kristalris

Well I voted other, because I think it is a cyclic event: that is logically most probable seeing all observations, and answering all questions and it also what I feel will be the right answer. BTW it being cyclic doesn't mean time is in a loop. Time is what the clock states it is, and as such only goes forward. (In other words MN doesn't need time in order to run around, we need it in order to describe what she's up to) That the system repeats itself even absolutely doesn't mean that time does as well, and it certainly doesn't mean that, if as I believe the entire system is at a deepest level absolutely unique at any given moment in time in which all possible scenario's are played out all the time. Further more the question on a beginning and an end is wrong. There is no beginning or end as I see it.

Apart from the problem of words being inherently ambiguous and mathematics not being so, mathematics can thus be as precise as is needed. When we talk about mathematics most people tend to hold that it is always properly applied and forget the garbage in problem. Further more mathematics is far more cumbersome to use quickly when working in a field where the data are inherently few and quick decision making is needed. Such as courts of law where some protagonists of mathematics would like to use Bayesian probabilistic nets. Apart from exceptions that won't work IMO. Another problem with mathematics is that not everyone is aware of all the extremely concise conventions it needs. If I remember correctly a psychology test showed that some people see windmills turn to the left even though it was clear in that test they were turning to the right. They concluded that some people are inherently deluded. A reason for this I didn't see mentioned in that test is however that some people are not aware of the convention that you should look above the center in order to ascertain which way the mill is turning. A lot of miss-communication between people trained in mathematics and those who are not stem from this, lack of understanding - on both sides - that the conventions can differ. Further more a language lets you make mistakes and still further science. Science has made great progress via mistakes. I.e. you don't get hung up on details. That again doesn't mean that extreme detail isn't required ultimately. So yes hypothesis don't need mathematics for these reasons even in physics. To state that the apple falls down from the tree is a sufficient hypothesis to be tested. If you subsequently observe it falling upwards that readily proves something worthwhile. That on the other hand doesn't mean to say that subsequently it can be left at that after such a phenomenon has been observed. Ultimately Nature should be described in mathematics in the most concise way possible. I.e. with DM & DE we actually observe the apples falling upwards. That we know this via mathematical analysis doesn't mean that a - way to a - solution for these problems can only be reached via mathematics. Even Einstein didn't start off with mathematics but with a thought experiment. Hypothesis and observation should lead in front, because that is logically the quickest way to achieve progress. You don't wait with testing. If you can test a hypothesis you test it. In science period. Conventions stating anything different constitute democratic science. Science isn't democratic but primarily'driven by observations & logic and thus ultimately and thus logically not only mathematically driven. (Even though all logic can be put into mathematics, it only takes longer, and not everyone knows mathematics, thus excluding a lot of potential brainpower in order to solve scientific problems.)

Agree with Iggy. And on statistics I came across an old blog http://vserver1.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/297.html I don't think much has changed.

Because I attempted a last note in the thread of Peter J on the slit thread continuum of the Higgs field, I'll post a reaction to Split infinities post here: Posted Today, 07:22 AM kristalris, on 28 Mar 2013 - 12:06, said: For some reason I missed your reply to my post and since you obviously took some time and alot of thought typing this...I figure better late than never to reply. LOL! I would ask you to think about this as it pertains to the possibilities you have outlined here...as I feel you have not included this concept I am about to state into your thoughts. If we are living in one universal state within a Multiverse...and I believe this to be not only highly probable but perhaps the only explaination for how and why Quantum Mechanics works as it does....our Universal Reality is but ONE of Infinite Divergent Universal States....existing within ONE UNIVERSAL GROUPING OR GROUP within the MULTIVERSE. Within a Multiverse there would have to be Infinite Universal Realities specific to ONE SPECIFIC Universal Group. The must also be Infinite UNIVERSAL GROUPS...each one containing infinite Divergent Universal Realities. So each Universal Groups Infinite number of Divergent Universal Realities must all have the SAME NATURAL LAWS. Each other Universal Group would have again Infinite Divergent Universal Realities that themselves all have the SAME NATURAL LAWS but different from any other Universal Group. Thus...each Universal Group has it's own set of Natural Laws that are different from any of the other Universal Groups and some of these Natural Laws would be so alien in their nature that we as humans could neither understand or even DREAM of those laws realities. Split Infinity 0 Quote MultiQuote Well Split infinity, I don't quite see why you see the need for a group of multiverses. Given that the fact whether or not logic gives as stated earlier in the other thread a multiverse depends if you take to see the Higgs field a priori to contain (thus inherently unsplitable) lumps, leads to the logic conclusion of the assumed existence of an inherently unfalsifiable multiverse. As most scientists as far as I know of agree on that a multiverse is most probable. If you take lumps then the question is which lumps of matter is that? Something out of the SM and/or one or more sorts of hidden variables? If you take one or more hidden variables as the lumps then the question is, is it cyclic? Well if you already have a given multiverse then you have already arrived at that point. Then the question is could it be absolutely repetitive i.e. cyclic in a way that we are having this conversation at this moment an absolute amount of times, as we have had in the past and will have in the future? I'd say that is logically extremely improbable because that would entail the chance that it would become repetitive without life in an endless cycle without life ever returning in the system. Given an extremely small chance of that happening on an infinite timescale means it should have already become repetitive without life ever returning. That hasn't happened as we can observe. So it thus logically can not be absolutely the same. Thus then we are unique. Yet logic then dictates this being in an endless cycle of nearly being the same like two industrial glasses are the same and also absolutely different at a deeper level. This then logically means that all - possible - scenario's can be played out an infinite amount of times in the multiverse. I see no reason why we must assume that different laws of physics (at a deepest level ) should be among-st those possibilities. (I.e. all impossible scenario's given the sorts of lumps in the continuum don't happen.) And, might I ad the only reason to assume a multiverse in the first place is just to show logical consistency with everything we hold true in science at the moment for a stated test of sorts consistent with that and potentially falsifying the position yet potentially bringing us closer to answering fundamental questions in a measurable (/ falsifiable) way.

Well otherwise it was closed on a (disputable) undisclosed thus whimsical ground. Ergo per definition not obvious. And inherently bad moderation because presented as such to be taken as been because of being non mainstream. Well the students then would indeed be right. The remaining question then is why was it also immediately closed, and why would this of been clear to the thread starter? Learning curve in sight anywhere then? And is it going up? Clearly not then. Now on soap boxing then: someone says oi, look the world is not flat and two plus two is four. Nah, mainstream says: it's flat and two plus two is five. Well, you start to explain the position. If you keep on repeating that in exactly the same way that would be boring and could thus be construed to be soap boxing. Now what if you explain it (logically inherently the same) then in different ways. Would that still constitute soap boxing? If so, is then the world flat and the correct scientific answer five? I.e. where then is the learning curve? My position is not as much on how people do science, but, how logically, given the goal of science, they should be doing science. That subsequently and logically dictates how moderation of a pretended scientific discourse should unfold. That the problem of how moderation should be done is broader/ different than the scientific topic is inherent. Now that insight is indeed something. You thus acknowledge the unavoidable link between the two. Yet also inherently that it is thus an on topic discussion. Nobody you know of then, and apart from that you make here a by your own rules prohibited fallacy of authority. Would you like proof of that? Reopen it then, so I can respond. Otherwise a prohibited by your own rules fallacy of a circular argument. So you would accept a warning then?

Phi for All Chief Executive Offworlder Moderators 10,777 posts LocationCO, USA Posted 19 February 2013 - 05:47 PM kristalris, on 19 Feb 2013 - 11:36, said: ! Moderator Note It was motivated by the fact that I thought I'd moved it there pages and pages ago in response to someone reporting it. I sincerely apologize to the membership for keeping it in a mainstream section for so long. Mea culpa. So no Swansont it was closed for not being mainstream as the last post shows after which it was closed. 0 Well logic is indeed far from subtle. If I'd been subtle on it you would have had a field day. Indeed a pre for mathematics for then you can word it in a subtle way yet prove the illogical bit. The length it took "Einstein" is the core of the issue. So very much on topic. Nice try to split the issue. Yet I showed you it is logically interlinked thus un-split-able. Yes you did. It is then like the one burglar saying repeatedly to the other: you shouldn't be doing this, whilst subsequently carrying off the loot.

Well, I'll take it that a discussion in a thread of what being on or of topic is as a point of order per definition on topic in a thread. Nope. This entire thread is and has been on topic on the title. Proof: logic: A thread of mine was closed on proper scientific procedure because it wasn't mainstream and that given to be a correct interpretation of the moderation rules was then the way to go. Okay then I bring this up in a point that the moderation rules should encompass correct scientific procedure. Nope that then is off- topic and should be dealt with in a topic a new thread concerning correct scientific procedure. But that was closed because it wasn't main stream. So I open a thread in this forum to discuss rules on moderation........get my point? This is a circular argument on part of the moderators and thus infringes on it own rules that fallacies aren't allowed, and not just that it violates basic scientific rules because science is about being logical. And, as Popper would explain to you: science is open not closed. Obtuse? Moi? And even deliberately so? Well indeed some other explanation. Well what ever: the role is simply that of the logical one. The one which you thus are not playing, in the last post you again make fallacies, yet you agree that I should react to them but in another thread. Bit strange I would say? Anyway: I never stated moderation policy and the structure of science are the same. I stated and state that they are interlinked and should thus be discussed together, as you have done as well, yet I get a warning point. Unjust and illogical. Never said you were. Given that the discussion between us was indeed off-topic then you participated in that crime on the rules, yet didn't receive punishment via a warning point. Illogical and unjust then. (Now before anyone thinks that I'm taking issue with the warning point other than doing a report or pm, this is in part a point in order (if you want clarification as to what that means please ask) and on the other hand not issue against me getting a warning point, but Swansont not getting one as well.)

Sorry not allowed to answer, yet at the same time must answer according to the rules on which moderation rely. Proving again the need for adjustment. No, I wasn't aiming at that at all, so I'm happy to hear that. You're wrong, but I'm not allowed to reply, yet at the same time forced to by the rules. As said proving that the rules of moderation need moderating. On the rules of moderation a question? How can it be to get a warning point for being of topic in ones own thread if the one with whom you were of topic then was of topic as well, without getting a warning point?

Given that we take as a fact that it took him ten years, then it is a reasonable question why that took so long and whether or not more support would of speed-ed up the process. I guess I don't have to point out he importance of getting to what Einstein had to say as mainstream science sooner than later? Now lets analyze this without the burden of trying to be historically exact (or scientifically exact on history because history is inherently not an exact science); we do a thought experiment based on the fact that it took Einstein ten years and do that then and now. Lets say Einstein dreamt up a thought experiment that light would curve in at more than the Newtonian value and also dreamt up the idea for a test that this should be observable when stars move behind observable planets. Because he at that moment wouldn't have had the mathematics to give the formula from which you can see that it will be exactly twice the Newtonian value, would that then render his idea as meaningless? As would be the case using current main stream science and thus rules of moderation on this site? Of course not. Had science on that bases then done the test they would of indeed observed (as we know now) that it even curves in at twice the rate, what Einstein then as yet wouldn't of known. So yes science then made repeated air-crashes and didn't get airborne until after ten years. With hindsight they deserve a straight F, they flunked something they should of spotted ten years earlier. The correct analysis is that science needs the protocol to be adapted in such a way that good idea's are filtered out more quickly. You do not do that by applying incorrect norms. Of course ultimately you want the full grown tree of wisdom as a law of science on a subject. Then and there you of course apply the highest norms of succinctness completeness correctness etc. i.e. then do you apply current protocols. You don't get there by putting the flamethrower to the saplings. You get there by filtering out the saplings (ideas) that have potential in a timely - matter of course - fashion. You do this via probabilistic reasoning using verbal logic, thought experiments and the such, as Einstein did and comparing these. (Even if Einstein failed to present his idea's then still science fails because it should of invited anyone like him to do so. As now the mood then was much more flammatory because even after he complied to the protocol he at first got flamed. If you a priori know that you of course won't ask help, because yo know you won't gt it.) The more so today, with internet. Probability has it that you will have much more Einsteins on line than where involved in the game a hundred years ago. Now then, how do you filter out the saplings that deserve attention, water and cultivation? Actually that is quite easy. You already have the correct division on that matter on this site. Einstein goes to the speculation thread and puts his idea on there. And you put it to the test of verbal logic at first and you see if it indeed addresses all the problems involved on the subject. You don't need to be creative to do that. Simple matter of course. And, you look whether the idea is presented in a potentially testable way (as you rules correctly state) . Then you see how many of these idea's fit these criteria. of the ones left you look at which is most simple (Occam) or easy to check (Popper). If you then still have a great many left then indeed it will become more of a problem to see which is probable, because that also requires imagination to see - given looking back a hundred years that you believe in Newton - and you guess that the M&M experiment is actually a fringe issue (like DM & DE is seen by some/most) to spot that this crank Einstein with his relativity of time and length contraction is actually probably or even possibly right instead of providing bs. Even before Einstein got to the mathematics. Nowadays even the more so because Einstein only had to get to grips with relatively straight forward mathematics as you say. Well probably now you will need rheology advanced statistics and what not. Yet as Einstein you can't dispense with the sapling idea, dreamt up as a testable thought experiment for the a priori garbage or non garbage to put into the mathematics, the latter to be found via tests in trial and error. Now then how many TOE theories has this site generated since its start that meet these criteria? 1000? 100? 10? 1? 0? I guess no more than one or two. So you probably won't even get to the problem of having to discern the probability at all. And, why not ask funding as a site? In order to provide this? That will thus certainly change you rules of moderation. (So yes, this is on topic.) Of course I can. That a concept as a sapling is unproven as a large wise tree, doesn't mean it can't be proven to be a potentially better sapling then other saplings? That is exactly what you do if you are in the tree growing business: cultivate the best saplings. And not to only accept the near full grown trees that have grown in the wild. The business of science should be to get the best saplings knowing full well that a lot of these will fail to grow. So the problem is how to distinguish between good and bad saplings. What I'm saying is, that if the correct criteria are met, then yes science (as does this site if it claims to be scientific) should organize the help, via changing the rules of moderation in order to fit that. It should be a matter of course question and not a personal conviction or preparedness to take personal risk question whether science / this site provides help. I.e. the one that provides help shouldn't run the risk of being deemed a crank for providing any help because the idea proves busted. (The actual problem in fact, why it takes so bloody long) Well then there goes Einstein with his half backed but as we know now correct idea. You threw the sapling out as part of your rules of moderation. Proving that this IS totally a moderation requirement problem. Your position is inwardly contradictory. No, if you apply exact scientific norms to psychology or history, as you are evidently now doing, you can indeed prove nothing in those areas. So don't apply such norms in those area's. Is this a "don't know" or is it a "certainly would't of made a difference" position of yours on this question? And why run the risk of it indeed being a major problem, (what it of course extremely probably was) had Einstein got massive backing quicker than later, it would of all happened sooner.)? Well, yes and no, we know / may assume he discussed it within a befriended community containing scientists while working his idea's. Anyway if he didn't he should of and if he did he should have received backing. Immaterial, because we don't and never will know exactly as you pointed out earlier. What we do know is that extremely probably part of his idea's did stem from thought experiments. I.e. the correct way to do it. Once he got enough mathematics under his belt it becomes difficult to see how he went about it, because then he will of course comply by presenting his idea.s even if derived from a thought experiment in a mainstream thus mathematical way. Ergo no reason not to review you rules for moderation, quite the opposite.

Now I know horny and slang ornery and I guess you mean the latter. And I guess you mean to say that I disagree with a lot and that is to be deemed disagreeable? BTW on tone in this case it's quit pro quo, isn't it? I.e. I'm in my reaction to your post just as disagreeable to you as you are to me, or would you care to differ? The problem is that if you have, like I do, a dissenting opinion on a paradigm it according to current psychology leads to angst and a thus an emotional response. This I can only remedy by not hitting the angst button. In this case on a topic concerning mathematics I can't comply, because I'd have to use mathematics in order not to press the angst button, where my point is that it isn't necessary to use mathematics for developing a first idea to a concept in a scientific way on a TOE topic, like Einstein first did. Using hard logic is always deemed disagreeable. (Actually I'm quite a friendly guy, but you won't believe that I guess, because I can also be a though cookie. Sometimes I even think I can be funny as well.) So, I'm not seeking an emotional response but a rational one, although I expect and accept an emotional response, to which I'll react within bounds dito. Ergo it is simply impossible to comply to your expectations and be logical at the same time. ????? Now this is extremely unscientific on your part. (Sorry to be so disagreeable again.) Do you actually mean to say that a proven better scientific process then the current one would constitute a per definition non scientific procedure??? Come off it please! Thank you, but my medium intelligence tells me it is NOT true. But if you know a way in which I can bring the point across to you in an agreeable way, them I'm all ears. I also differentiate theories from protocol. Yet in order to evaluate the mainstream protocol I need to use a theory/ idea / concept in evidence as a thought experiment or as a historic scientific fact as to why the one is superior to the other. The annoying bit see my last post please. No, it is an extremely good example because only after ten or so years did he finally succeed in complying to the protocols. Had he been helped earlier, it would have complied to those protocols much sooner. BTW I don't object to the protocols as the ultimate test to which any idea or concept or theory must ultimately be brought to comply. What I'm on about is that you must not apply the ultimate norm to a first idea or concept, because that would be illogical towards reaching the stated goal of science. See Einstein. Had his idea's been picked up sooner we would have had SR & GR much sooner. Now we had to wait ten years for him to battle it alone in discussions with those who were open minded enough to do so and so help him to formulate and further his idea. Okay then someone comes along with such an idea that can be tested that as Einstein at first doesn't have the mathematics. Who helps him with the mathematics? Who helps him get the proposed test actually get tested? The nature of the post is the test that is proposed. And the possibility to discuss this idea in the appropriate threads of others without being deemed a thread hijacker as Einstein would of done as well. Fully agree, then what is the problem?

Of course, I don't contest that. Yet if I put valid points across in your Suggestions, comments and Support forum as you put it, in lieu of the claim to be a scientific site, then I guess that can on your rules be debated? I don't contest that. The question then is what is science as the on topic question to be debated in this forum on the rules for moderation. Well, indeed someone else s home opened up for moderated scientific debate which has a forum to debate the way of best moderation, which is what we are doing. being Just as such has nothing to do with the legal system per se. That is a strawman. Well now that is indeed difficult then because you asked me the question remember? I stated this in an on topic reaction to your I quote: " We cater to logical discussion based on accepted data and principles of science. If you don't use principles of science, the discussion does not belong here. There is no circular argument." You state what I indeed do use scientific principles based on logic and put evidence and logic reasoning to counter prove your position that there is no circular argument at the heart of your moderation. Being the topic. Otherwise as stated earlier I'm in a Catch 22 position. catch 22 I'm forced by you rules to pose argument and evidence for my position in lieu of your objection, that this constitutes a rehash can't be the point, the point is is it logical? Your problem then is it is indeed logical, and you are out of arguments. We agree on that. The use of the "norm mainstream science"for moderation brings a democratic touch into play however. It disproves your point that the best norm for moderation on a scientific site concerning speculations should be "mainstream science". I.e. you would of moderated Einstein out of this site in the ten years prior to his ideas having become mainstream. So that is on topic. The only relevant question is thus - which you asked me to provide - and that your rules correctly require me to provide is that it took Einstein ten years to get hies ideas across. So it would I guess be a good idea if that is so, and I see you don't contest it took ten years (the only relevant bit of the link), that you cater for a way of moderation that will not of expelled an Einstein if he comes along. Of well, then what are we on about. If you can discuss in another thread then your own non mainstream science then that must be okay then? I understood it wasn't. Even if such basis for moderation would expel a future Einstein who doesn't have the perseverance of Albert on a major scientific topic off this site? You don't object to the historic fact that it took him ten years to become mainstream. Yet you would only allow him to post his idea but not discuss that with others on this site on the speculation forum because it isn't then yet mainstream? If he does so, what he historically did, albeit without internet debate it with others, you would of kicked him out because its is a frikkin' science site? And, am I now then not just doing that what you want? Discussing in a debate the correct protocols of science to be used and applied in the speculation (and philosophy) fora? But you can't ask and object to me providing evidence at the same time according to your own rules that dictate the use of logic as well as providing evidence.

I'd say you are dodging the issue via use of semantics. In short the noun realism points towards the a priori idea that is taken as to be true that there is a real world out there. The use of logic only works when things are taken to be absolutely true BTW. The oxymoronic nature is thus inherent when forced by logic to take something (in part) to be absolutely true in order to investigate how true it is as a probability for instance whereby you take the exact opposite to be absolutely true at the same time when using probabilistic reasoning.

Sorry Swansont, but a moderated discussion on a public internet forum is per definition a debate. In this case on science. And yes, there are commonly held rules on how a debate should be held in an orderly way. Well what is "Just" is a very complicated issue, but we can also refer to it in a simple way. Again logic dictates that a scientific debate is either Just or Unjust (the latter to make it simple also when partly unjust). If the goal of the debate is for everyone including moderators to have fun, as well as learn and teach science as to try and further science in all its aspects then that can only be done - as is held as mainstream position in science as well BTW - in a Just way. Baring what is exactly meant by "Just" it is near unanimously held position that any infringement on the principle that you hear both parties before ruling is Just and not to is Unjust. The reason is actually quite logical as you have been able to observe that the moderators note in this thread gave me the possibility to point out that I was very much on topic in this case even-though you thought the prior evidence showed different. I.e. you can not exclude the possibility of misunderstanding or not understanding the reasoning behind the way something has been put. As you see it isn't always as clear as you might think. And, it might be that someone made an honest mistake, that need rectification. If you immediately act, you prevent corrections. That spoils the fun and prevents reaching the stated goals in the optimum way. Point is I do use accepted principles of science. The stated position is that not all of science does the same. The norm being logic. The circular argument goes: we follow mainstream scientific principles. These entail that any claim to a TOE should be more succinct than GR and QM on all issues or at least very close to that on mathematical basis before even any effort or funding should be put into it as the fastest and best way to reach a TOE. The evidence this is based on is the past track record of science that shows progress and thus proves fastest progress even though the alternate method has not been used. The burden of proof lies on the alternate to prove that that way is faster. The reason for that is because it is the mainstream scientific position. So we have I state with reason this main stream position is illogical for a slow progress does not prove fast progress and risk taking action is logically faster than no action and this is rebuked via the statement that it is mainstream science. So we get the circular argument main stream science is best because main stream science is best. Main stream has a democratic mean to it. Something is so because a majority states so. A question on a broad issue like TOE will most probably as history shows not be solved by mainstream science but more over by outsiders like Higgs, Einstein and the like. Not all these outsiders have the time or inclination or knowledge to bring a worthwhile idea to the ultimate standard that is to be used to warrant extreme funding. Therefor a lot of worthwhile idea's are thrown away or not catered for or even attempted because illogically only the extreme norm is used. Mainstream science illogically doesn't cater for intermediate norms to warrant at least some funding or backing. That means the end result is most probably going to be mediocre in the time needed to reach TOE. Need to go now. Well as I see it and understand what you've said this should be your position. If not then I either misunderstood you or you are in a logical fix. So no strawman. Okay is this position historically correct on Einstein? If so I'm right, if not I'll provide you with further evidence. Point in this link is it took Einstein ten years to get his idea's accross. That could of been catered for quicker. http://www.stresscure.com/hrn/einstein.html edit: I.e. my way of working can claim Einsteins way of working as a success, contrary to mainstream science even though Einstein is now mainstream. Not thanks to but in spite of main stream scientific counteracting Einstein ultimately prevailed on basis of stamina and perserverance that should't be part of the deal. Logic and observations should do that. And like Einstein you don't need mathmatics for that. First the idea and reasoning and then the mathmatics. Well if you agree that science is more than mainstream science then why is the only norm for moderation on this site main stream science in your opinion?

Thank you for the possibility to clarify my position: But I was / am on topic. Not of course if you leave parts out of what I stated. It is clearly used as an example of what I stated to be the alleged fallacy. swansont, on 19 Apr 2013 - 13:22, said: Indeed prior odds. The proof must be given on the appropriate norm. If you make that norm to be the highest, then you commit a fallacy. End Quote This bit you and Swansont left out. Yes, if you take it sec then it would be of topic. Otherwise you put me in a Catch 22 position. Either I fail to provide evidence and am in breach of the rules that way or I breach the rules for being of topic providing the evidence that was asked for: i.e. logic verbal proof of a fallacy of a part of mainstream science. Swansont states, if I understand him correctly - that this scientific site is NOT about an orderly ( and that practice of science in a civilized society can be nothing other than Just) debate concerning scientific positions. You can't but end up in a circular argument if you don't cater for logical debate based on accepted data and principles. If you a priori take the mainstream procedure and principles to be correct and in so doing provide a near absolute or to high a burden of proof on any stated fallacy of logic by mainstream science, or breach of proper orderly conduct of a scientific debate by - part of (!) - mainstream science, then science comes to the mediocre mean of mainstream: that is logic and indeed what has happened in history over and over again as now (or is it to be a mainstream monologue site?) Swantsont in fact believes main stream science to be the definition of science. Forgetting that all major breakthroughs in science where in breach with the main stream science before that. Actually even per definition so. These extremely basic principles on evidence and proof in science and on procedure in science or even on procedure of correct scientific debate are continuously breached by part of mainstream science. Yet I must, but at the same time can't provide more proof or even example of this because of breaking the rules either way. As in Occam the most basic set of rules and principles on science are probably best. The ones I gave you are far more basic and indisputably correct because exempt from logical fallacies like your more complicated mainstream position on the issue. Basic principles that as history shows when indeed correctly applied on average by far reach better results. As logic dictates that it will. Reasoning illogical as does mainstream science will on average not reach the stated goals. Why? Dictate of logic, that history of course also shows. Again, the basis is in science: the apples always - per definition - should fall down. If they are undisputedly observed to fall up then there is per definition something wrong that needs clarification. Any idea / concept / theory that marries all observations to all the laws of nature (= the logic proper norm and not that it should in part be better, as mainstream science dictates, because it only needs to be logically consistent) in a way that all the apples fall down again via a practically provable hypothesis in verbal logic wins logically in science proper over any mainstream scientific position that accepts apples flying upwards or mathematics married to magic, because mathematics simply lets you do that. ​If you can't explain your mainstream science on the whole shebang in a simple logical way i.e. in a way that all observed apples fall down without resorting to magic, then you are probably wrong: Occam dixit in fact. You can't remedy this by being extremely correct on part issues that are not in debate. That would constitute a fallacy. In the fora on speculation and philosophy logic dictates that this must be debatable in a non mainstream way (as long as is clear that it is not mainstream AND adheres to the stated rules I gave) as a conditio sine qua non for the site to pretend to be scientific. Because science is more than just mainstream science. (Beware I'm talking mainstream science on non part issues such as TOE! Thus not on part issues!)

No mate, it's a formula in words (which you can if you like put into maths, but I wouldn't bother its so simple): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi_alteram_partem Do please pay attention to the word "evidence" in this formula. I mean by this that it is unclear what science states in - your - mind. In my mind science is Just in the way it ventures towards truth because that serves that goal best. I can elaborate why that is, but you seem to hold that the scientific procedure can also be unjust. Logically it can be Just or unjust or both. There is no valid reason why it shouldn't be Just and a lot of reasons why it should be Just. I.e. of course you can further science in an unjust way, yet it is not the best way or desirable way. Or mainstream way for that matter. (Would you want to further t via torture? Guess not, wouldn't be Just now would it.) Then you are in a logical fix. You want out of the box investigation done within the box. In the box demands that only full blown theories are worth time and effort. So only a fully grown tree is worth the effort, and thus you cut down all small trees. It's a logical fallacy. If you want large trees don't cut down the small ones because they are to small. As long as the questions are mainstream then. Further more a question or a statement are in fact the same thing put in a different way. I.e. you can always rephrase a relevant statement into a relevant question. A mere formality. The "most people" rule is a mean that should't apply in this way. See above formula why. Problem is they should be scared if they do follow the rules of closure when they adhere to rules of logic and indisputable evidence. As long as it is logical and evidence based there should be no problem if two non mainstream positions are discussed in speculation or philosophy. Because that is then PER DEFINITION scientific, providing in speculations that the idea is in its core presented in a testable way, or part of a question. In casu you or mainstream science hasn't proven that it is pull. You've only proven that it works brilliantly on a limited question and not on the broad issue posed in the OP. If you state anything different than that mainstream science has no position push or pull on that question, than mainstream science is in error. Mainstream science ignores that issue, thus logically can have no position on that question. Yet you state it does as reason to close the thread, as I understand it. Well yes and no. I mean the word "entanglement" means like a Vodoo puppet (A) if you stick a pin in it also creates a hole in person B with which it is then in a spooky way entangled. I.e. there must be a link if you use that word. If there is no such bond other than having two parts of a mold like a split apple then mainstream science has yet again used the wrong word to define an observation. It then has nothing to do with speed as such, yet there are scientists according to Wikipedia working on that. You use the word "entanglement" in the way physicists use it on this issue. All I'm saying is, seems again to be the wrong word then seeing what observation you are trying to portray with the word. See above, that's form. BTW the OP asked a question. Must I answer that with a question then? If I answer that by showing what the question entails and what evidence based logic entails in its easiest form, that is then per definition scientifically correct procedure and might I add not infringing on the rules of the site as the are presented. If I were to point out that it is my theory and thus not mainstream all the better in stead of worse. Otherwise you only allow an in the box treatment on an out of the box question. It will then logically always fail even if it were correct. If it is evidence based and logical addressing any scientific question even if it is out of the box then there should be no problem, yet there clearly is. And that is what is unscientific. You state extra formal rules and norms that have no bases in furthering science, and only in fact in preventing any out of the box approach even if it adheres to the rules I state in the first sentence. Then you say it works, well that doesn't disprove that what I state works better on a out of the box issue. Which I subsequently can't prove further for want of means to do so. Means that the taxpayers gave to science.So that issue logically should be dealt with on that norm that I reasonably can adhere to. And have done. You in fact demand near perfection i.e. that a new tree is already full grown. That is unreasonable and thus unscientific. Two plus two isn't six; and apples don't fly upwards because mainstream science say's it does. It is not a democratic affair. Neither is the fact that mainstream yields results in the past prove anything other than a high prior odds of being right. It doesn't give you the posterior odds on any question, because otherwise you are making a fallacy. Prohibited by your own rules. Indeed prior odds. The proof must be given on the appropriate norm. If you make that norm to be the highest, then you commit a fallacy. GR & QM are the best laws we humans have ever had incorrectly defined as theories on par then with my theory in your words. Time doesn't slow down the atom clock does. Again wrong mainstream science. DM & DE we went through that as well. Wrong wording on key issues. Add to which entanglement also incorrectly worded. Science should be trying to rearrange the pieces (observations) of the puzzle in such a way that the apples no longer fly upwards, that they are doing now with DM and DE etc.. This because apples in science should per definition fall down. I claim to have done that in a testable way. Yet the test is ignored. Now that can't be. Nor can it be that given that I've done that I can't present that as an answer to someones question in speculations. That it isn't mainstream doesn't disprove it. And, might I add the premier scientific tool to be used in such an instance with an inherent extremely broad issue and inherent short-edge of data is verbal logic. It works the quickest and is succinct enough yet also pliable enough to get close enough to an answer in order to do relevant testing in order to require the missing data. You fail to acknowledge this. And even in science you can't ask more than a reasonable burden of proof. I don't have the needed super computer for one. Yet you demand that of me, without supporting in getting time on such a computer. That is unreasonable. So is, denying the possibility to debate the issue on questions of others.

Did it occur to you that I'm not saying that you are all part of a giant conspiracy, but that you - according to mainstream psychology as well BTW - all are extremely probably suffering from a whopping confirmation bias as to what proper science entails? This because you infringe on the laws of logic, and when cornered dodge the issue. Want me to prove that to you? I'll ask you some questions and you answer them, or prove my implicit fallacy in the asked question, okay? Do you dare take up that challenge? Further more I don't contest that mainstream science works.And, I'm happy to say I've learnt more from remarks of mainstream scientists like Swantsont on this site than on an other site I've been on much longer. The only thing I contest is that it works best in research questions, i.e. inherent out of the box issues. Simple basic psychology & probabilistic reasoning. And might I add, what I'm stating on proper procedure concerning moderation of a debate is also mainstream science on how to do that as well BTW. Indeed it works. Tried and tested like I said, it goes back to Roman law. You choose to infringe on that, and think it best. (BTW don't panic or else the dikes might break and we both get wet.)

Ah, well there is a formula for that, I gave it to you. It works. Traces back to Roman law. To be fair. To facilitate order in a Just and practical way. I said science is Just or not Just because it's science. You left out the latter I catered both (i.e. all) positions . That ball is in your court then. You say you try to be fair. Well then be Just, apply the formula. If you have problems in understanding how the formula works, ask the experts and inquire, or just do what is forcefully recommended: first give a temporary position in order to inquire, then act in an informed i.e. wise way. (As rule of thumb of course, always be wise.) The rules of science as you apply them logically makes that in the box thinking governs out of the box thinking. (If you were only talking about all fora except the philosophical and speculative fora I would agree with you, but you include these.) The rules of science facilitates out of the box thinking in order to counter and guard against this (at least it states this even mainstream as a goal, as do you): so logically not only all evidence but also allowing to address all relevant questions. You ignore the latter. The latter governs the scope of a topic. ​This is of topic, because I'm only talking about philosophy and speculation fora and you are talking science sections, on which I don't dispute. May those people decide that primarily themselves, or do you feel the need to patronize them? If it's a site for grown ups, I guess you can await the reaction of the thread owner before deciding whether the thread owner should feel annoyed or not? A temporary position of the moderator when the owner is not active will cool down the discussion until a reaction is given by the owner. BTW annoying for whom? The thread owner? Or the passers by who press the report button? The moderators? Now you get a situation in which thread owners are scared that their thread will be closed if they don't comply to what they deem to be mainstream. Could it be that a thread owner likes to discuss an out of the box issue with out of the box thinkers as well, or just with in the box thinkers? As long as is clear from what position something is said, that can't be a problem then. Moderators actively join in discussions to present mainstream science on the topic. No problem there then. Well in short then an example: someone opens a thread that gravity might be push. Not seeing that that seemingly simple question has further ramifications, in fact amounting to the question of TOE. I.e. that is then the topic unless the thread owner states otherwise. Furthermore it is an inherent out of the box question. Now if you give only a in the box answer, that will provide a quick end to the discussion. The question whether or not c = max is a central problem on this topic. I thought that entanglement was a prominent example of - evidence - that speeds > c should be possible (might have been wrong, but still). Thus being on topic. And law and behold my trust in mainstream stated observations of science was unfounded. Entanglement hasn't been observed. Again - as I see it now - wrong definition. Entanglement means that changing A causes a change in B over greater distance > c / instantaneous. No such thing. It is simply seeing that a split apple fits like a mold. Not shocking at all. Something like dynamic symmetry in stead of entanglement should be the term used. The irony is, that this pleads against my position that it is gravity push for taking away a strong (extra) point. But it was split off so this insight couldn't be communicated any more. And it can't any more, any topic on the question whether it is push is scientifically closed. For that thread is closed. No more speculation needed on that subject. We know all there is to know on that subject of gravity push or pull, eh? Science? You are mixing up your norms. (As does mainstream science). In speculations / philosophy different norms apply. I gave them. You don't dispute them, but only ignore them. The norm is also for out of the box: ADDRESSING ALL RELEVANT QUESTIONS besides adhering to all evidence ( = observations and not mainstream conclusions) and being logical.

Due to the elaborate reactions, for which I duly thank you, I'll try to give an excerpt of what is put forward, as I understand it: In the box (i.e. mainstream) governs and should govern out of the box thinking even if the latter is based on all relevant evidence and addresses all questions in a logical way in the philosophy fora and also testable way in speculations; thus in this vision speculation / philosophy should remain in the box. Out of the box thinking may not be communicated other than in the box even if the thread of the other is speculating or asking a question out of the box. It is scientific to patronize. I.e. in the box knows best. The best procedure is that everything that is out of the box is put back in the box after conscientious deliberation in closed chambers without bothering to inquire on the - evidence - concerning the opinion of the thread owner or the suspect of thread high jacking / of being of topic / fallacies for the suspect is of course guilty. The guilty party may of course appeal after publicly been deemed guilty. Which is science because science is Just (or not Just because it's just science? Didn't quite get that one.). There is thus no need to at least provide a temporary position by the moderator after a quick scan of the issue, in order to inquire about motives in order to induce self moderation and a wise and fully informed decision. Do I understand you correctly?

As a science forum stating to have rules I'm somewhat baffled in the utterly arbitrary way they are applied. Now rule number ten states that you are allowed to discuss non main stream issues in the speculation forum as long as you are on topic and adhere to logic as other rules state. Now first of all let me point out that there is such a thing as the science of justice. The rules of this go back a bit. On the other hand because moderators do it voluntarily it must remain fun for them as of course for all others on the forum. There is however a tension between wanting to portray a scientific posture on the one and having fun on the other. As the proud owner of two warning points, that are both seriously debatable, which I won't go into here, other than stating that it is the reason to bother to start this thread, I'll provide some warning points of a different fashion: A proposition to clarify what is to be understood by thread hijacking: non mainstream positions held outside the speculation or philosophical fora in the thread of another after informal warning posted in the thread by a moderator or the thread starter backed by the moderator are to be considered thread hijacking if it continues. The reason why I include philosophy is that mainstream philosophy is a contradiction in terms as a norm for the act of performing philosophy other than providing a history of thoughts in philosophy. The reason why I include speculation is not only formal as it is part of the present rules though clearly more strictly interpreted than is practical. If you interpret the rules the way I propose you alleviate the contradiction of what mainstream speculation should entail. It then becomes more self regulatory. An etiquette in which the thread owner can kindly request someone to continue elsewhere. Of course it is then subsequently to the moderator to back the informal warning or act by splitting etc.. The problems I come across are blatant infringements of logic that are acceptable because deemed mainstream science. This in lieu of the fact that the rules state that fallacies, i.e. illogical reasoning is prohibited. Bit of a problem then if you claim to detect mainstream fallacies now isn't it? The "what you feel to be logic" is an implicit fallacy if indeed no illogical reasoning was committed. Subsequently the dodging of issues is also forbidden by the rules as I understand them, yet permissible if it is deemed mainstream. Which again is incomprehensible. Then the "off topic" issue: that is something that is especially a priori to the thread owner IMO. Etiquette should entail that the thread owner gives proper informal warning deeming a post not supportive to the thread. Further more in general a short opinion asked and given on issues of on or off topic or thread hijack or mainstream vs logic questions is in order: Audi alteram partem please. So, mainstream science everywhere okay except in the two mentioned fora because in science mainstream science needs to be checked in a way that provides sufficient leeway in order to facilitate that. That is if you want a true scientific forum.

Well Mike I agree with you that the way to encompass the entire issue is in a verbal way. I further more agree with you that a TOE needs to be seen in a systematic and not historic context and even in a philosophic context even by physicists. I.e. it needs to be able to explain / be consistent for instance with our notion of consciousness as well. And, a speculation should be testable. I would however oppose in that being called a theory because that would be overstating what is possible with words on the one and make it systematically difficult to quickly distinguish between the status of different idea's, or concepts on the other. A TOE IMO needs the mathematics and at least the claim that it is consistent with all known observations. That then would rule out a lingual TOE, I'd thus call it a lingual concept for a TOE.

Rethinking this you might actually be right. Seeing it as a split apple say we split as Wikipedia states even a diamond then the separate pieces are entangled so I'm led to believe. No matter how far apart then. Now what does that mean? Say one part x is in measured state A and the other part y is in opposite state B in time t1. If these states are repetitive in time t2 part x could be in measured state B and thus part y in state A. Indeed then no interaction needed. Seen in that way entanglement doesn't exist. It should then be defined as counter symmetric parting. (I.e. AB; BA; AB; BA; AB; BA....... etc.)

Well, you don't agree with the Wikipedia page then. And I don't think the principle is that simple as you suggest. From the earlier link I gave: quote The question becomes, "How can one account for something that was at one point indefinite with regard to its spin (or whatever is in this case the subject of investigation) suddenly becoming definite in that regard even though no physical interaction with the second object occurred, and, if the two objects are sufficiently far separated, could not even have had the time needed for such an interaction to proceed from the first to the second object?"[29] The latter question involves the issue of locality, i.e., whether for a change to occur in something the agent of change has to be in physical contact (at least via some intermediary such as a field force) with the thing that changes. end quote

Well this Wikipedia page talks of instantaneous with recent experiments showing speeds at least 10000 times faster than light. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement I don't believe in instantaneous as a probable answer, speeds > c are extremely more probable. BTW this Wikipedia page is evidence based. Right up my ally.

Well near perfection then, if you ask an alternate on a broad issue to do better on a part issue that inherently isn't as broad. The degree of accuracy you require is the most accurate that we humans have ever achieved in anything (i.e. QM etc. at the moment it can't get more perfect than that) and you demand that I supercede that before wanting to start testing. That is irrational. The fact that I can logically crawl my way towards a goal of TOE (being in fact the issue of the OP as stated earlier) on a field not my own, makes the demand that I must flawlessly run the issue (i.e. showing the mathematics before we start jumping the canyon towards more relevant data (i.e. testing) is irrational because illogical and thus un-scientific.) This because current science isn't even crawling in the right direction of TOE. It's actually running towards nothing (i.e. Krauss et all's something from nothing.) This in blowing up the SM leaving as you can predict nothing, working like that. This clearly based on incorrect definitions (like I've already shown in this thread as well) and posing position on a broad issue (i.e. stating that it is proven not to be push but pull) by only looking at part of the evidence and not addressing all the relevant questions. You forget that I use all available evidence but logically reorganize the pieces of the puzzle in a way that is logically plausible. Not only to me but to anyone. If you care to contest show where what I say is illogical or show what relevant problem I haven't addressed. This thread proves that several missed the point that what I say isn't in any way contradictory to Newtons third law, and that the notion of little black holes solves the other end of the problem as well. Not only that but it also shows why it then subsequently is that all galaxies must accelerate solving DE, in my stride. This doesn't prove MN (who is undeniably a mass murderer on the loos) to be the culprit I think she is i.e. an illusionist, which you oddly enough seem to demand before being willing to support testing, but it does prove this to be the prime suspect. I can do that by crawling in the right direction which is again more than current science has been doing. So contrary to what you are stating this IS evidence based. Because it is the ONLY way to organize all the evidence in a way actually explaining it all in a logically plausible way not just for me but objectively to anyone in a most simple way (nice on Occam). If mankind in that time had worked the correct scientific procedure they would of solved the flat earth problem much sooner. Yet that system of correct procedure had to be further devised as well. Now we have it and you don't adhere to it. Current sciences flat half backed expanding flat space cake with raisins (our galaxy being one of the raisins) is like the notion of the flat earth. Clearly wrong WHEN you look at ALL the evidence and systematically (= scientifically) reorganize that in a way that plausibly answers all questions (= the ONLY correct systematic and thus scientific way to do so). The tool mathematics dictate you use for that is verbal logic. First you crawl then you try to walk and accept falling and then you try to run in order to jump. If you see a possibility to jump quickly and dirty sooner then there is not only no reason not to but a lot of reasons to do so. So jump after crawling in the right direction is compulsory in science on key issues like this OP if possible. Do you deny that it is possible to test this? You can't it's undeniable. We observe to much order in the system if we look at a part of the problem. Well you can immediately test that in a computer simulation. If it goes to order that in the eyes of current science would be like the apples falling upwards. If it goes to order of a crystal then my prediction is correct. If it goes to any other form of order, say the order of a fractal or what not, then still I'm correct that we readily observe to much order in the system and that must have a testable reason. On this limited point alone it is incomprehensible (apart from it being a whopping (= irrational) confirmation bias at work) that no testing is done along these lines. That test would solve the question of the OP in one go if it succeeds. Why predict a dynamic crystal before a fractal? Simple: a crystal corresponds with waves then solving that as well. And it being dynamic solves the problem of not observing interference of crossing light beams. (It could also be God or gremlins or the nothing of Krauss et all making the order but that is all extremely improbable. So much so that on any reasonable norm it's falsified. So is the idea that ignoring it is best. There is no evidence for that notion and an awful lot of evidence against that notion, that ignoring issues is best. Mainstream science has never solved out of the box problems, ever. After the individual taking the risk has been successful it claims the victory. This after that the risk taker creative thinker has finally brought it to the test faze, by complying to irrelevant demands and opposition of the then mainstream science. See Higgs as point in case. So I although I don't need the broadness of logical probable explanation, I can provide it. Even magnetism is easily explained at this level. Making it all the more probable (contrary to any other idea, concept or theory, there is NONE other that does this) Again I don't need to: the current science accepted observation of too much order in the system forces your hand in science to test the issue by simulating moving balls in a box (with virtual infinitely thick walls). If it goes to order it proves the concept of order and thus provides very compelling evidence for the OP's push idea. In science you don't argue these issues like you are doing, but you test them. Again faster than c is obviously needed to explain the observed entanglement problem that science can't explain. Your dogma that c = max stems from an indisputable incorrect notion that speeds > c would cause us to travel back in time. Not seeing that it is not time slowing down but the atom clock. Further more not seeing that GR etc. are to be defined as the best laws of physics we ever had readily shows that if you had done that correctly that laws have limits. You not only can but MUST assume this by law of logic. AND again you don't argue this you test it if you can. And you can, so what is stopping support then? (The issue on quarks is a side issue. I have no position on them other than that there is a worked out concept in this forum that would nicely marry my idea to the SM except quarks. The only thing I'm saying is that close is close enough in order to punt more effort into that other concept. Qualms with quarks is insufficient for denying that.) And to give you a formula on spin I used it's oExp/s.

The observation of entanglement is only easily explainable via one or more hidden variables. Defining the observed slowing of an atom clock when speeding it up as proving the slowing of time is incorrect. If it is only the slowing of the clock then speeds in excess of c for the observed need for such variables outside the SM and thus GR & QM must be assumed possible, as a most probable to be investigated possibility. And what does science already know then? That c is max? That time slows down? Incorrect definitions. Science doesn't know that. Yes for the SM c = max, indeed. The SM is filled with former hidden variables i.e. former unicorns. You as does a lot of science ignore the worth of a simple explanation in verbal logic addressing all relevant questions and giving a plausible explanation to all observations in a testable and thus falsifiable way. That is irrational. Observations are observations if done honestly and correctly. The question could be if what was observed on quarks has been systematically correctly been classified. So if someone provides a new systematic way to classify the SM only falling short in explaining quarks that is close enough to warrant further investigation. If the police would go about investigating suspects as scientists do they would be very slow in catching the culprits. Agree In part I agree. Yet in part not. It is not about encouraging people, but about application of incorrect norms. The norm of perfection is an incorrect norm for the furtherance of scientific knowledge. Trial and error is. If an idea whether it be in verbal logic or mathematics if it plausibly solves the stated problems, it warrants further investigation, if presented in a falsifiable way via a test. Indeed for you apply the wrong and thus much to high a norm before starting to support testing. That is anti scientific even. On a concept level verbal logic or word salad if you like is the correct scientific (albeit not mainstream accepted scientific) way to address problems with inherent as yet to few data to quickly encompass the entirety of the problem. Mathematics can't work that as quickly whereby close is close enough. You can't substitute this by being extremely accurate in predictions on part issues.That is a fallacy in reasoning. A prediction that the apple will fall upwards from the tree in certain testable circumstances, then that is a proper scientific prediction. You don't then have to give a formula or state how fast it will do so. If it is observed to fall upwards in a test, it suffices for a testable concept, and when shown to indeed fall upwards under such circumstances it constitutes a proven concept, warranting further investigation. Then you can start to investigate further. Or putting the mathematics to such a concept can also be seen as a test of logic. (The upwards falling apple is a metaphor for a prediction that contradiction of current science. Such as the law of Hubble was, or entanglement or DM before it all was observed.) Posing that science says it's pull excluding push as proven wrong based on only addressing part of the relevant problems is a fallacy. You can't then state anything other than that the concept of pull works brilliantly within certain limits. Yet that proves nothing on the larger issue. And that is the issue posed by the OP.