Strange

Then you don't deserve your job. Let someone competent have it.

See post #4

You could start by explaining the connection between your initial assertions and neutrinos. You could then show the mathematics that supports your assertions. And then show how the idea would be tested: what quantitative (i.e. mathematical) predictions does your model make that allow it to be tested and distinguished from existing theory.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" Carl Sagan (in that form) http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Extraordinary_claims_require_extraordinary_evidence

He might want to convert from pen_is to PenIs ...

There is no evidence to think that neutrinos can travel faster than light. Their speed has been measured by creating a source of neutrinos (your "neutrino cannon") and then measuring how long they take to get to the destination.

Well, it isn't. It is a purely classical thing and applies to anything propagating as waves.

That is series of complete non-sequiturs. You haven't said anything that seems relevant to the mass of neutrinos. There hasn't been any logic in this thread so far. Why should we expect that to change? Who are the "electromagnetism nuts"? (And in what way are they like conspiracy theorists?) What aspects of the photon would this explain?

Wrong thread. But most (all?) modern IDEs include refactoring tools that take care of all of this. For Java, I would recommend Netbeans (or Eclipse if you have already climbed the mountainous learning curve).

1. You should learn some basic physics rather than relying on sloppy journalism. 2. I said "you" cannot travel faster than light. No massive body can travel at or more than the speed of light. This is a better article, with a reference to the paper: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2000/jul/19/laser-smashes-light-speed-record And this appears to be the paper: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v406/n6793/full/406277a0.html Note that they very carefully use words like "appears" and explain why it does not contradict causality (i.e. that nothing can travel faster than light).

1. You cannot travel faster than light. 2. The change in the relative rate of time is explained by Einstein's theory of relativity. You may have missed this breakthrough, it only happened 110 years ago. I second Ophiolite's suggestion that you learn a little basic physics. They are indeed related in a number of ways, one of which is captured by the (partial) equation you have quoted (mangled). We also know that the energy of a photon is related to its wavelength. We also know that the momentum of a photon is related to its wavelength. Hence the full form of the equation: [latex]e = \sqrt{ (m_0 c^2)^2 + (pc)^2 }[/latex]

An assertion is not the same thing as an axiom. An axiom is a proposition that can be taken as self-evidently true. While an assertion is something that is stated without any supporting evidence or theory. So you might want to ask the moderators to remove the word "axiom" from the thread title. What is Gt amd how, exactly, does it vary? Do you realise that mc2/e = 1? So your saying that Gt varies as 1. That doesn't make any sense. That is incomprehensible. Just saying that there are unknown properties is not terribly useful. I think all scientists assume there are things we do not yet know.

It seems to me that you haven't made an argument. You have just asserted that computers can never have feelings, etc. I have read a lot of arguments for and against the possibility of "strong AI" or artificial consciousness. The arguments against it seem to all be variants of "it's not possible" while I have read some complex and subtle arguments for why it may be possible for computers to develop consciousness. In short, I have seen nothing to persuade me that the brain is capable of doing anything "magic" that cannot also be done by a computer. I suppose if you believe in some sort of soul or the mind being independent of the brain, then it may be hard to accept that. But as there is no evidence for such things then a science forum is probably not the place to ask about it. And welcome to the forum!

Sigh. You have totally failed in your task of explaining anything. As a reminder, here are my first three questions again. You have not answered any of these. Please do so. In your PDF you show a group of six symbols which you identify as follows: o=6, H=8, a=1, e=5, 8=8, 9=9 This just raises more questions. 7. Why do you say that the second symbol is an H with value 8 but the (nearly identical) symbol in the 3rd column, 1st row of your table has the value 3? 8. Why does the symbol in the 3rd column, 1st row of your table has the value 3? 9. Why do you equate the fourth symbol in this group with 'e' when it looks nothing like it? (For example, do you have examples of writing from the period where an 'e' is written like that?) 10. Why do you have a 'J' in the table of English letters when that letter did not exist at the time. (Someone else has already mentioned the fact you are not using the Welsh alphabet; you are not even using the correct English one.) 11. You make some vague references to the zodiac. What part does that play in your method? The other questions I asked were: You have not answered 1 out of this short list of 11 simple questions. Not one! Why is that? You lied. The only thing you have explained (again) is that you use numerology. OK. Let's make it a round dozen questions (because 12 is a magic number and 1+2=3): You use the word "scorpion" (rather than the Welsh word) and you also mention the zodiac. So we can assume you are referring to the sign of the zodiac. John Dee would not have called this sign "scorpion": "The latter part of the sign Scorpio ascendeth ..." http://www.mysteriousbritain.co.uk/occult/john-dee.html 12. Why are you using the English word ("scorpion") instead of the word used by Dee ("scorpio")? (It would be really funny if removing the erroneous J made scorpio come to the same numerological total as scorpion. It doesn't. I can't believe I checked that.)

It is very obviously nonsense. Because you are using numerology to reduce sets of symbols to a single digit. This means, as already explained, that there are many thousands of words that could correspond to each digit. In fact, there are thousands of such words in every (written) language. Therefore, one could take a list of random digits and "translate" it to many different words. These words could have completely different meanings and could even contradict each other. You could also "translate" that same string of digits to meaningless sequences of letters. And you could do this in English, Welsh, Latin, Chinese, Aramaic or Double Dutch. As a single string of digits can be equated to a word with any meaning in any language you can, of course, come up with any meaning you like for the words you identify in the manuscript. There is therefore no rational basis for the words you have identified. You could have chosen any that vaguely match the pictures from the thousands of other words available in each of the thousands of written languages. Therefore it is nonsense. You would need an extraordinary level of evidence (i.e. not incomprehensible pictures) to counter this mathematical fact.

Please stop posting images until you have EXPLAINED what you are doing. Please answer my questions. Thank you.

Interesting. Thanks.

pain threshold

sed? https://linux.die.net/man/1/sed

Students with a low __________ are likely to cheat more to achieve good grades when the class is especially difficult.

Disappointed that you are unwilling to explain your methodology. I suspect that it is because you know that it is nonsense.

Excellent analogy, well used to make some important points. I think a lot of people don't realise that the first evidence for dark matter was found in 1933. It seems rather unlikely that 83 years of excited young physicists, keen to make a name for themselves by discovering ground-breaking new physics, have failed to spot the obvious. At this point you can't even blame the "dogma" of science, narrow-minded scientists or Planck's "science advances one funeral at a time". We have had three generations of people looking at this. That is more than enough funerals to overcome any level of reluctance.

I was about to say: the electromagnetic fields of the atoms repel each other. But it is more complicated / interesting than that, because these interactions are also what hold atoms together in molecules.

It seems it would, in principle, be possible for LIGO to compare the reflected beam with an unreflected beam (i.e. straight out of the laser). If there were a difference in time, then it would appear as a slow drifting in and out of phase. I don't know if the system could be configured to do this, if they do this as part of their testing, if they might be interested in trying it during a maintenance period or ... (I am fairly sure experiments like this have been done - e.g. interferometers with different length arms - but probably not with the sensitivity that could be achieved with something like LIGO)

Good, that's what I thought!