uncool

And relativity, which you have decided to deny. Remember? First, this doesn't demonstrate any "experimental evidence point[ing] to the nonexistence of quarks", so you have misplaced it. Second, no, saying that it "involves one quark metamorphosing into another", which is very poorly worded, is not a religious theory; it is a scientific theory that makes specific testable falsifiable predictions - including how often such a "metamorphosis" will happen. And guess what - those predictions are borne out. Which your idea - not a hypothesis, not a theory - fails to do. A unification involves specific testable predictions; your idea - not a hypothesis, not a theory - does not make any specific testable predictions. Now this is an out and out lie. People are prepared to accept that quarks can be wrong. Not only that, people here told you exactly what they would need to accept that quarks are wrong. What they are not prepared to do is assume that quarks are wrong without any evidence that they are wrong. Your idea - not a theory, not a hypothesis - has no evidence, and fails to even explain the current experimental evidence at all. You would have done better attempting to find specific testable predictions and actually carrying out experiments. Alternatively, you would have done better learning what current physics really states, rather than your complete and utter misunderstandings of it based on media popularizations of the physics. Given your inability to understand why physicists are so fully convinced, it probably is pointless for you to carry on. Note, however, that that reflects on your ignorance and arrogance, not on the physicists. =Uncool-

Uh. Orthogonal group generators are antisymmetric. =Uncool-

Symmetrical how? Do you mean that transposing takes the group to itself? =Uncool-

Which demonstrates precisely what I said - that what's required is an understanding of mainstream science. The examinations are written to test the understanding of mainstream science; by answering from the point of view of an alternative paradigm, the student is denying any chance to evaluate the student based upon their understanding of the mainstream view, and therefore is about as good an answer as a blank page. =Uncool-

I have the impression that you know some mainstream science, but that you have no experience of actually working on science within the mainstream. On a side note, would you mind using the quote function in the future, similarly to how I'm using it? Quantum mechanics does not require rational numbers in the least. Quantum mechanics deals with the reals and complex numbers just as much (if not more so) than classical mechanics does. No, I have not written any books. =Uncool-

So tax payers reach into their pockets and pay the men working on roads and the government is not connected to it in any way???? I wondered why people stop and give the workers money.... no wait those are panhandlers.... Yes, government is involved in it up to their eyeballs and that is the problem.[/QUOTe] Wait. Stop here. So you agree that "built by tax payers" does mean government sponsored, no? The rest of your objections are saying that there is pork. But that doesn't address the point - it shifts the goalposts. The point we are trying to address is whether the government did sponsor roads and bridges, which you denied when you said "never paid for by government, just the ones built by tax payers". So which is it? Did the government sponsor those roads and bridges or not? =Uncool-

But different speculations are not necessarily equal. That is why direct evidence allows us to evaluate which theories are closer to experimental outcome and which further away. Err. What? No, they don't. Strawman. What is suggested is that the theory has sufficient evidence that a mountain of evidence will be needed to persuade us that another theory is superior.

First, it wasn't an accusation; it was asking you how what you said was anything someone who wasn't an anarchist would say. Second, it wasn't an accusation because being an anarchist is not bad. It just did not fit with how you've described yourself before. Anarchists (or at least, a large section of anarchists) believe that a government as a monopoly on force is inherently evil, which corresponds greatly with what you've said. There is a great deal of anarchist theory. I am not an anarchist, but I do respect them, and your statement is exactly the statement an anarchist would make.

With what, specifically, are you disagreeing? Are you saying that the government isn't what made it possible for those roads and bridges to be constructed? Are you saying that most of what the federal government is doing is helping lazy people? Actually, that's from Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, not the Constitution. The Constitution has "We the people of the Unites States, in order to ..." And your point is? What, precisely, does the above have to do with what I posted? It seems that the only way it could be connected to my post is if it is claiming that most of what the government does is line the pockets of "lazy people" - which you term "pork barrel cry babies". And that is by far one of the smaller things that the government does. =Uncool-

Given that you're posting on this forum, you're more connected than most. He had an advantage to start with - which came from you. So yes, to a certain extent, he was lucky that he was born into a family that could support him the way you do. Many people aren't. The point I'm trying to get across is that your description of what government does - helping the lazy - is a much smaller part of what government does than you think. The government is what made it possible your grandson to move from Denver to Cleveland within a few hours - because it supplied the roads, bridges, trains, and the repairs on same, and what supported research into aviation. Not just that, but it was the federal government which did that - local governments wouldn't have enough influence, and wouldn't be able to bring the roads together in the way the federal government did. =Uncool-

First, do you really think this doesn't happen in small towns, too? Graft and corruption are everywhere. Period. Yes, but for very different reasons. Some say that the mandate is a bad thing. Some say that it doesn't go far enough, and would prefer single-payer. That's what compromise looks like. Just saying that most people disagree with it is a bad metric. And yet there are also those who have gone to McDonalds and have found that there are no jobs available. There are those who have searched for jobs and found that there are none. You are taking a single stereotype of poverty and assuming that it applies to all, and by doing so trivializing the problem of the poor in this country. You have latched onto one of the "pithy phrases". There are people who are poor who have no other choice than to be poor. So no, in my opinion, we have not done enough to relieve poverty. =Uncool-

I honestly don't care what you call me; it reflects on you more than it reflects on me. However, the question is still there. You said "I have never been opposed to k-12 local government sponsered education." and yet "Piss on a government sponsored anything." Which is it? And further, if "Piss on a government sponsored anything.", how are you anything but an anarchist? =Uncool-

...Including k-12 education? So you're an anarchist then? Because if you don't want the government sponsoring anything, you don't want a government, period. =Uncool-

Public transportation includes public roads and bridges. I'm trying to confirm - what do you think about public roads and bridges? Further, do you support public transportation in the form of government-sponsored buses/etc.? Finally, there are some fare-free examples of public transportation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_free_public_transport_routes =Uncool-

I specifically said public education and public transportation - i.e. roads and bridges provided by the government. Are you saying you support public transportation or not? It sounds like you are saying you do support public K-12 education. Right? =Uncool-

I'd also like to note that Krauthammer has done the exact thing I said - deliberately excising the context in order to make a point against what may technically have been said, but quite obviously was not meant. The entire article that's in the link inside your link is a complete strawman. =Uncool-

So does that make me correct in saying (with reference to the Obama quote) that you don't support public education? That you don't support public transportation (which includes the modern road system and bridges)? That you don't support the Defense Department creation of the Internet? =Uncool-

What about it was BS? Do you think the businesses would have had anywhere near their current levels of success without the infrastructure? The point of the speech is that trying to reduce taxes to nothing - a la Grover Norquist, who promotes a pledge where the signers never raise taxes under any circumstances - destroys the very infrastructure that businesses in America need. There is no denigration of business owners. That's missing the point of the speech. There is no saying that business owners don't do anything. That's missing the point of the speech. The only denigration here is against people who claim to have made all of their success on their own; the point of the speech is that no man is an island in the business world. =Uncool-

The quote that rigney is referring to - "If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen." is in the quote I supplied; rigney's version of the quote is a paraphrased version of the partial quote. However, the partial quote is being bandied around without context in what seems to be a very deliberate attempt to remove context from Obama's quote. Rigney, what exactly are you saying "bullshit" on? That I have the correct quote? That "that" is referring to the public infrastructure? Or are you saying that the sentiment of the quote is "bullshit"? =Uncool-

You might want to know what he actually said.

You can feel free to talk about it. Just be aware that you've destroyed your own reputation to the point where I'm not even sure such a clip exists, let alone whether you've interpreted it correctly. Err. First, rejecting the aether in favor of relativity is not "mystical" in any way. Second, there is no "conceptual simplicity" in the aether model as compared to relativity. The reason that relativity is held over the Lorentz aether is that the Lorentz aether is an attempt to take a theory that simply didn't work - that of the original (non-Lorentzian) luminiferous aether - and modify it to fit reality, whereas relativity naturally - in its simplest form - fits reality as it is. The fact is that an aether is unnecessary. Choosing to discard is is not a "mystical" decision; it's a rational one. ETA: In other words, relativity made the predictions that established it as a theory. Lorentzian aether is a postdiction modification to the original aether theory. =Uncool-

My solution is using a balance scale in all cases. =Uncool-

Reasoning backwards from the fact that there's an answer: =Uncool-

"There's glory for you!' 'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said. Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"' 'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected. 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.' 'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.' 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'" In other words, no, you don't get to redefine common scientific words. Otherwise, your entire OP could mean "Purple invisible kumquat unicorn Supernatural blah." =Uncool-

1) I have searched youtube, as well as the BBC web site; I have found no such clip. 2) You are the one making assertions based on the clip; it is therefore your responsibility, not mine, to find the clip. 3) Polkinghorne is apparently well-known in Britain, but not so much outside. This is quite literally nonsense. It isn't responding to anything I've written, nor does it actually say anything. "Seems"? You have a very big problem with confusing your perceptions with reality. No, relativity is not trying to make it appear as mystical as possible. Pop-sci relativity is at best a bastardization of the theory of relativity. Depending on the exact sources, some get closer to the actual explanations, while some get much, much further away. In other words, you know only slightly more about relativity than you do about quarks and gluons, and yet somehow you think yourself an expert on the matter. 1) Quarks and gluons: you have been shown over and over and over multiple experiments which have confirmed quarks and gluons to the furthest extent possible. 2) Higgs: You seem to have been missing a crapload of the recent articles saying that the Higgs has been confirmed to 4.odd sigma. 3) Wow. You are completely wrong here. I can list experiments out the wazoo confirming this. =Uncool-