md65536

Is your plan to replace your appetite with nausea, by viewing gross images when you're hungry? (This is what I thought you meant.) Or to view gross imagery when you have a craving specifically for sweet things? Or to associate sweet things with gross imagery by eating sugar while viewing nauseating imagery? I'm not sure which (if any) would work. I wonder if the second option could make things worse, so that when you overeat sugar you not only appease your appetite, but you get rid of the feeling you've associated with the imagery. If the point is to eat less sugar, and not so much to experiment with it, why not look up other people's solutions instead of inventing one? Google "psychology of overeating" or "sugar addiction" and there should be lots of links with info and advice. A lot of work must have been done in this area because the issue applies to most of us.

Trying to create negative associations involving all food sounds like a bad idea. You might also unintentionally create some specific negative associations, like if there's music in the videos you might start feeling sick when you hear some of the old Ludwig van.

Everything, or anything (math, predictions, intuitive explanations etc), comes down to whether or not a new theory improves on old theories in some way. Your "improvement" starts with the claim that existing theories fail because light can't propagate through "empty space". I don't think anyone/science agrees with you on that. You might start by showing or proving that this is true. To avoid getting stuck on a wrong path (and missing some correct ones), I'd suggest always being open to the idea that what you're trying to prove might be wrong. Since I think it is, I believe you'll be able to convince yourself that light can propagate through a vacuum, a lot easier than you'll convince everyone else that it can't. But that's okay, because figuring out that certain paths are wrong is part of knowing that you're still on the right path. You'll probably have to really understand how other theories allow light propagation through a vacuum, in order to try to find a flaw with the idea. Another strategy would be to design and carry out an experiment to prove the existence of U1s (with some prediction your theory makes that is different from existing theories). If you're wrong, and your only goal is to prove yourself right, you have an infinite amount of work in front of you.

Perhaps you should brush up on how owl defines "sphere". Personally, I define sphere as "a perfectly round three dimensional thingy including the middle part". You'll notice that in your link, it says that "In mathematics, a careful distinction is made between the sphere [...] and the ball". We were talking about geometry here, not mathematics. It's common sense that a sphere has to have a middle part. You seem to be forgetting that we're in the philosophy forum. We're not "in" mathematics. owl was clearly talking about the Philosophy of Geometry. While you were busy failing Philosophy of Geometry, owl was probably teaching it.

Well don't worry too much. It seems the best way to get a lot of attention around here is to keep repeating a set of incorrect statements while avoiding seeming like you're purposefully breaking the rules. I don't see many people getting a lot of positive attention. There are thousands of topics in the speculation forum. Most people who post likely think their idea is more important or right or interesting than the others. I don't think many people read expecting to actually find the next revolution in science here. I'm not an expert; I'm a crackpot. I'm here just as a diversion from my own revolutionary theories. Chances are, if an idea is good it will take a LOT of work to develop it. If it's a good and simple idea, chances are it will take a lot of work to present it in a convincing enough way that people can see that it's worth reading just by a paper's abstract, and that it's demonstrably correct by the paper. (If it's a good and simple and obvious idea, chances are it's been thought of before.) What makes me sad is realizing the sheer amount of work involved to get to the point where you've proven your claims and can easily show it, but it seems to be necessary. I don't know of anyone who's succeeded yet, here in the speculations forum. I haven't read the links much. I disagree with Tegmark's postulate though. I think that math is invented (not intrinsic) as a description of what we observe in reality. But we can also invent abstract math that doesn't need to correspond to anything real. It might even be possible to somehow create some math that specifically contradicts the notion of "real". It's an interesting idea though.

I'm very much not convinced that this has anything to do with electron mass. What makes you think it has anything to do with electron mass? Is it just that the values coincide? How does an electron's mass result in the data you're getting? Well that's the thing: If the data are "true" but the statement they make is unknown or even meaningless, it's not the same as a true statement. To me the data say "There are some curious results relating to the number 1823." Maybe they say more. I think more would require much more analysis. If you wrote a paper I'd suggest calling it a "curious result" and being clear that you don't know why you get the results, rather than saying that you interpret it as electron mass, or that you've derived the whole of physics. http://www.ar-tiste.com/feynman-on-honesty.html That's only enough for me to be curious to the point that there's a chance (a small one... sorry) I might one day run the program and try to figure out the results (ie. part of analysis). I don't know enough about QM and electrons, but others here will likely be even less curious, just due to the sheer volume of work that's already out there, in which are made specific statements that are backed up straightforwardly with evidence and logic. To accept conclusions, one expects at least that the analysis has been done. But since I don't know much, it's possible that there's some interesting and new correlation here and I'm just not seeing it.

Why should it obey quantum mechanics? It's made up particles, why can't it have made up interactions? U1 particles are not observed or a consequence of observations. They do not need to correspond to what is actually observed. Do string theory strings obey quantum mechanics? Strings correspond to what is observed (unlike U1 particles, as far as I can tell) and thus corresponds to QM, but QM doesn't dictate or predict the behavior of strings. I think that U1 particles, like strings, are outside the domain of QM. That said, knowerastronomy seems to be implying that the particles behave as macroscopic matter would, and that makes even less sense. Is that the meaning of your question -- that if the U1 particles are claimed to behave like known particles behave, they'd have to also behave as QM says they would behave? That seems fair. This belief that you know what you're talking about more than anyone who disagrees with you, is a delusion. If you keep feeding delusions you'll go insane. I would suggest that starting right now, stop with the animosity and start asking some questions that you're prepared to accept the answers to. This will stop building the feeling of "it's me against the world". Klaynos represents science fairly, and if not then others will say so (I for one am in agreement). If someone sees some value in your theory they'll say so.

If you read the Mermin paper linked above, it might give you some insights. I think also applicable is the notion of cargo-cult science. http://en.wikipedia....go_cult_science The analogy to cargo cults is especially relevant in cases like your theory. In one fascinating example, "Cargo cult activity in the Pacific region increased significantly during and immediately after World War II, when the residents of these regions observed the Japanese and American combatants bringing in large amounts of material. When the war ended, the military bases closed and the flow of goods and materials ceased. In an attempt to attract further deliveries of goods, followers of the cults engaged in ritualistic practices such as building crude imitation landing strips, aircraft and radio equipment, and mimicking the behavior that they had observed of the military personnel operating them." [http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Cargo_cult] Imagine a tribeperson who doesn't speak Japanese or English, sitting at mock radio equipment and mimicking Japanese or English words. They may get the words right, but they wouldn't know the meaning. They would be like magic words. If you do cargo cult science, then you can do the same with math. You can do some math, and without understanding the meaning, if it works out it might seem like magic. Then it's a short mental leap to thinking that this magic math that somehow fits reality, IS reality. Anyway my point is not that the math does or doesn't have meaning (or whether it is somehow illusory), just that understanding the meaning is important. I don't have a lot of experience, but my experience is that most of the understanding comes from picking apart the math and understanding what it means or why you get certain results or why it corresponds with another result (such as sin^2). On the other hand it might just be that this is say a different way to simulate particles and get similar results to some other way... so it could have use without having that much meaning. But my point is that I don't think you can express the meaning of the math beyond your understanding of the math or its meaning. Also I don't know the math of quantum physics so I couldn't tell you whether or not your results correspond and whether or not there would be a reason (other than my guess that you're plotting a bell curve). --- As for your code, what happens when the mistake is fixed? One example of how the mistake could manifest itself in the results, is as such: You intialize 4000 elements of array Lo[], but it only has 1823 elements. Array ex[] is declared next, and it's likely to be adjacent in memory, so you may end up initializing the first 4000-1823 (if the elements are the same size) elements of ex[]. Then you use elements of ex[] in a1, and you use a1 as a divisor. So if the last 1823 elements of ex[] are uninitialized, they may start off as some large pseudorandom number, and anything divided by those elements may be turned into something small. I don't know that that's happening, but I don't want to put a lot of effort into analysing the code to look for curious behavior, if there are mistakes like that which could account for it.

This article (David Mermin's "What's bad about this habit" http://www.ehu.es/ai...ence/mermin.pdf) was mentioned in another thread, about being wary of reifying abstract concepts. You've gone in the opposite direction to an extreme. The sin^2 curve that you fit to some of your output -- could it not be a bell curve? From a cursory glance at the description of what you're doing (intersection of random line lengths in a box), I'd expect a bell curve distribution, depending on what you're plotting. Also, the "1823" result is curious. Are you saying that you have N possible simulation results, and whatever N is, the probability distribution rises up until the last 1823 possible values at which point it falls to near 0? Do you know what is causing the result? Did you tweak things to get this result? In your program code for qsa.c you have this: long long S[1823]; // long long Po[80510000]; long long Lo[1823]; [...] d0 = 4000; // Particle 2 size [...] long long kk; for (kk = 0; kk <= d0; kk++) { S[kk] = 0; // *** Out of bounds error here??? // Sy[kk] = 0; // Loy[kk] = 0; Lo[kk] = 0; } // Next kk (*** note added by me) You're writing to 4000 locations in an array that only has 1823 locations? That's writing outside the bounds of the array. I think your results might be in part due to overwriting data. -- Actually that's jumping to conclusions since this code's just in the initialization stage, but still I get the sense that the program isn't reliable.

I've told you before, I've never known you on any other forums. Please stop telling lies about me. I've only fact-checked information you've posted on this forum. It wasn't a threat, it was an offer. Which you appear to have passed on. You're constantly providing character evidence in favor of yourself, so I think it's only fair that the other side is given. But if no one cares I won't even bother. I don't want to tarnish your reputation just out of spite. My personal agenda isn't against you, it's against your personal agenda. You know what? I think I should just bury the hatchet right here. Something you said (not here) reminds me of a quote from Twin Peaks: Albert Rosenfield: [to Sheriff Truman] Now you listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman. This was after some unfriendly tension and maybe a couple punches to faces (Albert was not well-received because of his abrasiveness and lack of social etiquette). After this turning point they were best buds, and Albert turns out to be a pretty good guy. The fact is, people seem to enjoy these scholarly debates with you. They're obviously getting something out of it. I won't ruin the fun. I still disagree with you and what you're doing and I think you should stop. But I don't think I care enough to have a personal agenda, especially if people willingly engage you in debate. I think they can decide for themselves if there's a point to it. Ignoring me was working pretty well. Not a big fan of the whole responding to my post to everyone else while making a point of how you're ignoring me though.

How about my misrepresentation of you, is it true?: You have acquired your information via gnosis. This is more powerful and convincing than any scientific logic or mathematical argument. What others don't realize is that unless they can evoke a sense of gnosis in you, what you already "know" is truer than anything they can "prove" using reasoning or evidence, which is a "tedious" waste of time. You're not interested in discussing questions of philosophy of science, because you already have the answers. You're here to preach them. If required I can try to back up these statements with evidence. At your request I will refuse to disclose evidence on the grounds that it may identify you.

I think this calculation is in error. Unless you're purposefully limiting yourself to only one significant digit, in which case I'm not impressed. I could prove that pi=3, if 1 significant digit is good enough.

No, I don't think the statement's false, just that it's a bad bet (because you probably couldn't collect, and it's pessimistic). But I now realize that my reasoning for this is similar to the argument that atheism is "a bad bet", with which I don't agree. I think this is directly applicable: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/what-is-epsilon/ In this case, I think a more interesting question is: How long of a period do you think it would take such that the probability of an amateur making a fundamental discovery sometime during that period is 50%? Would you think it is some high number of centuries, or actually infinity? I'm a crackpot, and I believe the answer is "1 year"... but I realize that I would change my answer after a few years without any discoveries, even though the probability shouldn't change much over time. Also, in considering the idea in detail, there's a lot left up to interpretation that changes my estimates from "approaching 0" all the way to "approaching 1". For example, if the question is if an amateur will have "a significant idea", it must be close to 1 (or within decades). If we mean that a complete novice will have an idea and develop it properly, alone, all the way through to a finished accepted theory while remaining an amateur, it might be close to 0 (perhaps not for many millennia). What I'm most expecting to happen, sometime in the lifetime of the human race, is that a novice will have an idea that compels them to learn and develop a "fundamentally important" theory properly, but by the end they may no longer be an amateur, and I'm certain that their idea will evolve enough that while the theory may still express the original idea, the idea won't be detailed enough to be called "the same as" the final theory.

How about 6.28318531 and 1.61803399?

LOL Honestly I think this line of reasoning is a digression. No one (not even owl) is claiming that there is a "real" rotation of the Earth that disagrees with science. Every observer should agree on the direction of the Earth's rotation relative to the sun. What's in contention is whether everyone agrees on the distance between the Earth and sun. Further, everyone agrees that every observer agrees on what a particular observer will measure (such as an observer on the surface of the Earth, measuring a certain Earth diameter and certain distance to the sun). owl's mistake is in assuming that everything that applies to one observer applies to every observer. The "rotation of the Earth" thought experiment is useful for helping someone realize the concept of relative measurements, but if owl hasn't already got it I don't think it's going to work for him.

I dunno! I really am an unwashed idiot. That's why I rarely (almost never really :modest:) tell other people what they do and don't understand of what I also don't understand, or imply that I'm the only one who can figure it all out. I don't even know what matter is (apart from a little about what it does).

Previously I was of the opinion that this wasn't a hopeless case, that most people are reasonable and can be reasoned with. It even seemed true, as in this thread there are posts along the lines of "perhaps there are things that I don't know about yet that I should learn..." But it's as if the brain fights it, says "No, too hard" and we quickly see a return to a preference of arguing over learning, and of making statements over asking questions, and justifying missing understanding with a belief that "all that stuff that I don't know enough about is wrong". And then insulting others with it. So I'm disappointed. I don't think our cynicism is good. I think that not all cases are hopeless. I want to believe! Who knows, perhaps there's still hope here. But yes, I think your earlier assessment is correct.

Hmm, where do you think mathematics comes from? Do you think it always existed or was developed independent of a physical reality? Most mathematics is based on physical things, and when new physical concepts are discovered often new mathematics are invented to describe it... just like new words are invented to describe new things. You wouldn't say that the universe evolved because of words, would you? Yet you write about the universe. Similarly, the math only describes the universe. Like consistency in writing, consistency in the math corresponds to consistency in reality, and like words the math can convey meaning. But why am I telling you this? I'm just an unwashed, unworthy idiot. Your highness. Check http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/62667-crackpottery/ for some helpful tips. Or try slogging through http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/61438-is-philosophy-relevant-to-science/ for a glimpse of the ghost of christmas future.

Yes, it's sad. Information doesn't make sense to some people, and they invent their own explanations. Then other people associate all the alternatives together (and others like Fox News encourage this), so that now anyone who questions what happened on 9/11 is grouped with any other "conspiracy nut". I've got into these 9/11 arguments before and I can't prove anything useful. The best that I think can be agreed on is: - There is not enough information to fully explain every detail of that day (as should be expected), and there are some puzzling questions that still remain. - There were choices made in the name of protecting the interests of people, over doing the most thorough investigation possible. (Eg. supposedly avoiding comforting the enemy at the expense of the comfort of the families of victims). So I don't think there's enough evidence to support the conspiracy theories, but I don't think there's enough evidence to disprove them all either. Scientifically, some open questions remain. I suppose it is a cold case.

A safe bet? How do you expect to collect on it? Wait forever? Or until the end of amateurs? Or do you expect an end to "sound fundamental discoveries"? It's an easy statement to make, because you can keep repeating it without anyone to prove you're wrong, right up until (if/when) it happens or you die first. It's not the first time in history that scientists had low expectations of what discoveries awaited and who would make them. I think it's a detrimental attitude, because it discourages people from trying. Anyone can be a scientist, anyone who does science, including kids experimenting at home or entering science fairs. Anyone can make a discovery. There's not "nothing new" left out there, and we don't know "most of everything big" yet. I agree that the chances of an amateur making a big discovery in any given time frame (say, the next year, or decade) may be small and getting smaller, but what is the probability that it will never happen ever in the entirety of the possible future? That must be close to zero. --- I also think it's telling that a thread on crackpottery with a description "You don't want to be that guy" ends up stuck on the topic of amateurs, as if they're the same thing. Every scientist starts off as an amateur, and if amateurs are treated with the same disdain and low expectations that the worst of the crackpots have earned for themselves, then why would anyone want to get interested in science? Addendum: Asking "how many years since an important amateur physics discovery" might be like asking "how many years since a maximum global warming temperature" in concluding that either has stopped. Nevertheless I didn't find any recent examples with a quick look, but I did find this: http://www.builtonfa...teur-physicist/ I think it (and the first comment within) is interesting and applicable, and useful for would-be (but shouldn't-be) crackpots.

Are you arguing that it's very difficult to bring down a building like that? Because the facts are: 1. The building did come down that day. 2. There was external damage to building and there was a fire that was left to burn. If you're trying to answer a question like "how much explosives or explosives expertise is required for these two things to happen", and if your answer is anything more than "Very little to none at all", then there is a problem here. Is it better to avoid questioning things in order to also avoid comforting "maniacs"? Is it better to falsely believe "only outsiders would do a thing like that"? The Kennedy assassination is off topic and possibly setting up a strawman. I'm not saying that OP's post can't be argued against, but I am saying that "It's a conspiracy theory" isn't a good argument on its own. And there are some who are satisfied in "the facts" only to the degree that the evidence warrants it, and there are some who call that "physics".

That's probably the most important aspect of advice for people to be taken seriously, whether crackpot or not. One problem (I don't know if in general or only with many on this site) is that anything new that doesn't fit with one's understanding of a subject tends to be seen as crackpottery. Whether you have a "theory" you've worked on for a lifetime, or are a child who forms certain beliefs while learning about things, if you're wrong you're wrong and that's all that some people are interested in. The difference between someone with an underdeveloped understanding or theory, and a "problem crackpot", is that the former will change and develop (their understanding, their methods, their presentation, etc). It might be a single defining feature of a "problem crackpot" that they don't correct flaws, and they resist change. So the best advice may be the encouragement of further development, and I guess that's usually given on this site, whether it's subject matter to brush up on, or evidence that is needed etc. That's not enough for only the most hopeless of crackpots. Perhaps they only advice for them is that they have to want to change/improve (eg. their theory or understanding) if they expect a change in how they're received. From the perspective of the potential crackpot, the most positive thing is to feel encouragement to improve "the right way", instead of focusing on defending against feeling shut down (because "Galileo was treated this way too!" etc). This is especially important for kids, who could grow up thinking that science is accessible and that they can learn and make a difference, vs. that science is some closed-off palace for the elite only, and you're either one of them or you have to fight your way in.

Most of the "advice for crackpots" is negative stuff. It's all "what not to do" and seems mostly to be "how to stop annoying those who deal with real science". Is there any advice for what crackpots can do right? Is there any room for "how to be a crackpot and still contribute something useful and meaningful"? I've been inspired to try to write something along those lines myself, but always lose interest -- possibly because it seems futile, as if there really is no hope for crackpots (other than to give in and accept "real" science) but I'm not sure if it's true or not. If one follows the advice of what to avoid, does one become a "lawful good" crackpot, or cease to be a crackpot?

Though the question's not directed at me, "CONSPIRACY" is my first major. I propose we stick to discussing the collapse of WTC7 in this thread.

We're given that one guard lies and the other tells the truth. In a case where you can't assume that, Marqq's post (bottom of http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/53927-which-door-should-you-take/page__view__findpost__p__623410) gives a question that is self-referential for the guard, and only depends on the one guard you're asking, so it doesn't matter how many other guards there are and whether those other guards lie. Sorry I misread your post. My original post below maybe better answers this: You don't know which guard tells the truth and which lies. The solution to the puzzle involves treating them generically, so that you get the same answer whether they're honest or lying. In the original puzzle, the guard that you ask will point to one of two doors. There are two possible answers (you could also make the guard's head explode but that won't give you useful information). If you also want to know whether the guard you ask is lying or not, there are 4 possibilities: Door 1 is good, guard is honest Door 1 is good, guard is lying Door 2 is good, guard is honest Door 2 is good, guard is lying The "pigeonhole principle" tells you that more than 1 of these 4 possibilities will correspond to a single possible answer (of 2 possible) given by the guard. The trick is to get "Door 1, honest" to overlap with "Door 1, lying" etc, so you know which door to take without knowing if the guard is honest or not. If you construct a question that tells you whether the guard is lying or not, it will be impossible to always* also know which door is good. There aren't enough possible answers (just 2, or 3 including head explosion) to specify all that information. * I suppose it should be possible to get the guard's answer to tell you something like "The guard is telling the truth AND pointing to the good door... or not" so that you can know both in only 1 of 4 cases. So you should be able to increase the number of "bits" of useful information you get from the guard while decreasing the probability of getting that useful information. But that doesn't solve the puzzle.