Bignose

There are recent papers that perform very similar experiments with modern measuring devices and techniques. Herrmann, S.; Senger, A.; Möhle, K.; Nagel, M.; Kovalchuk, E. V.; Peters, A. (2009). "Rotating optical cavity experiment testing Lorentz invariance at the 10−17 level". Physical Review D 80 (100): 105011. arXiv:1002.1284. Bibcode:2009PhRvD..80j5011H. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.80.105011. No aether influence detected down to 1 part in 10^17. Awfully little wiggle room left, there.

Nope. Clouds are just jerks. Or Cali pissed them off about something. Maybe an Oscar snub?

You're just posting numbers. You've got to back this up. How did you go from swirly spreadsheet gifs to these numbers? In explicit detail.

Be careful with this line of reasoning. This is also straying on ad hom attacks. I don't give a wit about his qualifications. I care about results. So far, the most results have been some swirly animated gifs, and he hasn't demonstrated anything that his model does anywhere as near that as the 'complex' math that he apparently doesn't like. But these questions need to be more specific to his level of understanding the current data and models, and not his qualifications. sunshaker, what would really help here is a plot showing the current best data, the current predictions made by the best model in the literature, and then your predictions. All on the same plot. So we can see how good your model's predictions are to the other models and the data.

I agree with the others. The question deserves a better answer than attacking the character there. I think I can confidently state that almost all the researchers wish that the data led to easier-to-understand mathematics. And sometimes a simplification is found. But a great deal of the time, the complexity is there to be accurate, as I wrote above. 'Other ways to interpret the data' doesn't change the need for accuracy; demonstrate any example when it has. In fact, oftentimes the more complex math led to a very high level of accuracy. See, for example, the precession of Mercury and the theory of relativity. No amount of other ways of intpreting the data from a Newtonian viewpoint would work -- quite a many very bright students tried. It wasn't until the large increase in complexity did the accuracy come out.

Please provide a single example of a published work where an author intentionally used a 'complicated' equation when a simpler one would have done the exact same job. I think you'll find that in the vast majority of times, the complication is needed for accuracy. People aren't just making complicated equations for ego, to look smart, or to hide things. They are complicated because the phenomena being described is complicated. And that complication is needed for accuracy. This is a lesson you haven't learned in your years of posting here. You have to back up your math with actual evidence of it working... i.e. accuracy. Simplifying when you can't leads to erroneous conclusions.

Including the classic graph your curve on graph paper. Then cut out your curve and weigh it on a sensitive balance. And then weigh a known rectangle cut from the same paper. Certainly not perfect, but pretty decent method before numerical integration was feasible to a lot of people.

So. you're telling us right here that there is no evidence, but people are supposed to believe it? Seriously? It is ok to have ideas. It is ok to have ideas that don't have evidence. But it is not ok to jut stop there. Surely, given the ideas, there is someway, somehow to make predictions and then take measurements that will uniquely confirm or reject those ideas. This is how science works. Just stopping at the idea part is story telling and fiction writing. We have a section on this forum to discuss books, fiction and non fiction. But this section is supposed to be about science. You're flat out telling us, right there in that quote, that there is no science.

I'm not going to have any new information to add to this thread. But I do think that it is important to state my fullest agreement with ajb, here. And that is, surely in your literature review, you should have a better idea of what journals would be most appropriate for your work than some random people on the internet. Especially since you are being very vague about the topic of your work. There are many thousands of journals these days, to expect us to direct you is rather unlikely and unreasonable. The above of course assumes you have conducted a thorough literature review. If you haven't, then it is an obvious next step that frankly probably should have been done quite some time ago. You have to learn how your work is related to others in the same field. And in the process, you will learn where articles on the same topic as yours are published.

Intuition is often wrong. This confidence is not founded. Accepting this fact, and then taking steps to remedy it, will actually demonstrate a willingness to improve the situation. Otherwise, I feel you'll be on this same path no matter how "sure" you are of your own abilities.

I have doubts about this right here. I feel it is a misinterpretation of Godel's work. He states that there are statements in a system that are true, but not formally provable. And that there will be statements in systems that will never be able to be formally proven, hence systems will be 'incomplete'. This says nothing about the rightness or wrongness of them, and in fact, pretty explicitly says that; 'statements that are true, but not provable.' This also is a question about tossing out the baby with the bathwater. Just because it cannot be formally shown that every single statement be true, does not it isn't useful. I for one, don't want to remove arithmetic from physics, just because there are some statements that can be built on the axioms of arithmetic that can't be proved. The stuff that we can prove is supremely useful. Unless you have an alternative that is as useful, let's not be in such a hurry to bulldoze the house until we are also ready to rebuild.

I always find this idea to be very odd. How is it a artifact of memory (your, mine, anyone's) that Strange's reply can some time after this post, and my reply comes some time after both of them? If time was not real, why not all simultaneously? Here's another... if you boil a kettle for a cup of tea or coffee, and then let it sit out, after some _time_ it isn't as hot anymore. How is that just an 'artifact of memory'? If time wasn't real that cup would be hot, cold, all at the same time. If there is no time, then you need to fix an awful lot of what we understand about the world. All that said, it would be nice if the bank forgot about time on that new mortgage I just closed on. Do you think they will accept that 'monthly' payments are just an 'artifact of memory'?

So. This forum doesn't do your work for you. What have you tried? What equations to do you know that may be applicable? What assumptions do you think you need to make? We'll help you out, but you need to demonstrate the work you've done and we'll help guide or correct you as necessary.

So, be careful here. "who have degrees" is at least drifting into a fallacy known as appeal to authority. Just because someone has a degree, doesn't make them right, much less a good teacher (as you will undoubtedly learn in your life experience in the not so distance future). Not only that, but the people who who have degrees who have been through learning in many different forms are strongly suggesting that you still have much to learn. This is perfectly ok, we all have things we have to learn. And if you have a sincere drive to explain your ideas, what better way to do that than to understand the language and methods that are known today. This will prevent you from using terms like 'vortex of entropy'. Because a vortex is well defined. Entropy is well defined. But putting the two of them together like this is meaningless with the current terminology. If you knew the current terminology you know that at the very least you would need to explicitly define a term like this and build a model of exactly what it means. If you need suggestions on what to study, and various mediums and expositions on topics, this forum is very good for that kind of thing. If you are willing to learn, then you are in a very good place, because the desire to keep learning and help others is exactly what this forum is here for. You just need to be willing to do a little work. The concepts you need to study are not easy and will take some effort; you will have to accept that your intuition and ideas are almost certainly wrong -- but this is exactly what science is. You have an idea, you see how it fits with what nature actually does, and you go from there. There is nothing bad about having wrong ideas, you just have to accept that you need to correct them, and you'll be highly successful.

While this is technically true, is it rather astounding the number of people who show up, tell us their idea is right, but cannot answer simple inquiries like "can you please show us how your idea makes better predictions than the currently accepted idea?" If someone truly believes in an idea, I will never understand why they aren't trying to voraciously take in as much knowledge about that idea as possible. In this taking in of knowledge, they should learn a great deal of why the mainstream is different from their idea and be able to answer direct inquiries therein.

No diminishment occurs if the posters would actually attempt to follow some semblance of a scientific method. Namely: the creation of specific, testable predictions and the comparing those prediction to actual measurements. My guess as a several year member now: the number of threads in this section that have actually attempted to do that can be counted on 1 hand. I think the mods actually give a great deal of leeway trying to get people to understand that this is a science forum and that we kinda expect scientific discussions here. But if someone just shows up, telling us the relativity is wrong (or quarks or quantum mechanics or many, many other things), and just expects us to accept that because they don't understand it and they have made up a story that they do understand... well, we're going to be naturally reticent. Especially if that person has no concept of comparing prediction to measurement. Especially if that person cannot address how their idea is at least as good as the current best models. Especially if that person has no idea of the current best model that has been the life's work of many intelligent and dedicated people. Look. We know that a great deal of our current models are wrong, in at least as they are know to be incomplete. There is still many, many things to learn. But, we've developed a supremely successful method on how to proceed. The scientific method: make prediction, compare predictions to measurements, and repeat. We used to judge models based on what king said them. Or what the church said. Or who the best speaker is. We've moved past all that. The model that makes predictions the closest to what is actually measured wins now. Nice, objective and doesn't rely on charisma, 'logic', or anything else. Objective differences between measurement and prediction. And very simple to understand. If you want your model to become favored, simply demonstrate that is makes more accurate predictions than the current mainstream models. If you can do that, it will receive a great deal of attention. The number of threads I've ever seen get to that point is literally 0. That doesn't mean that that isn't the ultimate point of this section. This section exists to give people the chance to show that their model that is different from the mainstream can participate scientifically. Again, no model author on this forum has ever truly done that. Making me think that they have zero concept of actual practicing science. And, lastly, again, this is a science forum. Actual practicing science is what we're here for. Why is asking for some semblance of that not "charity". Despite what is claimed numerous times, there is no censorship here. Just asking people who post to follow the rules they agreed to when they joined.

I have some, but I am curious why you are asking. I'll just be blunt, is this for a homework question or similar? It just seems a little too pre-packaged to me...

Start with Breidenback et al. Observed Behavior of Highly Inelastic Electron-Proton Scattering, Phys. Rev. Lett. 23, 935 – Published 20 October 1969 In short, they shot a proton with electrons, and the electrons scattered in exactly as if there were three bodies inside the proton. Direct physical evidence for quarks. Then, use Web of Science or some similar tool to find all the subsequent papers citing Breidenbach et al. presenting more evidence for quarks. Your model doesn't get to just dismiss quarks. As Modred said, there is more than 40 years of data out there supporting that there is something inside the neutron and proton that acts in very specific ways. If your model cannot directly predict agreement with the known data, then it is significantly less useful than the Standard Model we are using today, which makes pretty excellent predictions.

The problem is that you are demonstrating an ignorance of rather commonly known verified results in physics. We shouldn't be having to do this work for you. We've been providing you links; it your responsibility to go read them. When you post something that is as odds with known verified results, then it's going to get called out. As an aside, this is why most graduate work is a matter of years. It takes time to get caught up in the area you are studying. You have demonstrated that you haven't been willing to put in the time to get caught up -- otherwise the above 'attacks' wouldn't even be necessary.

A scientific idea is one where specific testable predictions are made and compared to objective, statistically significant measurements. You are correct in that the mathematics is not absolutely positively required, but it sure helps. Compare the following example "When Billy hits the ball hard, it goes far." to "When Billy hits the ball with 17500 N of force at t=0, the ball lands 107.3 m away 9.6 seconds later." One of these is much more useful scientifically, because we can actually directly compare it to measurements. So, to a lot of people math is 'hard'. I get that, we all have different abilities and some people have a much greater mathematical aptitude than others. However, trying to do physics without math is 'hard'. Because of the lack of specific testable predictions to be able to compare. I mean, look at some of the words you've chosen to use: 'piston-like', 'producing', 'expansion', 'shrinking', 'sucked' and so on. Each of these cry out for a quantification, not just an adjective. How much production? How much expansion? How much shrinking? You probably didn't realize, but this IS the level general relativity it at. Please see http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.7377which is a very nice review paper in which the predictions from general relativity are compared directly with the measurements. For example, that article contains a plot in which the period of the orbits of a binary start system change. GR's prediction isn't simply "the period will get faster over time", but a very specific prediction as to the rate of the increase. See the equations as presented there that lead up to Figure 7 which shows the curve at the prediction from GR and the oval points as what was actually observed in different years here on earth. This is what people are asking for. This is how mature GR is today. It makes incredibly accurate predictions in its domain of validity. So, to the main thesis point: sure you don't need math, but unless you can show us specific testable predictions, I'm not sure how you think you can do better than GR. Because GR's specific predictions using math are pretty fantastically accurate. Ultimately, this is how science works. If you can show us something that makes even better predictions, then the old method will be abandoned. Science is all about making the most accurate predictions possible. Conceptually, this is an easy hurdle to jump. Science is very simple in that the model that makes the best predictions wins. Period. Nothing more to it. In actuality, GR is a pretty excellent idea that makes very accurate predictions, see link above again for many, many examples. This isn't to say that it can't be done. Because we know GR isn't complete. It is good for very massive things, but doesn't do well for very little mass objects. So, we're hoping there is some idea that can do even better. I have complete confidence that it will be a mathematical idea, because mathematics is the tool to enable specific testable predictions to be compared to objective statistically significant measurements. Eschewing that tool puts anyone at a tremendous disadvantage.

You need to check your screen shot again. The second-to-last output line was '9.99999999999', which is essentially 10 with the normal float round off error, the expected result. See the comments about floats above. Your last line of output was '10.0001' which tells me you had an off by one error in your loop counter. The '9.99469999999' just happened to be the line at the top of the window with the outputs. Maybe you normally use a tool that scrolls upward with output lines, but the window you show in your screen shot there scrolls down. The later results are the ones closer to the prompt >>>. http://bfy.tw/1Xyb If you are just starting, I would suggest starting with a python 3.x.x version as there was a deliberate compatibility break between py2 and py3. Almost all the maintained modules out there have been upgraded to py3 today (2015). So, if you're truly just starting out, might as well start with the up to date versions.

fiveworlds, you are generally helpful in the comp sci subforum, but you have a lot to learn about python. filein = open('infile.txt', 'r') fileout = open('outfile.txt', 'w') for line in filein: if line.startswith('fixedStep'): fileout.write(line) filein.close() fileout.close() this simply reads the file, line by line (don't have to load it all into memory as you claim), checks if it starts with the 'fixedStep' string, if it does, we dump it to the export file. Done. I regularly process files 100s of GB in size this way with my PC. Python is extremely versatile in its methods.

This is why when curve fitting, you'd really like to know what kind of phenomena you are trying to describe. When a function has a certain pathology, hopefully derived from the modeling of the phenomena, you usually get some insight as to what flavors of curve fitting are and are not appropriate. Here is a good example, I once worked where there was a model for the volume of a part in a plastic bag. The model worked well for boxy parts, ones where L1 was close to L2 and was close to L3. But, if a part was long and thin, L1 >> L2, L3, the calculation for the volume had a chance to actually go negative -- an obvious impossibility. The problem here was that the pathology and the phenomenology of the function wasn't appreciated when the initial curve fitting took place. As you stated, just having points alone doesn't mean a lot because often a great deal of functional forms can intersect those points. Some knowledge of what you are doing and why helps tremendously.

I guess my first instinct is to wonder why you're searching for a tool like this. Basically, it looks like a tool to 'help' numerology people. "Like, ZOMG people, cos(tan(exp(J1(pi)))) shares 4 of the digits of my birthday!!!!1!!" The reason no specific tool exists that you're looking for, basically, is that it isn't really all that interesting. If you really want a tool like this, learn some programming like python or java or similar and make your own. I don't think it would be very hard to code up. You just need a language that can do some higher precision calculations + some string manipulations and you are good to go. So, again, I am curious why you're looking for this. The results would be little more than curiosities to professionals, I would think.

conway, acme has answered it correctly. It is just a matter of convention. It was decided not to include 1 as a prime. There isn't as right or wrong here, just a definition and convention. No knowledge we currently have about the primes change if we were to include 1.