Slashdot Mirror

I haven't seen a single critical/deep analysis

If you really are looking for something different...

Couple I've looked at:

DisableWinTracking

I'm not sure where I got BlockWindows, so I'll just upload it here:
BlockWindows

And check out what the Farm Bill allows for Sulfuryl Fluoride. Powdered eggs can have 90% of the fluoride in toothpaste, without having to mention fluoride on the label.

1% of the energy it takes to kill you is "far less"?

8 watts to kill, spread over the two square meters of the body nets us the ICNIRP standard that all cell phone companies go by.

Whereas BioInitiative, and other similar organizations recommend a level 10 million times lower.

Personally, I'm not comfortable with 1% of the kill dosage.

Brain-dead mods, do your thing.

Spring-And-Loop Theory predicts that its version of "virtual particle pairs" -- dubbed springs -- cause electrons to move at one-tenth of the speed of light.

100 years ago, those "virtual particle pairs" were called the ether. The ether doesn't go away, just because SR said it wasn't there and the M-M expt couldn't detect it.

"e/m", in Spring-And-Loop Theory, is "spring bumps". In the NASA expt., they are firing microwave energy (i.e. spring bumps) at "space" (i.e. springs). The springs have nowhere to go, since every Planck-unit of the Universe is full of them. So they have no choice but to push back. Immovable spring objects vs irresistable bump force.

Mod stalkers: this would be where you down-mod this comment, typically with the non-meta-moderatable "overrated" mod, usually doing this several days after the thread's start so that few will notice or have a chance to reverse your handiwork.

Then there's the issue of toxicity, which apparently is essentially nil

Spectacularly wrong.

When you type "fluoride" into Wikipedia, the second auto-suggest is this "Fluoride_toxicity" page.

Then there is this paragraph on an otherwise pro-fluoridation page: "In India an estimated 60 million people have been poisoned by well water contaminated by excessive fluoride... The effects are particularly evident in the bone deformations of children."

At another pro-fluoridation page, we learn that the natural fluoride levels causing all those poisoned East Indians is 3 to 6 mg/l. Just 6 times the original US national standard forced on two-thirds of the population for the past sixty years.

The normal rule of toxicology is a safety factor of 100. About 100 cups of coffee will kill us, for example. One baby aspirin is 1/200 of the lethal (ld50) dose for an infant. Same as one 200 mg Ibuprofen. But a day's maximum ibuprofen dose is 6% of lethal. One cigarette is 1/80th of lethal. The average US salt consumption of 3.5 g/day is 2% of lethal...and common sense tells us we eat too much salt, on average.

Fluoride's ld50 is 50 mg/Kg. 8 glasses of water is about 2000 grams. Fluoridate at 1 mg/l, we get 2 mg of fluoride just from the water. That is 4% of lethal. And does not include at least 15 other sources of fluoride in our diet.

Stats in the last two paragraphs drawing from "Toxic: How Science Measures Harm"

tldr? Fluoride is more toxic than lead and almost as toxic as arsenic - common knowledge

Saying that something more toxic than lead has "essentially nil" toxicity is my idea of wrong.

A conceptual model is a model made of the composition of concepts, which are used to help people know, understand, or simulate a subject the model represents.

and

conceptual modeling are the necessary means that humans employ to think and solve problems

As to there being no math, all this does is prove you haven't reviewed my theory. So how on Earth can you comment on something (let alone get an up mod) when you obviously haven't read it?

Your statement that there is "no physics" in my theory is so far from reality that I must conclude that I am trying to reason with a troll. Which I will stop doing, immediately.

A conceptual model is a model made of the composition of concepts, which are used to help people know, understand, or simulate a subject the model represents.

and

conceptual modeling are the necessary means that humans employ to think and solve problems

As to there being no math, all this does is prove you haven't reviewed my theory. So how on Earth can you comment on something (let alone get an up mod) when you obviously haven't read it?

Your statement that there is "no physics" in my theory is so far from reality that I must conclude that I am trying to reason with a troll. Which I will stop doing, immediately.

A conceptual model is a model made of the composition of concepts, which are used to help people know, understand, or simulate a subject the model represents.

and

conceptual modeling are the necessary means that humans employ to think and solve problems

As to there being no math, all this does is prove you haven't reviewed my theory. So how on Earth can you comment on something (let alone get an up mod) when you obviously haven't read it?

Your statement that there is "no physics" in my theory is so far from reality that I must conclude that I am trying to reason with a troll. Which I will stop doing, immediately.

2) There is a number that can be calculated that describes the force provided by dark energy.

There is also a number that can be calculated for the energy of the aether. And we have calculated it. And it is 10^^120 higher than we have measured. And this has created one of the great unresolved problems in (conventional) physics.

Personally, I think the current physics model is the problem. And I have proposed a new one.

If you are looking for more than a laundry list, this article offers a bit more.

No, Einstein did different things with each of SR and GR. Wikipedia elucidates. The way things stood, after GR, was that there could be an ether, or not, and it didn't matter -- to GR.

The supposed "disproving" of the ether was merely that it wasn't detected across a number of experiments. But what the "it" was also changed over time. The ether has been proposed as a solid, liquid and gas (and now pure energy, in Spring-And-Loop Theory).

The debate about the ether is by no means over. Nor has "it" been proven to not exist. Certain possible ethers have not been detected. That is all.

My father was a great story teller. I regret I never recorded audio of any of his stories.

My father sang a few songs in his final months. Those made it to cassette, and I digitized those. Priceless.

I would record yourself doing something you love. Take a walk, and record your thoughts on it. Go for your favorite drive and narrate why you like it so much. Go to the library and give a guided tour. Sniff a rose, and then talk roses.

If you have a lot of "core thoughts", record those.

If you have a great laugh, get that recorded.

And through all those recordings, intersperse your core values, your love...for your daughter, life, your work, space travel or organic zucchini.

I've logged a bit of face time with my replacements. I always emphasize that I would want them to be happy, not sad, when they think of me.

Namaste

It is more evidence in support of Spring-And-Loop Theory, which has a model that, among many other things, explains why neutrinos can travel faster than light.

But surprised they don't use the correct word: (a)ether.

I'm also an engineer and here is my better theory.

By the way, dark matter doesn't fix things. Compare the calculated and predicted "star speed vs distance from the BH" graph here. Instead of a predicted drop-off in speed, there is NO drop off in speed. Adding more mass (as d.m. is supposed to be) can not possibly help this curve.

I'm also an engineer and here is my better theory.

By the way, dark matter doesn't fix things. Compare the calculated and predicted "star speed vs distance from the BH" graph here. Instead of a predicted drop-off in speed, there is NO drop off in speed. Adding more mass (as d.m. is supposed to be) can not possibly help this curve.

(3) Too many people don't realize the vast number of predictions made by current theories that have been tested by measurement

The most obviously broken parts of physics, like the inflationary miracle after the Big Bang, are based on what measurements, exactly? The CMB? The same CMB that BICEP 2 based its nonsense on?

And Black Hole information retention is based on...?

And our completely broken notion of how stars should be orbiting the Black Hole at the center of our galaxy is a confirmation of our theory? Surely you gest.

Wikipedia's list of Unsolved Problems in Physics has, by my count, 148 questions (and another 74 things that need to be discussed). Wiki's corresponding U.P. in Chemistry looks to have 25 or 30.

There are at least a few modern physicists trying to deal with the horrendous state of physics today -- Lee Smolin, Frank Close, Peter Woit, and Amit Goswani come immediately to mind. Others like Anton Z Capri (& Feynman & Einstein) at least kept their sense of humor throughout their career.

Far too many are followers, and the system encourages this, big time. Lee Smolin talked about this, and how he tried to go against his gut at first, before ultimately coming out with Loop Quantum Gravity.

So is it all a bed of roses to you, "Roger"? Or have you a better theory? Or are you just interested in nitpicking?

Roger,

Thanks for your reply.

Regarding my mention of the Standard Model, you are quite right. Please replace that with "classic physics" or "old physics" or "non-relativistic non-quantum-mechanical" physics, or "the physics of Newton". It doesn't change my point, or my theory one iota.

As to my comments about light, in my first COASALT talk, Mr. David Thornley made this very same observation. It is rather like complaining that the numbers I chose for the street address of my building are a little too big, or too small. As I explained to Mr. Thornley, that was part of my preamble. Why don't you try commenting on my theory itself?

And as to my points about what we don't know about the SoL, it is like my points regarding gravity. When we don't know how gravity works...at the lowest level...then we have no guarantee that our theories of gravity (non-relativistic, or relativistic) are the complete answer. Similary, with light I maintain that physicists do not understand what exactly light is. We are aware it slows down in a medium, but we don't understand WHAT exactly it is. A working theory is not the same as a deeper understanding.

Roger,

Thanks for your reply.

Regarding my mention of the Standard Model, you are quite right. Please replace that with "classic physics" or "old physics" or "non-relativistic non-quantum-mechanical" physics, or "the physics of Newton". It doesn't change my point, or my theory one iota.

As to my comments about light, in my first COASALT talk, Mr. David Thornley made this very same observation. It is rather like complaining that the numbers I chose for the street address of my building are a little too big, or too small. As I explained to Mr. Thornley, that was part of my preamble. Why don't you try commenting on my theory itself?

And as to my points about what we don't know about the SoL, it is like my points regarding gravity. When we don't know how gravity works...at the lowest level...then we have no guarantee that our theories of gravity (non-relativistic, or relativistic) are the complete answer. Similary, with light I maintain that physicists do not understand what exactly light is. We are aware it slows down in a medium, but we don't understand WHAT exactly it is. A working theory is not the same as a deeper understanding.

The LHC is one approach. The "make it bigger and then it might get better" approach.

Another approach is to conceive of a completely different model. I have come up with a different model from the Standard Model, and Quantum Mechanics, and String Theory.

Spring-And-Loop Theory resolves issues the other three theories are stuck on. It is also simpler. Unifies the four forces. And works from the very small to the very large.

But it is a different approach. Most are not ready for this.

As early as the 1670s, Newton used the idea of aether to help match observations to strict mechanical rules of his physics.

"The motion of light was a long standing investigation in physics for hundreds of years before the 20th century."

Ether theorists: Newton, Robert Boyle, Christiaan Huygens, Faraday, Lorentz, James Clerk Maxwell, Poincare...

It is noteworthy that, despite it being impossible to prove a negative, the ether has supposedly been disproven. So why does Wikipedia add a question mark to that section's title?

It was highly honorable of his logical conscience that Newton decided to create absolute space. He could just as well have called the absolute space the "rigid ether". - Albert Einstein

My own theory of the ether, gravity and QM.

As early as the 1670s, Newton used the idea of aether to help match observations to strict mechanical rules of his physics.

"The motion of light was a long standing investigation in physics for hundreds of years before the 20th century."

Ether theorists: Newton, Robert Boyle, Christiaan Huygens, Faraday, Lorentz, James Clerk Maxwell, Poincare...

It is noteworthy that, despite it being impossible to prove a negative, the ether has supposedly been disproven. So why does Wikipedia add a question mark to that section's title?

It was highly honorable of his logical conscience that Newton decided to create absolute space. He could just as well have called the absolute space the "rigid ether". - Albert Einstein

My own theory of the ether, gravity and QM.

As early as the 1670s, Newton used the idea of aether to help match observations to strict mechanical rules of his physics.

"The motion of light was a long standing investigation in physics for hundreds of years before the 20th century."

Ether theorists: Newton, Robert Boyle, Christiaan Huygens, Faraday, Lorentz, James Clerk Maxwell, Poincare...

It is noteworthy that, despite it being impossible to prove a negative, the ether has supposedly been disproven. So why does Wikipedia add a question mark to that section's title?

It was highly honorable of his logical conscience that Newton decided to create absolute space. He could just as well have called the absolute space the "rigid ether". - Albert Einstein

My own theory of the ether, gravity and QM.

Go here, type your name in, and look at the last three digits of the resulting URL. I'm betting it has a "1" in it. 1 = sinus problems (among other things). [The site saves nothing, but needs Javascript to do the calculation.]

The notion that podcasting is dead is quite humorous. Brings to mind the "email is dead" articles.

My favorite Bill Burr webcasts are when it is just him. Yes, he jams in two big bunches of ads, but a few clicks is all it takes to skip them.

I think the point is that things change. TV channels change (usually getting worse). Podcasts change, usually by adding disruptive ads. The solution is always the same -- branch out, trying something new.

My podcast, has no ads & no guests, runs about 75 minutes. I work on adding potential content all week. Editing takes three times as long because why should my listener suffer my hums and haws.

Soccer: Creating A Beautiful Game

And what's even funnier? Seattle water is fluoridated

100 to 1000 times below NOEL is the goal -- the standard that few come close to.

The maximum daily dose of Paracetamol (aka Acetaminophen) is 66% of the FATAL dose.

The biggest problem is not that the Higgs field/boson/theory is wrong. Nor that BICEP2 is wrong.

The biggest problem is that physicists do not want a new theory. Everyone gets paid and paid well to keep doing the usual stuff -- CMB, inflation, Big Bang, String Theory, smashing particles together and looking for the oldest star.

Physicists prefer stuff known to be wrong over stuff that might be right.

Diary of a Third Year Medical Student [PDF]

Our knowledge tends to be high in the middle of the spectrum.

When we try to grasp the entire Universe, we end up looking at pixels of info. We know little and speculate much.

Similarly, at the smallest scales we have to resort to atom smashing to learn a bit and speculate a lot.

This theory suggests that life is LEGO-like after all. Once we know this underlying pattern, we can look for it, and we can use it to build better models of stuff very large and very small.

I would add that these results are consistent with my own theory.

The first reason to listen to new ideas is that our present understanding(s) -- theories -- of the universe are majorly flawed.

Wikipedia's List of the Unsolved Problems in Physics has hundreds of questions -- most of them just the flaws in the most "mainstream" theories.

What is your plan for fixing these broken theories? My plan is here.

Consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. - Margaret Thatcher

I don't believe that a house of anything but cards can be built on faulty foundations.

If I were advocating warp drives, 10^^500 universes, or an inflation miracle, I would concede point (2).

(3) with no obvious reason to believe them?

You are completely wrong here.

(a) numerous flaws & gaps in our present "understanding" are explained by my new theory -- your choosing to ignore those puts you in the flamebait category,

I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding
because I think, well, if they attack one personally,
it means they have not a single argument left. - Margaret Thatcher

(b) many people have had similar ideas in the past (e.g. particulary obvious regarding the ether) or wanted to achieve what my theory does (i.e. unification of the four forces, an actual explanation of how gravity works and of what exactly is the speed of light),

(c) predictions made by my theory alone (e.g. regarding the decreasing speed of light) would/will have profound consequences.

(4) The opinions expressed on the only site referencing it I could find?

Einstein was so alone at the start that it took 30 years for his theory to be widely accepted.

If it is one again one against forty-eight,
then I am very sorry for the forty-eight.
- Margaret Thatcher

If you know a place, other than at the beginning, where a new theory can start, I'd be appreciative if you would share it.
- - - - -
By the way, isn't it interesting how you didn't point out a single flaw in my theory?

Wikipedia's definition of Pseudoscience as
a claim, belief or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status...
appears to apply to your comments, David.

ShanghaBill's original point was that "if Einstein had not had these insights, someone would have, probably within a decade of 1905."

You point out one of the differences between Einstein's theory, and those he liberally "borrowed" from. You ignore that others had insights, in the same field, at the same time and even before Einstein's relativity was published. Poincare was the giant of his day, and published within a year of Einstein.

Since you are apparently fond of showing how Einstein's theory was different, let's point out another way he differed. Einstein decided to discard the ether. I suggest this will prove to be a major mistake, and that we must "get it back" for physics to continue to get better at describing our world.

science is trying to better understand the world, by making models predicting something. It isn't engineering.

I think you may have unintentionally identified our present scientific folly. Scientists are lost in engineering, and fantasizing. Everything but science.

It is exactly an engineering mindset that is needed to come up with a new theory. Why? Because engineering starts with a "what works?" mentality, then tries to define why it works, to quantify it and remove the uncertainty.

What works (i.e. is needed) today is (1) to discard relativity, field theories and the standard model due to their glaringly intractable failings (i.e. their bridges keep falling down), (2) start at the Planck scale (i.e. it should be empirically obvious that we need to start with the bottom level of the building) and (3) embrace the ether.

"The more important fundamental laws and facts of physical science have all been discovered, and these are so firmly established that the possibility of their ever being supplanted in consequence of new discoveries is exceedingly remote."
- Michelson, 1903

The more dominant theories trying to describe the fundamental laws and facts of physical science have all been selected, and these are so firmly locked in that the possibility of their ever being supplanted in consequence of new discoveries is exceedingly remote. Thank goodness.

Complete and utter wastes of time like string theory are useful at creating employment, while guaranteeing that nothing will ever be gained/learned/discovered.

Instead of resolving theory conflicts, or encouraging new theories, we have "status quo" stagnation. There is no money in a new theory, especially one that is better than the old ones.

Rather than costing $5B/year, like the LHC, a new theory could appear at zero cost. Luckily the pay-to-publish system should ensure its stillbirth.

Got live cricket on right now, on ESPN of all places.

TV is also my radio. Optional background "noise".

ESPN is my channel of choice because it is the real world, as opposed to fake sit-coms, even worse "dramas", hideously depressing CSI type shows, and trailer trash reality shows.

My father played cricket, so there is a back story that adds to this live event.

I've played numerous sports, and love a few of them enough to watch them on TV. For the rest, it is about the human spirt. Amazing feats of endurance, athleticism and will.

Besides, TV is part of our "bundle", coupled with two things we absolutely need -- iNet + WIRED phone service.

To each his own. TV is not needed by some (especially those who are not interested in sports). TV works for others who find something good in it.

This thread is really about Comcast, and Comcast is really about monopoly. If there wasn't one, Comcast wouldn't be playing billing games. They would be offering things customers want, in a bid to _earn_ customers.

I went through a phase where I would read a Scientific American magazine in bed. Put me right to sleep. But obviously not because it stopped me thinking.

I don't agree with your premise. For one thing, it would depend on what the podcast you are listening to is about.

No, it is how we stretch ourselves.

Every single person here learns word(s)...from everywhere, including this site. Are we supposed to jam them in a can under the sink?

Only a jerk would complain about someone trying to use a new word, a word they might not be intimately familiar with.

Someone used "dimensionful" and I proceeded to use it a bunch of times (in a physics paper) right after I read it.

Others have challenged you on this, but those same techies would agree that old tech never dies, it just co-exists alongside new tech. The same happens in physics.

What amazes me the most is how people will go off and try to prove some conjecture of some theory...when the larger theory has massive flaws. It smacks of graduate students and research dollars.

At least part of the cause, IMO, is that simple things are small, and complex broken things are big. And there is a lot of time to fill in a 45 minute "hour" of televsion. Or a 300 page book. So trotting out the old theories is what almost every physicist does. You do that enough, and you will start to smell like a museum but by then it is too late to change. The tar pit has you in its grasp.

My new theory of physics.

My Dell's hard drive crashed after a few days or weeks so I posted my experience on my web site, and here. Some second level guy read about it and sent me an external drive as a token. Ultimately I was sufficiently mollified by this that I even bought another Dell a few years later -- Inspiron 530 Q6600 -- still using it. Looks like XP is going to outlast /.

What you are proposing would be healthy for the physics community, so it will never happen. It is imperative that physics appear to be all knowing, especially when you talk about worm holes and the Big Bang and what will happen in 10^^100 years. We know exactly what is going on, right up until everything changes as one flawed theory is replaced by another with new flaws.

I think the other two replies are reacting to the notion that physics doesn't need to be taught, but rather just let everyone "have a go". Personally I don't think that is what you meant.

I find physics at once childish and elitist, and wish it was more humble. For example, with regard to the ether. We thought it was there, then we "proved" it was not...but today it is generally held that there is "vacuum energy" (and/or dark energy). Clearly there is an ether, and it is "made of" energy, not matter. And it is at an energy level vastly higher than 2.7K, so we need to create theories that are comfortable with this. I've done my part.

Hello Sava,

I completely agree with you about the ether, and in fact I just posted such a comment before I read your comment.

I look forward to reading more about your theory and humbly offer my own for your consideration.

Best,

Floyd

Here is some new physics. Feel free to critique it.

I think there is an ether. It is not "particles", hence the difficulty measuring it, but energy -- thus explaining the 10^^120 discrepancy in the measured vs. calculated background temperature.
- Floyd Maxwell, author of "Spring-And-Loop Theory"

An exceptional post (on an exceptional thread). Thank you.

You might enjoy something I wrote about a father-son activity of my youth. Dad was a man of sparse words, who enjoyed his alone time for sure.

I never would have thought so until now but, by your post's "definition", I am an introvert. [I thought I was just a "thinker", or someone trying to be. Maybe they are the same, or similar?]

Personally, I'm interested in trying to define what gravity is. And to resolve some of the greatest problems in physics. Anyone else wanting to discuss this?

San Carlos, California is fluoridated. Anyone systematically rule this out? Searching "fluoride and birth defects" leads to 500,000+ of web pages. Here's the first one that came up for me: Fluoride linked to infertility, birth defects and low IQ.

Is it going to become illegal to protest the government/city/county poisoning the water?