Strange

Going back to your earlier example of Newton: when it was discovered that the precession of Mercury was not explained by Newton's theory, if someone had just said "abandon Newton" that would not have allowed the correct precession to be calculated. So abandoning other models does not, by itself, provide a solution. So, how exactly does "abandon all extreme metaphysical theories" answer the question of free will? The only reason your claim is "irrefutable" is because there appears to be nothing to refute. It is very clear. But, I suspect, not in the way you hope.

Why do you think that not enough time is being spent on these structures? How much is "enough"? What other areas should be dropped in favour of these? I don't expect you to answer those, but it's just to point out that all research work is a balance of resourcing, potential value, interest, feasibility, politics, and many other factors. No one person gets to decide what should be focussed on.

That's possible. It may show the uncompensated flow. Or maybe it is only active for high flow rates. Or ... <shrug> Thanks for clarifying.

From that first link, "what you said was so confused that one could not tell whether it was nonsense or not" could describe a quite a few threads going on currently... Then it shouldn't be hard to provide an example. You haven't given a solution. You have claimed there is one, but that's all.

True. And we will probably never be able to. But our current models include no boundaries. It is a reasonable working assumption (even if untestable) that the universe beyond he visible universe carries on much the same. Although it may change on very large scales, there is no reason to throw away the "approximately homogeneous" model - until it is found not to work.

But surely it goes round in normal use, doesn't it? (I was just trying to understand/explain the "reconcile" comment.)

In the Parkinson meter in that picture, it looks as if the dial would have to go round ten times for the reading to change (because the last (units) digit is painted on the display).

And it is only when you zoom out that you see the boundaries. As far as we know, the universe has no boundaries.

Maybe. But how much of a chance? Many ideas can be dismissed almost instantly by looking at the amount of support the idea has or by doing some simple calculations or looking at the evidence or using Occam's razor. Yours definitely falls into that category: it is meaningless, it has no support, there are no calculations and there is no evidence. Plus we already have a very good theory of space, time and gravity which is able to make accurate testable predictions. Yes. It is called "science". In other words, testing ideas against objective evidence. There is a great radio program on the BBC in England which interviews scientists about their lives. Recently there was one about Professor Christofer Toumazou who left school at 16 and trained to be an electrician. He is now Regius Professor of Engineering, Chief Scientist of the Institute of Biomedical Engineering, Professor of Circuit Design at Imperial College London; founder of Toumaz Holdings Ltd, CEO and founder of DNA Electronics Ltd. and Chief Scientific Advisor to GENEU. He has done some remarkable things in his field. However, he went to university and studied to do this. He didn't just make stuff up. Also, you seem to be making the same error that because a few (very few) people managed to rise above their circumstances, that somehow all random ideas should be treated equally seriously.

As you will see, that was one of my interpretations of what you meant. Perhaps you could clarify, as it appears that is incorrect.

Electrons are added to one plate (and removed from the other). It looks like it has been answered. Ideal capacitors don't have resistance, they have impedance. Real capacitors have some leakage current, which can be modelled as a parallel resistor (which should be very large), and some internal resistance, which can be modelled as a serial resistor (which should be very small). Real components obviously have some inductance, as well.

Or, to put it another way: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan

I think this is because the hydrogen and oxygen molecules are "adsorbed" onto the surface of platinum. This changes the bonding energy of the molecules and brings them closer together thus making the reaction easier (more energetically favourable). I'm not sure that the detailed physical processes involved are that well understood. (Well, not by me, anyway!)

But new ideas in science are based on experimental data, not just made-up stuff that makes no sense. And, before you ask, no one is going to "prove you wrong". Firstly, you haven't provided anything that could be tested or analysed in order to be shown to be wrong. You have made a series of statements, with no evidential or theoretical support that are contradicted by all known science (e.g. time=gravity). Most of these fall into the category of "not even wrong"; i.e. they are pretty much meaningless. Secondly, it is up to you, as the presenter of a new idea, to provide some reason (evidence, math, etc.) for people to consider the idea. You can't just say "but it might be right, science has been wrong before". Because on that basis, any random idea someone comes up with has to be treated with the same level of care. So if I say that the Sun is powered by invisible nano-dragons, should that be treated as seriously as your claim? Or should they both be dismissed as totally lacking any evidence? Science tends to follow the latter course.

OK. But could you explain which of these interpretations of your statement is correct (or neither). Then we can discuss what it means in more detail.

Simple answer: it isn't (if I understand what you are asking). Or, at least, both hydrogen and anti-hydrogen behave identically. Trapping anti-hydrogen to in large enough quantities and for long enough to measure its properties is one of the challenges of the ALPHA experiment at CERN.

Why do hackers confuse Halloween and Christmas? Because Oct 31 = Dec 25.

What proportion of UK power stations run on kerosene?

OK. So you don't know how compilers work. Fine.

Er, so it's portable as long as you don't want to port it. Therefore, not portable. Nope. There are few cases where a person can outperform a compiler. Intrinsics like that are only used to access specialised instructions. But a good compiler will use them anyway. When I worked in HPC, I don't remember anyone writing in assembler code. And certainly not "pure assembler". But you weren't talking about compiler bugs. They are pretty rare, anyway.

All you appear saying that all (western) philosophy is wrong. That is completely unhelpful. Obviously not. I assumed from the comment that started this, that you thought at least some philosophers had solved one or more problems. I was interested to find out what they might be. It seems like I read to much into your comment about Dennett (to me, "what problems has he solved" implied that others had solved problems). If I thought I knew the answer why would I ask the question? I asked because I hoped you were going to give some interesting examples of problems solved by philosophy. (And please stop telling me what I think and why. It would be annoying enough if you were right) Perhaps you can explain how simply dismissing whole swathes of philosophical thought is a solution to anything.

Yep, Googling gas meter compensator brings up lots of results (including several patents) for temperature compensation.

That is the sort of thing I was hoping to hear about. Apart from contributing to the definition/development of the scientific method, I can't really think of anything

So it isn't really relevant to physics. I doubt many people (nowadays) would disagree with that. People have moved on from thinking that science describes "reality" (whatever that means). Even if someone develops a "theory of everything" it won't be the last theory. People will continue to test it and improve it until they come up with a better theory of everything. (Maybe you should ask the moderators to move this to the Philosophy section as you are not actually proposing a new theory?)

OK. You can kill two birds with one stone here: show you are right and change my mind. What will change my mind is evidence (there is plenty of evidence to show that this is the case). So all you need to do is produce some evidence in place of repeated assertions. Objective, preferably quantitative, evidence for any one of your claims: atoms evolve, Newtons laws are random, whatever. Which is NOT evolution. As you have provided no evidence to suggest your idea is correct, it can be ignored. Atoms don't evolve. Also, that is a fairly useless generalization. On that basis, the big bang is also about how to cook the perfect Black Forest gateaux. But no, it is actually about the way the universe has developed from an early hot dense state. It relies on our knowledge of nuclear processes (among other things) to provide supporting evidence. but it doesn't in itself explain that. Unfortunately, one of us is suffering under the considerable disadvantage of being wrong. (That would be you.)