Strange

And you don't think that is "it is illogic and unrealistic to human’s mind" ? Bizarre. What evidence do you have for this idea of yours? Please show us a mathematical analysis and the predictions it makes. I'm not holding my breath. This is a very common delusion among people who make up these sort of random ideas. What is means is that you are not doing science.

Not directly because of the maths. But, for example, GR describes the effects of gravity better than Newtonian gravity does. We know there are places where Newton's theory is wrong: it doesn't agree with real observations. (But most of the time it is good enough.) We do not (yet) know any places where GR does not agree with reality. Therefore if someone has a new theory that produces results different from GR, then their theory must produce different results than reality. Therefore their theory is wrong. (Of course, they might have a new theory that produces exactly the same results as GR. But then you just have choice of two equivalent theories - neither of them a re wrong. Until you can find some data that is explained by one but not the other.) It doesn't. GR is completely different from Newton's theory, for example. (But, in the cases where Newton's theory is correct, then GR and Newton's theory agree.)

If we didn't have relativity, then Hubble's observations would, perhaps, have been explained in a different way. But it would have left people scratching their heads over an awful lot of other observations...

It is a fallacy to say that "this word used to mean ..." because what a word means today is not defined by what it meant in the past (even more so, if that was in another language). Indeed. The way science is done has evolved over the centuries. We have become more rigorous about it but people did good science in the ancient past.

There was an experiment that appeared to show this (it was very famous at the time). Eventually they tracked down the error - a faulty cable connecting one of the instruments, I think. The final result was that the neutrinos travel at so close to the speed of light, we can't really tell the difference. (And it wasn't 60 seconds, it was 60 billionths of a second over a distance of about 700 km.) If you measure g in feet/s/s then there is no connection to the value of pi (the connection has "vanished" or was never there). You can't. And even though chicken and socks was a joke, this is a very important point. One way of checking equations in science is to do "dimensional analysis" - check that the metres, seconds, chickens, etc on one side of the equation are the same on one side of the equation as the other. That is why one of the answers to your initial question was: You were trying to convert between something with no units and something with metres and seconds. This is like trying to convert between chickens and socks: meaningless. Pi does not just apply to perfect circles. For example, the equations for an ellipse also involve pi. But you are right, in curved space, the ratio of diameter to circumference is no longer pi. If you draw a circle on the surface of a ball and measure the circumference and diameter, you will find they are not in the ratio pi. In fact, the ratio changes depending on the size of the circle. For a small circle, the value will be close to pi. For the largest circle, it will be 2 (I think). But I bet the formula connecting the size of the circle and this ratio ... involves pi!

Some of this might be inherent mental ability/attitude. Some of it is also about training: learning to question things, learning how to design tests and experiments, learning how to question whether those experiments are telling you what they seem to, questioning your own ideas, etc. If you have a current theory that is "correct" (i.e. it accurately describes reality) then a new theory must agree with that theory if it also agrees with reality. That is why any theory that claims to show that relativity is wrong, for example, must be itself be wrong. Of course we sometimes make new discoveries which show that what we knew before was incomplete. For example, Newton came up with his "Universal Law of Gravitation". This was fine for a few hundred year but then some very accurate measurements of planetary motions showed that they could not be described Newton's laws. This was one of the motivations for Einstein (and others) to come up with a new theory of gravity. You solve the equations for a spherical mass. The equations tell you that if the mass is within a radius smaller than some limit, then light will not be able to escape (and all the other properties of black holes). These equations tell you what we should look for to identify a black hole. We have observed a number of objects in space that are consistent with these predictions. And perhaps they can only be explained by these equations. So we conclude that they are probably black holes. Sorry, I just meant the different things we would observe; maybe I should have said "this, that or the other". (I forget how literally you take things.)

No. Observing can be scientific (depending how it is done) but is not, by itself, science. That is the etymological fallacy. An example is not an error. (And why do you think anyone has taken offence?)

All sorts of different lines of evidence. One of the first clues that the theory might be correct was Hubble's observation that distant galaxies are receding with a velocity proportional to their distance. A bit of thought shows that this is equivalent to all galaxies moving away from each other. The theory made a number of predictions, which have been matched by observation. One of these was the nature and temperature of the cosmic background. When this was observed (accidentally) and found to match the theory exactly, then it was "game over" for the other models. True. We can only speak with any certainty about the observable universe. It is entirely possible that the universe beyond point that is actually populated by chocolate unicorns dancing the fandango. But it is considerably more likely that the universe beyond the observable universe is largely similar to what we see - for some distance, at least.

No, it means that tangential movement is required for orbits. Gravitational force works purely radially (contrary to your assertion). There is no science related to the "creation" of the universe. And what does it have to do with the subject anyway? That seems irrelevant to science. Although I suppose you could replace "believe" with "understand".

The example was about physics, but it would seem relevant to all science. But these are not "random" explorations. They are based on scientific hypotheses ("if there was water/life/atmosphere in the past then we would see x/y/z"); in other words, predictions of what would be found if the hyopthesis were true. Then instruments are built to test these predictions.

The hard work (and fun) comes from finding ways to test your proposed explanation (a hypothesis) so that it can, perhaps, become accepted as a theory. The other exciting thing is stumbling across something unexpected. A large amount of interesting science is about testing things that every takes for granted, things that everyone "knows" is true ... and then finding that it isn't true, and that the real world is more complex and surprising than we initially think. "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not Eureka! (I found it!) but rather, 'hmm... that's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov (well, it is attributed to Asimov, I'm not sure if he really said it)

And that is for one you know has been reviewed and has, perhaps, been referenced or recommended by someone else.

You can learn the details later but, intuitively, something that is more massive (has a greater mass) can store more heat than something with less mass (at a given temperature). So a small piece of metal can store less heat than a larger piece. I would expect an aluminium sheet to be lighter, and therefore store less heat than a steel sheet of the same size (which is heavier). And so it might cool quicker than a piece of steel. But as you say: specific heat - this is the amount of heat per unit mass that different materials can store. This complicates the simple intuitive idea above. However, I think studiot's point about the surface area of a flat sheet (compared to a cube or sphere of the same amount of metal) is probably more significant. The colour of the surface will also have an effect. But I don't think the "apparent colour" (i.e. it appearing darker because it is in the shade of the computer) is important. But a (matt) black surface is more effective at absorbing heat and (perhaps surprisingly) also more effective at radiating heat than a light colour. Not at all. You have noticed something. You have come up with some ideas about what factors might be involved. You have learnt about some of the other factors that might be relevant. Maybe you could think of some experiments you could do that might help you identify which effects are real or important, and which have little or no effect. (That is the beginnings of a scientific enquiry. Then you could start to think about what might cause those experiments to give wrong or confusing results, and how you would change them to eliminate other effects. And so on ....) This might encourage you to keep looking and thinking about why things happen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mpemba_effect

Ah yes, a very good point. Nicholas, you might also want to think about the weight (mass) of the aluminium plate compared to, say, a piece of steel of the same size. And what this might mean for the amount of heat stored in the plate. (Keyword to look up: specific heat.)

The speed of light is constant. Acceleration due to gravity on other planets is different from on Earth (i.e. not constant). It is not a force. It is just the expansion of space (i.e. the distance between things). It certainly appears to be. No, it can't be used as volume. It is just a number. Although it is used in the calculation of the volume of a cylinder or a sphere (because they are round). Just a note: each of your statements so far appear to have no logical connection whatsoever. You seem to making completely random statements. I don't know why. It can be. There are some very good resources. On the other hand, there is a lot of crap (like the Mayan stuff you mention).

What do you mean by "inverse of a path"?

Crime rates are quite low in Holland, but if this really is the solution to all our problems then there are better examples to choose from: http://www.civitas.org.uk/crime/crime_stats_oecdjan2012.pdf

That has nothing to do with the judicial system. Why post a complete non sequitur? There are problems with growing population but, as far as I am aware, nothing that can't be managed. There are good (scientific) estimates that enough food can be grown to feed the largest predicted population. Of course, one thing we might (?) agree on is that poverty, hunger and famine are not caused by a lack of resources but by bad governance and lack of access to education.

No you said that "the vast majority of scientists state" that the system fails. So where is the reference to this scientific work? And who decides who is "open minded"? Is it the ones who agree with you?

The only thing I hope that you learn from this thread is that what you are doing has nothing at all to do with science. Not even science communication. It may be an artistic or imaginative endeavour and have some intrinsic value because of that. But that's it. I meant purely in terms of how the birds are drawn on the screen (as that was the only connection with triangles that I could discern). They could equally well have been drawn as points, lines, circles, hexagons or random blobs. They could have been drawn as photorealistic renderings. This would not require them to be represented by triangles. So, yes, you can impose triangles on things but that says more about you than it does about reality. For example, consider ray-tracing. In this case, the simplest object to represent is a sphere. To model a triangle is significantly more complex as you have to define the equation for the surface (which is more complex than for the sphere) and the boundary conditions. In fact, in almost all physics, modelling things as spheres or circles is the simpler option. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cow

Where does your proposal fit in those alternatives? I assume it is 2? If so, why can you not explain IN DETAIL what these "slight adjustments" are? All you have said is "appoint some wise judges". Don't you think that is what people already try to do? Judges are not perfect. The selection process is not perfect. So, how about you explain how you will improve this process? Is the only answer to have you oversee the choosing of all judges? As you are obviously smarter than everyone else... 7. Deny that anything is going wrong (contrary to what the vast majority of scientists state.) Please provide a reference to a peer-reviewed paper stating that there is nothing wrong with current legal and/or political systems.

I assume this fits your idea because the birds are simplified to triangles? But they could be equally well represented by points, lines, squares or circles.... On the other hand, the flocking behaviour is described by just three rules so I suppose you can consider there to be a "triangle" at the heart of it (if you are more interested in art than science).

Yes, that can happen in a single generation. There are some examples here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

There is absolutely no connection between g and the speed of light. Pi occurs frequently because many things involve waveforms or cycles and (as you know) pi is related to circles. This is also why it is realted to g, remember: the pendulum - because it swings backwards and forwards (cyclically, forming part of a circle), pi is involved in describing its motion. And this was used to define the meter. If all of the objects in the animation are being affected by Earth's gravity then yes. I don't know why you have gone off on this tangent.

It is more complicated than describing the movement of a golf ball in terms of just two vectors - which is all that is needed (and is not an oversimplification). You have not described (quantitatively) how these triangles interact. Therefore, they add nothing to the model in terms of descriptive or predictive power. Yes, and there is mathematics that describes how to do that in two dimensions. (You have not provided an equivalent for the 3D world, or for 4D space-time.) And then there is mathematics to describe how to transform and render those triangles. But all of that is irrelevant. Even if a CGI rendering of a golf ball is done using triangles, the physics of its movement will be done using two vectors. You still have not explained the advantage of your model. That can often be done using a single point (e.g. the golf ball example). So why do we need thousands of triangles? And how does your model help us do that?