Bignose

This thread is four years old.

So, ready to answer the questions I asked before, then? You are still claiming that your model predicts a certain number, but I still see you cherry picking that number because it is right, not because of any significant reason.

"Experimentation" is by definition the isolation of variables in the lab for study. What this describes is NOT experimentation.

citation needed! Who defines it this way? This would not be my definition at all... this seems to be just another case you choosing the define words how you see fit.

my theory makes accurate predictions and "ramps" do not

something that you need to back up with more than your story telling to date if you want anyone to take it seriously.

Perhaps you can provide an example of this?

The real problem here is that all the way back to the very second line of your opening post there is an error.

Probably this was caused by the fact that everyone calls themselves a "scientist" and we all know that experiment can't be done in the historical contexts.

Because experiments can be done. There is a whole field devoted to it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_archaeology

Not to mention the even simpler experiment of "I think x was very important to the culture of this people, and when we dig up the next site, we should find more figures depicting x." You may not think it is, but that is also an experiment because you make a prediction and then you see if it is accurate.

------------

Now, let's look at this very last post: "Such a lifting device appears all through the culture and written record"... presented with absolutely not corroborating evidence. You just state it.

Well, I'm sorry, but in science, that isn't good enough. How can anyone check this statement of yours? It is all opinion and your interpretation. Can you cite 3 or 4 translators that agree with this translation? Can you cite 3 or 4 records where this is mentioned? Etc.

More of these narratives you are posting aren't going to convince anyone because it isn't evidence. It is just you telling a story. You aren't doing science here.

I agree with you that programming for the uninitiated can be daunting. However, this system is really very simple, even md65536 can confirm this for you.

Thanks for the backhanded insult here. I am well versed at mathematics and programming, FYI.

If it is so simple, why is it so hard to directly answer my question?

I could chit chat about the philosophy or the techniques of what would be considered significant or not in a scientific activity, however, at this point I just want to show some basic results. It is up to you to decide if it is significant or not. this new program and two or three more will hopefully let me illustrate my results.

May I suggest that rather than code, you post the actual formulas you are using the code to solve? And preferably the derivation and what you take as the significance of those formulas...

My point is 1) posting code is harder to read than well-formatted math formulas (especially if you use this forum's LaTeX capabilities) 2) code has a lot of distracting overhead, like initializing variables, the actual making of the grpahs etc. These just distract from your main points 3) if someone is really interested in the equations, they can write their own code to solve them. At the very minimum, I wouldn't post the code directly; if you feel you must post it, link to it stored to it offsite someplace. github would be my suggestion.

Furthermore, the formulas should also drive to help address my yet-unanswered question of what makes this point you are focused on so important. If you can't clearly show that with math (again, as a turning point, or a maximum, an intersection.... something) then it really makes me question why any point is so important.

Now, if you don't accept them after reviewing them that is all together another matter, I could be wrong or you might not understand them.

There is little point in running a new program if you aren't willing to more clearly define what is or is not a significant output.

I don't see how re-writing your code from one language to another changes the significance of its output.

Lastly, you are right. I don't understand. I don't understand how you can defend x around 5500 as significant when, as above, I can use every one of your arguments to similarly defend both x around 4500 and x around 6500. Rewriting code into another language doesn't change that.

you are right that there is no specific point, and there seems to be a good reason. I would like to analyse this fact a bit more later, but I want to go through several points before that.

Ok, good, I appreciate your acknowledging this point. That said, a new set of code still doesn't address the point, and I'd like to see it actually addressed.

On a meta level, you're right, I can always check out. But, I thought the point of posting this on a forum was to solicit at least some feedback -- and I'm trying to do that for you. If you didn't want to get feedback, feel free to go and start your own blog or website and allow or disallow all the feedback you want.

And on that note, my feedback in my prior note was that I felt like you weren't paying any attention to that feedback, despite appearing like you were soliciting it. In reality, I think this even applies to this latest reply -- again, you acknowledge the feedback, but still don't really address it. So, again, if you don't plan to address it, then I guess I don't get why you're posting on a forum where the give and take -- the posting and the feedback are the main purpose of a forum.

Nevertheless, it is also clear that the area we are talking about is significant in the general sense.

Ok, I'm starting to get irritated by this. It is NOT 'clear'. It is NOT 'significant'. It is NOT where they 'start converging'. It is NOT 'unique', unless you can tell me why!

You keep using these words, but they are all synonymous with 'this looks like the right spot to me'. But, that is not scientific.

I can take every single one of your arguments and defend x=6500 and x=4000 in the exact same manner. I can call x=6500 'clear', 'significant','start of convergence', or 'unique' in the same manner you can.

Since I can do this... then your point is not significant. You must show why your point is so much better than any other point -- apart from the very coincidental relationship that at your x, the value on the y axis has meaning. But you can't let that drive your picking your particular value on the x axis.

Second, the curves are fully divergent to the left and almost fully convergent on the right. So there is an area where they start converging. Can you please estimate the range of this area approximately and tell me what it is in YOUR opinion. Thank you.

My point is that 'opinion' should have nothing to do with it.

If it was a maximum or a minimum, then you have something. Or an intersection. Or something.

But you have a region where the curves are somewhat more closer together then they were, but not as close as they are farther long.

My point is that I think it is perfectly viable to say that even near the y axis, the curves are somewhat close. Because if I use a fuzzy word like 'somewhat' then I get to chose what 'somewhat' means.

This is the same thing you've done with 'start converging'... why is the area you've picked any better than any other area? Other than if you just happen to pick that area, it makes a so-called prediction that agrees with a single physical value.

Here's my problem. I too can write a program that makes curves, and I can make some curves 'start to' converge at any point I want. That doesn't make my 'start to converge' point meaningful, and it doesn't make my program meaningful. I'm hoping that you're going to provide more meaning to both the point you've picked -- because 'start to converge' by your eye is not good enough in my book... zoom the graph out and the curves will look a lot more converged to your eye... zoom the graph way in, and it won't looked converged for much higher value of x... your eye is not a good enough judge here -- as well as more meaning to your program, per swansont's request.

p.s. I don't know who gave you the -1 either, but I gave you a +1 to put it back to neutral.

this unique place is in the vicinity of the electron mass.

this doesn't answer my question. All you are doing in your answer to me is now calling this spot 'unique'. But never saying why it is. Why is it so much more unique than other points left and right on the curves? Other than you are using it to match a value.

And just telling it that it comes from nowhere isn't sufficient for me to accept it. Your story on Schrodinger's equation is a non sequitor at the very least since it is derivable.

I was hoping once that was done and confirmed(i.e. acknowledging that the result does look significant), we could ask why this was the case and how it came about and what does it mean,

Since you don't define what 'convergence' even means, or why it is important, it is hard to really get the gist of what you're driving at.

Furthermore, it looks to me like the point you choose is pretty arbitrary. The curves look even more 'converged' on one another the farther to the right down the x-axis you go. But, of course, choosing one of those points with higher apparent convergence doesn't give you the prediction you that want. My point being that it looks quite like you picked an arbitrary amount of 'convergence' and decided that that gave you a significant answer. You need to demonstrate why that, and only that, point is seemingly so important.

some history on this humor: http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/hell.asp

The gamma function is the extension of the factorial to complex and real numbers.

[math] \Gamma(n) = (n-1)![/math]

and the Gamma function is defined as:

[math]\Gamma(n) = \int_0^{\infty} t^{n-1}e^{-t} dt [/math]

You can see a lot more at Mathworld: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GammaFunction.html

So, are you saying that some composite units have no meaning at all - other than how they were derived mathematically? That's a little dissappointing to me. I'd like to think that if a group of composite units are derived from a legitemate formula (i.e. it actually represents something real in the nature world), then any which way you slice it up also represents something real. For example, we know the formula for calculating kinetic energy is E=1/2mv^2. From that, we can extract mv which is the formula for momentum. Taking the units for each of those formuli, we can say that if kgxm^2/s^2 is a composite set of units for energy, then kgxm/s is a composite set of units for momentum. How this is is the question I'm asking myself. It tells us that somehow momentum is involved in the phenomenon of energy. But the only way to explain this is through the math. I'd like to derive a methodology for explaining it conceptually. I'd like to be able to explain how to make the connection between kgxm/s and momentum, and also show how that relates to the connection between kgxm^2/s^2 and kinetic energy, which itself is something that I'd like to be able to show through some kind of methodology.

 

I don't know if the above is clear. All I'm saying is that we've got tons of experts who can understand the math, and we also have experts, most of which are from the latter group, who understand what the individual variables (mass, distance, time, etc.) mean conceptually as well as what the formuli mean as a whole (momentum, kinetic energy, etc.), but I don't know of any experts or methodologies that can attest to the conceptual meaning any of the intermediate components of these formuli, such as kgxm or even m^2 or s^2, such that it can be shown exactly how the elementary phenomena (mass, distance, time, etc.) contribute to the composite phenomena (momentum, kinetic energy, etc.) from a conceptual perspective. It's almost as though we understand that there is a firm correspondence between the individual variables and a set of phenomena we can conceptualize (mass, distance, time, etc.), and there is an equally firm correspondence between the overall formuli and the a set of phenomena we can conceptualize for them (momentum, kinetic energy, etc.), but the road from the former to the latter relies solely on the rules of algebra - any conceptual understanding along that road has to be posponed until we get to the end.

 

I feel it's possible to invent a methodology to take any step in the mathematical derivation from individual variables to the overall formuli such that a conceptual model of the physical phenomena which that step represents can be uncovered. This methodology should work independently of the path one takes from the individual variables to the overal formuli - for example, from the derivation of mass, distance, and time to kinetic energy, one can either derive velocity first, square it, and then multiply by 1/2 the mass - or - square distance independently of time (which also gets squared) and then devide the former by the latter to get something other than velocity (velocity squared - which drives my point home - what on Earth is velocity squared???). I feel that if such a methodology can be put into practice, it would advance science, mathematics, and the understanding of the average layman by quantum leaps. Average people would find it so much easier to understand mathematical concepts. All too often, after inquiring into certain scientific topic - which they might genuinely be interested in - they get discourage by the load of mathematical jargon. They get lost in the numbers and symbols, and soon give up on their persuit of scientific knowledge. I feel that if such a methodology can be introduced into the school systems - probably at the university level - the reach of science would span so much more of the general population, and that would be a good thing.

 

Sorry - got overly passionate there... but I meant what I said .

Just a few quick notes in reply here. 1) RE bolded part in your quote above: Energy and momentum are not necessarily linked. Potential energy doesn't have momentum in it, chemical energy stored in gasoline or ATP doesn't have momentum in it, the electrical energy stored in a battery doesn't have momentum in it, and yet all of these still use the same units.

2) Following your methodology there in your last paragraph, say I come up with a quantity that has units of mass*(length squared)/(time squared), however I got there, again how do I know if that is a unit of energy or a unit of torque? Just as was said above, two very, very different quantities, but the same unit.

Lastly, I am not too sure what is really wrong with the current methodology. Take F=ma, force is defined as mass times acceleration, so force is defined to have units of mass*length/(time squared). Or Work dW=F*dl, Work=force times a distance, so work has to be mass*(length squared)/(time squared). Etc., etc. The units come from the definitions of the terms, and are what they are. Again, from your way, it looks to me like putting the horse before the cart, because just because a set of units come out to a certain form, doesn't mean that that combination is meaningful.