Strange

But that is exactly what you are doing. Then you will need to show that all existing theories and the mountains of evidence for them are wrong. So please explain, in appropriate mathematical detail, how you plan to replace: - electromagnetism (starting with Maxwell's equations, perhaps) - quantum theory (from the black body spectrum to quantum electrodynamics to quantum chronodynamics) - the standard model of particle physics - special and general relativity Because you are saying that all of these are wrong. You may claim (people like you frequently do) that none of that changes, that "the mathematics for my theory is exactly the same", etc. In which case, what is the point of your theory? (And can you prove that the mathematics of your theory is is the same? No, of course not.) In fact it isn't a theory, it is just a story you have made up for yourself to make it feel as if you understand. This is just intellectually lazy; it would be more productive to actually study science instead of rejecting it like this.

These phenomena can only be explained if electromagnetic radiation is quantised. You said it isn't therefore you cannot explain them. But hang on ... "light is excited particles". So it is quantised? Please make up your mind. Oh, that sort of antigravity. You mean things like fridge magnets, string, floors and ladders. I thought you meant some means of controlling gravity. Silly me. You should go to Tokyo and travel on the monorail. That is pretty large scale. They have completely different properties. Superconductors do not show any effect on gravity. Just because a magnet can exert a force does not make it gravity. Then you should be able to provide some evidence of this. For example, sound is affected by the movement of the medium it travels through. Perhaps an experiment to detect the effect of the movement of the medium on light? Do you think anyone has ever tried that? Also, if sound cannot travel through the (near perfect) vacuum of space, how can light?

So how do you explain the photoelectric effect and the "ultraviolet catastrophe"? Then why hasn't anyone demonstrated it yet?

And that's the problem. that is not what "three dimensional" means to everyone else, and certainly not to scientists. There are very obviously 3 space dimensions and 1 time dimension.

By the way, the introductory front matter of a book is called a "foreword" nor a "forward".

I would say that philosophers analysed and refined the scientific method after scientists had been using it on an ad-hoc basis for several centuries. Philosophers also put mathematics on a solid, axiomatic basis.

You are the one making the claim: it is up to you to show that it is testable and then that there are tests that support your claim. All the tests that have been done so far show that you are wrong.

But it is not possible to avoid conditional execution (if you want to create a general purpose computer / language).

http://www.antenna-theory.com/antennas/halfwave.php http://www.antenna-theory.com/antennas/dipole.php A vertical antenna is an antenna that is, er, vertical.

When have I done that? That sounds a bit like different interpretations of quantum theory. You can choose the explanation you want, but they are all describing the same underlying theory. From what I know (which is not much) we cannot say anything about the path of a photon.

Good for you for questioning it! However, the "wave-like" nature comes from the theory that describes how things behave at that level. The double slit experiment is just one example of that. I don't have time to try and write a longer explanation now, but it might be useful to read a bit of the history of how quantum theory came about.... The thing is, how would the defelction by electrons you suggest cause it to form an interference pattern exactly as if it were a wave with the given wavelength? Science doesn't really work with "things we don't know about". It needs models based on what we do know. But scientists are constantly looking out for "new physics". For example, that is one of the reasons for doing new versions of the double slit experiment; in the hope that it will not match theory and suggest there is something we don't know about. I'm not sure there is enough detail to rule it out. Ideas are usually ruled out by making predictions which are tested by experiment. So there doesn't seem any immediate reason to rule it out. But you would need to either show that it explains the evidence better (more accurately or more simply, for example) than current theory or suggest an experiment that would produce a different result if you were right. (Both of these approaches would require quite a lot of maths.) There was a recent thread on this: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86284-particle-detectors/ In the case of electrons, I think a phosphor screen is commonly used. But there are many other possibilities.

If they are not willing to do this already, why would it change? Do you think there should be some sort of formal application form that has to be filled out before they are allowed to post anything? But they would never do that. (And it is more work for the moderators.) These people are arrogant and intellectually dishonest. They would claim this was censorship and suppression of their rights. They would continue to post nonsense in other threads, etc.

As I say, you need to take your time and organise your ideas and then present them in a structured way, moving logically from one step to the next, providing any necessary detail. (You can use your latest post as an example of how not to to do this.) I suppose that is a part of what defines the Internet. But I don't find it very compelling. For example, how is this different from telephones or television, or even newspapers. No. It is not a version of reality, it is a means of communication (as you say above). No. Unless you explain what you mean by "two dimensional" in this context. Audio-visual communication with other inhabitants, I suppose. (According to your definition above.) YouTube videos of kittens, mainly. I'm not sure what that means. Is it the old philosophical problem of qualia? It has no reality. Spatially yes. But that excludes time. And what does this have to do with the Internet? You are apparently making another unconnected leap. We experience time and space, yes. (If that is what you mean.) That series of random statements doesn't appear to have anything to do with either your initial sentences nor with gravity. Just more random "mind pops".

I think you will need to provide a little bit more information. How can anyone tell you what the initial velocity of an electron is? And the final velocity depends on what is accelerating it.

Yes. That is what science does. But thanks for not answering the question. Again. So you are criticising the moderators because of your inability to navigate the forum. Pathetic. The forum has a nice feature called "ignore". I think I will make use of it.

That s exactly what is meant by "causally connected". They came from the same place. The same person wrote the specs. The size of the cups was specified in advance. And so on. If they were not causally connected then there would be no connection between them. One would be a microwave and the other would be a dumper truck. Sorry, you are the one making claims here. It is up to you to support your idea. You can look up the appropriate maths in any relevant text book. Or ask questions in the relevant parts of the forum. Oh the irony. This from the guy who has no maths and doesn't understand the theory he is attempting to replace.

But that is what happens (or what we try to get to happen). It is usually a waste of time because these people are not interested in science and not interested in learning. They just want people to accept what they say.

That is what I always try to do. Gently explain why their idea won't work. Try and get them to understand the scientific process and what they would need to do to test the idea. Encourage them to learn a little basic physics, etc. In about 99% of cases, this is a waste of time as these people are not interested in learning.

Generally, that is what happens: 1. Someone states their idea in Speculations. - Note that this rarely a new idea; it is a variation of something we have seen multiple times before. 2. They are asked for supporting evidence and how they explain the evidence which contradicts their idea. - Evidence is usually lacking or is too vague to be useful. - Contradictory evidence is ignored or dismissed with a variety of excuses - This process normally shows up a number of serious gaps in the speculators knowledge and understanding. The thread may turn into an attempt to educate them. This is not usually taken well as most speculators are not interested in learning. 3. Given the lack of evidence or other support, the speculator will be politely asked how they would test their idea. - This requires some quantitative information (how can you test it otherwise) - Often they will insist that it doesn't need to be tested because it is correct. At this point the speculator may make a number of statements such as comparing themselves to Galileo, saying they are being censored or persecuted, expecting someone else to do their work for them, etc. They will explain that the idea must be right "because I have been working on it for 20 years" or because it is "logical". They may further assert that the idea is important and possibly urgent. They will probably say that they expect to be proved right in a few years. (Go on, have a look; see how many threads include several of these traits.) 4. Ramp up tension. Go to 1. And that is for the threads that allow for some sort of sensible discussion. A large proportion are just meaningless gibberish. And do you get them to measure and compare the speeds? Or do they just admire them running quickly down a slope? If the former, then MATHS and, potentially, science. (If the latter, then it is no more than children playing with toy cars.)

And so are the days. What do you think the net effect is?

And that will affect solar power because ... ?

He didn't just show changes in speed ("oh look it goes faster"). He measured and quantified the changes. In other words: maths.

Again, this is the same straw man argument as before. No one is saying that observation and new ideas should be ignored. However, those are almost totally lacking in the Speculations forum. In which case they will be wasting their time. How do you "try it out" as you say, without maths? You can't. As the example of Galileo demonstrates.

Why would mascons affect solar power?

How do you know that arriving at the same time is significant without maths? How would you know what it meant for one to arrive before the other without maths? That is the thing: they didn't arrive at the same time. But, without maths, you can't define what "at the same time" means and so all you can say is, "it looked like they arrived at the same time". How do you know that the difference wasn't too small to see? What was the exposure time of the photo? How do you demonstrate that this is inconsistent with an alternative theory of gravity that says the real lemon should arrive first (by a really tiny amount)? You can't answer any of those questions without maths. Therefore, you might be doing a fun demonstration but it isn't science. Any scientist (or test engineer) would tear this to shreds as an experimental setup.