cixe Posted September 25, 2013 Author Posted September 25, 2013 As was asked above, I'm not sure where you get any sense of fear from, because that isn't it. Not sure why you think this has to be so confrontational... Let me put it this way. I don't accept just your word that anything you've written is correct or 'truth' without evidence presented that supports the correctness. This is in no way personal. This is true for everyone. If Newton, Einstein, Hawking, swansont, or my barber simply told me what was in your first post, I would still ask them for evidence to support it, what predictions can be made with the idea, and how closely those predictions match experiments. Science does this to everyone. In this way, science is very conservative. It is conservative that until a new model comes along and makes better predictions, science will stick with the previous model. Because there is no reason to replace a model that is making good predictions with a model that makes worse predictions. And science will be skeptical of all claims until evidence is presented to support that claim. (Look, as a farcical example, you wouldn't just believe me if I claimed to have an invisible dinosaur living in my garage, would you? Before you believed that, wouldn't you need some supporting evidence? I would hope so...) This does not mean that science isn't seeking new ideas. Because it is. Creativity like what you've shown above is needed. Craved. But the creative part is only one step in the scientific process. The next step is to take the creative model and show how it makes useful predictions. That's science. That's what I'm urging you to present. No fear here whatsoever. Just a skeptic that isn't going to simply take your word that what you've posted is truth. Because before I accept it as truth, I need you to show how well your model can be tested. It really is that simple. I did not state that it was true and Ive been clear that is speculaition. You don't know if my speculation is true or not. You nor any one else here, has offered any scenario that addresse my two challenges. It is getting difficult to keep track of these numerous tag-team-like responses, mostly whcih just keep where is the tests, it is not science etc.... Uh, yeah we got that covered in the very first reply to me. r6 r6
Bignose Posted September 25, 2013 Posted September 25, 2013 You don't know if my speculation is true or not. Exactly right. And neither do you. So, what exactly is the point of this thread, then? 1
cixe Posted September 25, 2013 Author Posted September 25, 2013 So why are you presenting it on a science forum? I gave you several random ways of arriving at 206. But the value you actually want is closer to 207. 1) Lets see, I seem to recall my first formal educational science book I can recall, was in 6th grade. It had a lot of different generalize and specific information in it, or so I presume. Planets, Earth or whatever the educational system considered science at that time. I don't recall geometry or leptons, although they perhaps made reference perhaps that stuff. Who can recall those kinds of details from 6th grade so many years later. Actually same goes for all of my generalized science classes and books on thorugh junior high. I personall think of anything having to do with how the Universe/Nature/Cosmos is structured, or blueprints or whatever to be in the realm of generalized sceince. My guess is that my belief is not that far off from the average person in and around my age group who is caucasion and went through the public school system. I dunno. 2) if you--- whoever you are ---gave me several gave me several random ways of arriving at 206, i'm sorry that I missed--- did NOT see them( sorry ) --- them because that may be exactly what was hoping for, tho again, I tried to be clear in opening post, not just some adding together of a linear set of arbitrary numbers that do not correlated to anything else, whereas my numbers correlate to specific sets of great circles, that, inturn correlate to specific set polyhedra symmetrical and asymmetrical polyehdra. Are the posts here numbered and if so, can you give me the number to your posts were you have all these random numbers that add to 206? Thx. Hopefully they will correlate to something significant, but I'm doubtfull that is the case. Sorry I missed them. I'm new to this forum and have not the foggiest idea of who I was replying too each time. It is like I'm in a wrestling match with tag-team of 10 or more people repeating similar stuff and not actually addressing the challenges I posted. So I hope you will address the 2nd challenge also. Thx r6 Exactly right. And neither do you. So, what exactly is the point of this thread, then? Huh,I hope you not serious. This sounds like more tag-team barking at moon irrationality. I'm sorry dude, if you dont know what the point of the thread is, then I'm not sure that your going back to my intial( #1 ) first post, will help you out much. If reading the first post does not give you the point, then it will take a far better explanatory person than myself to penetrated the surface of your mind/intelligence ha ha! r6 -2
Strange Posted September 25, 2013 Posted September 25, 2013 (edited) First, once again you have ignored the fact that the ratio is NOT 206. The value is closer to 207. You are calculating the wrong value. You should be calculating 207. Why do you keep ignoring this? I personall think of anything having to do with how the Universe/Nature/Cosmos is structured, or blueprints or whatever to be in the realm of generalized sceince. Not really. If I say that the planets are moved around in their orbits by invisible pink flying unicorns, that is not science. But it is exactly equivalent to the numbers you are making up: factually incorrect and with no basis in reality. Science is about gathering evidence and analysing it. Not making up stories that sound nice. 2) if you--- whoever you are ---gave me several gave me several random ways of arriving at 206, i'm sorry that I missed--- did NOT see them( sorry ) --- them because that may be exactly what was hoping for, tho again, I tried to be clear in opening post, not just some adding together of a linear set of arbitrary numbers that do not correlated to anything else, whereas my numbers correlate to specific sets of great circles The fact that you use great circles is irrelevant and polyhedra is irrelevant as these have nothing to do with muons or electrons. I use other factors which are equally relevant, therefore you have to agree that my calculations are exactly as significant as yours (i.e. not at all significant). Here they are again for you: It is the lowest positive integer (when written in English) to employ all of the vowels once only. There are exactly 206 different linear forests on five labeled nodes, and exactly 206 regular semigroups of order four up to isomorphism and anti-isomorphism. There are 206 bones in the typical adult human body. It is (mass of muon) / (mass of electron) - 1. (At least that last one has some connection with the physics under discussion.) Edited September 25, 2013 by Strange
cixe Posted September 25, 2013 Author Posted September 25, 2013 Your answer to my comment that you are calculating the wrong value was to say: Why are you not calculating 207, which is a closer integer approximation? Better still, why are you not calculating the correct value? Because I was still going on older data from references to Feynman quotes. Feynman probaly made his comments some 50 years ago if not more. The last time I looked into this --- some years ago --- that was still the info I found to deal with so that is why I recently used 206. Ok so it is 206. rounded off to 207. Do you really want me to SPECULATE on how or why the 206 may be or may not neccesarilmy be critical,at this stage of my research? Again, there is strong backwash that is very discouraging to have me keep posting here at all, on my already given statements, much less go off and another one. I will look into 207 for sure. If you want to take on my given two challenges as stated, then good luck. Some body here said they posted a buch of random numbers that add to 206. I've not seen those, so I have no idea if they are in anyway significant or comparble ,my procedure or "methdology" as someone else infers. Thx for the new( to me ) info regarding 206 rounded to 207. Some one in another group mentioned it also, but again both came only after I had began posting the other value, which I'm not quick to jump off just yet. Consider that, 206.7 is not a complete set of 207 great circles. 206.7 is a little over half-way, and since there are not specialists in this area of expertize---- finding geometric to particle association ----then we are still left to that God awfull speculation catagory of non-science, although who knows what we may find in a generalized science book these days. Black holes? Are black holes in science books? Ok, if they are, then how many years have we had verification of such? Oh wait I forgot, einstien and his formulae preditct them. Darn, got myself there :--)) What about string theory, is that in generalized science book? Etc.... r6
Bignose Posted September 25, 2013 Posted September 25, 2013 This sounds like more tag-team barking at moon irrationality...... penetrated the surface of your mind/intelligence Why are you being insulting? I have not insulted you. I have tried my best to get you to make your work more meaningful scientifically. You are free to ignore my advice, of course. But I'm going to ask that the name calling and intelligence insulting end, please. And since you have ignored my attempts to help you make your work better 3 times, I guess I am done with this thread. I suspect you won't miss me much. And I suspect it won't be open for much longer anyway since you steadfastly refuse to follow the rules. If you want to take on my given two challenges as stated, then good luck. I gotta reply to this two, since you've tossed it out many times. This is YOUR thread. We are discussing YOUR model, and the lack of tests and predictions it makes. Frankly, I'd rather have no model at all, than one that makes no predictions and can't pass any tests. At least with no model at all, you won't be tempted to try to explain something that the model can't do. Science is not confrontational like you are making it here. And it certainly doesn't just accept a model simply because there aren't any competitors to it. Science only accepts a model when it has shown some usefulness at making accurate predictions.
Strange Posted September 25, 2013 Posted September 25, 2013 Ok so it is 206. rounded off to 207. No it isn't 206 rounded to 207. Why on Earth would anyone round 206 to 207? It is 206.7682843 (which is obviously much closer to 207 than 206). So why are you wasting your time calculating the wrong value using irrelevant methods? 207 is 3x3x23 which is obviously much more important.
cixe Posted September 26, 2013 Author Posted September 26, 2013 First, once again you have ignored the fact that the ratio is NOT 206. The value is closer to 207. You are calculating the wrong value. You should be calculating 207. Why do you keep ignoring this? Not really. If I say that the planets are moved around in their orbits by invisible pink flying unicorns, that is not science. But it is exactly equivalent to the numbers you are making up: factually incorrect and with no basis in reality. Science is about gathering evidence and analysing it. Not making up stories that sound nice. The fact that you use great circles is irrelevant and polyhedra is irrelevant as these have nothing to do with muons or electrons. I use other factors which are equally relevant, therefore you have to agree that my calculations are exactly as significant as yours (i.e. not at all significant). Here they are again for you: It is the lowest positive integer (when written in English) to employ all of the vowels once only. There are exactly 206 different linear forests on five labeled nodes, and exactly 206 regular semigroups of order four up to isomorphism and anti-isomorphism. There are 206 bones in the typical adult human body. It is (mass of muon) / (mass of electron) - 1. (At least that last one has some connection with the physics under discussion.) Huh, your not making sense. I stated nothing about 'unicorns". I stated what may have been found in generalized sciences books then and now. Not only that but many times what was in generalized science books was incorrect then, incorrect now and will be incorrect in the future. You don't know that great circles are irrelevan to any sub-atomic particles. Your saying so is your belief, not evidence and not a scientific proof of no association between leptons and GrCP's. Next you apear to go into defining the number or attributes of the number 206. That is not what I have done with great circles adding to 206. I.e. defininng attributes of 206 is does not in anyway address my given challenge to others here. This is lame atttempt and in no way comparble to what Ive done. Then you go name sets of things there 206 and again, that is not what I have done so your attempt is again lame, at best, and certainly no way comparable to have I have done with the GrCP's, ergo it does not address the my given set of two challenges to others here. If you really think that bones( calcium plus ) are reprsentative of the asking and discovering why the electron repeats its mass at approximately 206 times itself, then your they should bemaking alot attempts at discouraging you from posting here in speculation catagory than me. The 25 GrCP's are derived from the cubo-octahedron/jittterbug and the jbug will transform into the a Eucliedean pattern that is exactly the same the EM double sine-wave, without violating the topology-- i,e no breakage or crossing over of the vectorial lines/struts/edges/trjectories. Based on you irrational, non-logic nonsense, you are likey next going to suggest to others, that, if we take some bones and place them into pattern of teh EM double-sine wave that bones again are associated with the structure of EM double-sine wave. I'm sorry dude, your bones are irrelevant to anything I've stated other than the number 206 appears in your post. Lame an that is the only nice thing can be said about your irrational approach to addressing my given challenges, i.e like the others you have nothing of significance to offer so instead of nothing you go the irrational deep end of nonsense. Lame. Please comeback when you actually have something that can even begin to be comparble to my givens. I'm sorry but there is no irrational nonsense catagory in this forum. Lame at best! R6 Why are you being insulting? I have not insulted you. I have tried my best to get you to make your work more meaningful scientifically. You are free to ignore my advice, of course. But I'm going to ask that the name calling and intelligence insulting end, please. And since you have ignored my attempts to help you make your work better 3 times, I guess I am done with this thread. I suspect you won't miss me much. And I suspect it won't be open for much longer anyway since you steadfastly refuse to follow the rules. I gotta reply to this two, since you've tossed it out many times. This is YOUR thread. We are discussing YOUR model, and the lack of tests and predictions it makes. Frankly, I'd rather have no model at all, than one that makes no predictions and can't pass any tests. At least with no model at all, you won't be tempted to try to explain something that the model can't do. Science is not confrontational like you are making it here. And it certainly doesn't just accept a model simply because there aren't any competitors to it. Science only accepts a model when it has shown some usefulness at making accurate predictions. Huh, your barking at the moon is analogy of what you or others were doing. Sorry if you feel insulted. My intent to get you back on track and stop repeating what has been stated in so many ways from the very first reply. If you want to feel insulted well, I cant control peoples sensitivities i.e. I ve met people who wanted to punch me for looking at them. Barking at the moon over and over, is good analogy of what is happening. "tag team" insults you. Hey dude, thats how I feel on my end. Your insulted becuase I feel like I'm taking on 10 person tat-team. You try on my end for a while and see how you express yourself. There is not scientific process going on here, and sorry I've seen nothing in your comments that is somehow going to turn my speculations into "meaningfull scientifiv". When you have something that does that please share. repeated barking at the moon, same same ole is not benificial to me or others. When you or others actually have any scenario that addresses my two challenges with rational logic please share. Adding together linear set of arbitrary numbers is not comparable scenario, nor is the facts regarding that there 206 bones in the body as someone else lame attempt. 206 tooth picks in a box doesn't count either. I stated this just so we don't go off with another cadence of repeated barking at the moon with irrrational nonsense over and over. So the challenge still stands and nothing of any significance much less rational or logical has been offerrend and never will is my best guess. Please prove me incorrect. No it isn't 206 rounded to 207. Why on Earth would anyone round 206 to 207? It is 206.7682843 (which is obviously much closer to 207 than 206). So why are you wasting your time calculating the wrong value using irrelevant methods? 207 is 3x3x23 which is obviously much more important. If you don't understand the concept of rounding higher or lower, then it will take someone with better explanatory abilities than mine to pentrate your surface mind/intelligence in those regards Sorry dude. I've already addresse this question twice. My last response too--- and I have no idea which member of this seeming tag-team that was ----, as I'm being overwhelmed on this end. Huh? if and when you want to actually explain why your given 3 * 3 23 is significant please share. I at least gave specifics of my methodolgy. Hopefully yours will be better than 206 bones, 206 toothpicks or even 207 of this or that.... ha ha...that other dude is extraordinarly lame with his approach, because he is insincere. Sincerity of heart is importantly quality to any forum and anything else is not worthy. Except nonserious humor. :--) r6 -1
Bignose Posted September 26, 2013 Posted September 26, 2013 (edited) My intent to get you back on track and stop repeating what has been stated in so many ways from the very first reply. I only repeated myself because it seemed you didn't understand what I was saying. Because you didn't really address any of the issues I asked about. I.e. namely you are not doing science. Challenging us to make our own models and to quit asking you about tests is not science. You even pretty much said that you have no idea if your model is right or not. This is not science. But this is a science forum. Here we talk science. Not the wishing of what we want nature to behave like, but what we think nature is like because the models we have of nature make predictions that agree excellently with what is observed. In other words, we follow the rules of science -- which you can't or won't do. So again, I am at the point where I don't understand why you started a thread on a science forum if you can't or won't follow the scientific process. Edited September 26, 2013 by Bignose
CaptainPanic Posted September 26, 2013 Posted September 26, 2013 ! Moderator Note Everybody, Please keep the discussion polite. Please refrain from mockery, especially now that it has become apparent that not all participants to the thread can distinguish between mockery and serious posts. We need to avoid confusion as much as possible. cixe, One issue we have with your posts is that you "believe" things, and it is apparent that a lot of others do not share your belief. So, either come up with some proof, or stop posting. That is how science works. If you keep repeating your beliefs, you are "soapboxing" or "preaching" which is against our rules. In addition, you have been asked multiple times to address the fact that you seem to explain a value of 206 (or maybe 207), while others say that the value for the muon-electron mass ratio is 206.7682843. It is up to you to make an effort to reach out, and address this exact value of 206.7682843. If you fail to do so, you are not participating in the discussion, which is against the rules. Breaking the rules too long will get the thread closed, and will get you punished one way or another. Do not respond to this moderator note. Instead, respond to the posts written by the other members.
Strange Posted September 26, 2013 Posted September 26, 2013 (edited) You don't know that great circles are irrelevan to any sub-atomic particles. And you don't know that the number of vowels in the word is irrelevant. I have exactly the same amount of evidence for this argument as you do. This is lame atttempt and in no way comparble to what Ive done. I'm afraid it is exactly the same as what you have done. We have both done some work with things that have no connection to the subject (great circles or number of vowels) and come up with 206. My "proof" is exactly as valid as yours. If you don't understand the concept of rounding higher or lower Of course I understand the concept of rounding. You suggested that 206 would be "rounded" to 207. There is no reason for rounding an integer to another integer. It is already rounded. You keep saying you have answered the question of why you are using 206 instead of 206.7682843 (which could be rounded to 207) but I am not able to find any such answer. Please either state which post you answered this in or provide the answer here. Edit: OK, I see you made a reference to an old comment by Feynman which mentioned 206. Why do you insist on using an out of date and inaccurate value rather than the correct value? Edited September 26, 2013 by Strange
cixe Posted September 26, 2013 Author Posted September 26, 2013 ! Moderator Note Everybody, Please keep the discussion polite. Please refrain from mockery, especially now that it has become apparent that not all participants to the thread can distinguish between mockery and serious posts. We need to avoid confusion as much as possible. cixe, One issue we have with your posts is that you "believe" things, and it is apparent that a lot of others do not share your belief. So, either come up with some proof, or stop posting. That is how science works. If you keep repeating your beliefs, you are "soapboxing" or "preaching" which is against our rules. In addition, you have been asked multiple times to address the fact that you seem to explain a value of 206 (or maybe 207), while others say that the value for the muon-electron mass ratio is 206.7682843. It is up to you to make an effort to reach out, and address this exact value of 206.7682843. If you fail to do so, you are not participating in the discussion, which is against the rules. Breaking the rules too long will get the thread closed, and will get you punished one way or another. Do not respond to this moderator note. Instead, respond to the posts written by the other members. I only repeated myself because it seemed you didn't understand what I was saying. Because you didn't really address any of the issues I asked about. I.e. namely you are not doing science. Challenging us to make our own models and to quit asking you about tests is not science. You even pretty much said that you have no idea if your model is right or not. This is not science. But this is a science forum. Here we talk science. Not the wishing of what we want nature to behave like, but what we think nature is like because the models we have of nature make predictions that agree excellently with what is observed. In other words, we follow the rules of science -- which you can't or won't do. So again, I am at the point where I don't understand why you started a thread on a science forum if you can't or won't follow the scientific process. I only repeated myself because it seemed you didn't understand what I was saying. Because you didn't really address any of the issues I asked about. I.e. namely you are not doing science. Challenging us to make our own models and to quit asking you about tests is not science. You even pretty much said that you have no idea if your model is right or not. This is not science. But this is a science forum. Here we talk science. Not the wishing of what we want nature to behave like, but what we think nature is like because the models we have of nature make predictions that agree excellently with what is observed. In other words, we follow the rules of science -- which you can't or won't do. So again, I am at the point where I don't understand why you started a thread on a science forum if you can't or won't follow the scientific process. I've addressed as bet I can eveyones concerns, repeatedly, there is nothing new here above to respond to and certainly does not meet the criteria of my two challenges. When you can do that please share. r6
CaptainPanic Posted September 26, 2013 Posted September 26, 2013 ! Moderator Note This thread was reviewed by multiple moderators, and it is our opinion that you fail to engage in the discussion. Regardless of the reason why you do this, you violate the 1st rule of the Speculations forum, and therefore the thread will be closed. Do not open a new thread on this topic. If you have new additional information that addresses some of the questions that were asked, contact the staff and we will consider to reopen the thread.Thread closed.
Recommended Posts