that there is a creator, you need to provide positive evidence that such a creator exists. And I'll stop you before you get started "Look at the world around you" is not evidence of God. It's evidence of Nature. And people used to believe that the world was flat, and that the sun was carried across the sky in a chariot. What we believe, however, has absolutely no bearing on the facts of reality. All that matters is the evidence that can be provided.

That's an understatement.

Ok, I for one have reached the end of my patience with this. When you are ready to provide something other than "Because I think should work" as an argument, this might become interesting again. Until then, you may as well take up arguing for a flat earth. You'll have as much success.

How about you actually show us your calculations and the derivations of the equations your proposing, as we've been asking you to do all along, rather than having us rehash the last 200+ years of physics for you. It's simpler that way, and generally the way science is done - you know, you make the claim, you provide the proof. Treating G as universally constant has worked for everything from orbiting satellites to landing men and equipment on the Moon and Mars, and predicting the orbits of asteroids, comets, and previously unseen planets (Pluto is still a planet as far as I am concerned damnit), so there's 50 years of successful space flight and far more years of planetary observations backing up the idea that it doesn't vary. You have a couple of half-assed equations that you haven't even explained very well, and a lot of hand-waving Do you understand why we might remain skeptical of your position?

No it's not. It's perfectly consistent both logically and mathematically. Your failure to understand it does not make it incorrect.

I'm still waiting for you to do the math that shows why your interpretation of all of this is correct. Plug in some numbers and demonstrate the principles of your theory. And don't forget to explain what the numbers actually are (including units would help).

And that is supposed to be equal to....what? And how does that follow from your equation [math]G = \frac{1}{2} n_{1}n_{2}\cos \alpha[/math]

Could you quote the relevant part of your document that deals with entanglement, because I don't see anything that remotely addresses it, nor do I see any mechanism that could account for it, based on your axiom 2 requiring all interactions to be mechanical (i.e. physical). If I knew what you meant by your equation, and the subsequent example, I wouldn't have asked the question. I generally reserve that activity for times when I do not, in fact, know what was meant. First of all, address what is meant by rounds per second, as I asked. Second, explain where the addition term in your calculation comes from when there is no such term in the base equation. Lastly, I, for one, am getting very tired of our repeated calls for both clarification and exposition of your methods and theory being met with repeated hand waving and vague references to "It's in there" when it clearly is either not in there or is so badly obfuscated, it may as well not be. Unless you are willing to provide actual answers to questions posed to you, I'm finished with this discussion. Edit: In fact, just explain what these numbers are: Because as far as I can tell, they're just numbers you made up out of thin air.

First of all, your first equation is crap. Rounds per second is not even a useful measure of anything, and you don't define what the rotation axle angle is. Second in your example, you use addition, when there is clearly no addition term in the equation you propose. How did you arrive at this equation, and please explain fully why it even applies. We cannot read your mind, so saying it follows from intuition and observation is like saying "because of blue". Second if you're proposing to replace quantum mechanics with your theory of everything, you need to at least explain the observed results of QM within the framework of your theory. You can't just pretend they don't exist. And if you're not replacing QM, it's hardly a Theory of Everything.

I see two equations, neither of which shows how you arrived at those equations being correct for usage in explaining your theory. (The derivation Klaynos is asking for). Also, your axiom 2 seems to imply that quantum entanglement shouldn't happen, since purely mechanic forces require locality to be transmitted, and quantum mechanics indicates that the universe at the quantum level is non-localized. How do you resolve this apparent discrepancy?

What we would like to call it is an equation. Do you have one? A concrete, defined equation that illustrates your hypothesis and makes predictions that can be tested?

There's nothing condescending at all about the title. Knowing how to spot pseudo-science from actual science is a skill that is, sadly, often lacking from most people's educational background. It's like saying the instruction manual for your stereo is condescending for making the assumption that you may not know how to hook up your speakers. I am assuming this is the bullet point to which you are referring: Please note the phrase "almost always". This does not preclude the idea that one person can have a break through of staggering and monumental importance (Relativity comes to mind), but that it is not the norm anymore. Most advanced research requires equipment and techniques well beyond the means of the lone scientist, which is why they tend to work for companies or research facilities that have the funding, and the expertise, to acquire and correctly use such equipment. Modern scientific equipment is both expensive and complex, and can require teams of dedicated experts just to set up and operate correctly. It can also require computer programmers to develop analysis algorithms to interpret the data. These folks do not work for free. However, this is not a failure of the scientific method - in fact, it insures that advanced science can continue to be done, and that we continue to advance. No one is saying that a revolutionary idea cannot come from a single mind, but the validation of that idea rarely is.

Once again, you are a priori claiming that just because science has not yet found an answer to a particular question, it never will. This stance is absolutely false, as has been proven repeatedly during the history of modern scientific investigation. There is absolutely no reason to assume that science will fail to answer the questions put to it, and no reason at all to turn to religious or philosophical traditions which are incapable of providing them in an accurate and unbiased manner. Your argument amounts to a lot of hand waving, woo, and bunk, and I reject it as such.

Apparently my full name equates to He sits on his throne of glory. I wonder if they know it's made of porcelain?

How is that in any way an example of stars that do not orbit each other? It even says they have an orbital period. That's what the whole article is about.

It also depends heavily on the program requirements. I know at my alma mater the difference between the MS in CompSci and the MS in math was only two classes - easy enough to add a minor onto that program as well, if you wanted.