Smitington said:

I am a genius

---

Quote:

Think of me what you will, I am not better than anything, and I have alot to learn before I turn this IDEA (hint hint) into a full fledged ready to be published theory.

---

Quote:

So we really ought to look  into theories that don't work,  and science
that isn't science.
    I  think  the  educational and  psychological studies I  mentioned  are
examples of what I would like to call cargo cult science.  In the South Seas
there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw airplanes land with
lots  of good materials, and  they  want  the same thing to happen  now.  So
they've  arranged to make things like runways, to put fires along the  sides
of  the runways, to make a wooden hut  for a man to  sit in, with two wooden
pieces  on  his head  like headphones  and  bars of bamboo sticking out like
antennas -- he's the controller -- and they wait for the airplanes  to land.
They're doing everything  right.  The form is perfect. It looks exactly  the
way it looked  before.  But it  doesn't work. No airplanes land. So  I  call
these  things cargo cult  science,  because  they  follow  all the  apparent
precepts  and  forms  of  scientific  investigation,  but  they're  missing
something essential, because the planes don't land.
    Now it behooves me, of course, to tell you what they're missing. But it
would be just about as  difficult to explain to the  South Sea Islanders how
they have to arrange things so that they get some wealth in their system. It
is not something simple like telling them how to improve  the  shapes of the
earphones. But there  is one feature  I notice  that is generally missing in
cargo cult science. That is the  idea that we all  hope you have  learned in
studying science in school -- we never explicitly say what this is, but just
hope that  you catch on by all  the examples of scientific investigation. It
is interesting, therefore, to bring  it out now and speak of  it explicitly.
It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of  scientific thought that
corresponds to a kind of utter honesty -- a  kind of leaning over backwards.
For  example, if you're  doing  an experiment,  you should report everything
that you  think might  make it invalid -- not  only what  you think is right
about  it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things
you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they
worked -- to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.
    Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if
you know them. You must do the best you can -- if you know anything  at  all
wrong, or possibly wrong  --  to  explain it.  If  you  make  a theory,  for
example,  and advertise it, or  put it out,  then you must also put down all
the facts that disagree  with it, as well as those that agree with it. There
is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of  ideas together to
make an elaborate  theory, you  want to  make  sure, when explaining what it
fits, that those things  it fits are not just  the things that  gave you the
idea for the theory; but that the  finished theory makes something else come
out right, in addition.
    In summary, the idea is  to try to give all of  the information to help
others to judge the value  of  your contribution;  not just  the information
that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.

---

ChuangTzu said:

Smitington said:

How does it explain c?  I'll try to explain this again.  If space is quantized, that is comprised of a set of points, all matter and energy within space exists within these points, nothing can be between them.  If time is also quantized, there are not an infinite number of moments between any two points in time.  This means that there is some minimum value by which time clicks, and combined with space quanta there is some minimal length by which an object can move in one of these clicks of time quantum.  Now, in order for an object to move, it must pass through ever point in space between it's source position and destination, it cannot skip over any point in space.  What this entails is that the fastest an object can ever move is one space quantum per one time quantum.  This places a limit on how fast objects can move in the universe, which corresponds to what we have observed, that there is indeed a limit to how fast things can move.  For things to move slower than the maximum allowed speed, they do not move by one space quantum every tick of the time quantum.  Instead, they might stay within one space quantum for 3 time quanta, then move to the next space quantum and stay there for another 3 time quanta.  This relates to how natural units can express the speed of light. 

---

I'm curious how your "theory" deals with time dilation and length contraction...

---

ChuangTzu said:

I'll leave you with the following:

Quote:

So we really ought to look  into theories that don't work,  and science
that isn't science.
    I  think  the  educational and  psychological studies I  mentioned  are
examples of what I would like to call cargo cult science.  In the South Seas
there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw airplanes land with
lots  of good materials, and  they  want  the same thing to happen  now.  So
they've  arranged to make things like runways, to put fires along the  sides
of  the runways, to make a wooden hut  for a man to  sit in, with two wooden
pieces  on  his head  like headphones  and  bars of bamboo sticking out like
antennas -- he's the controller -- and they wait for the airplanes  to land.
They're doing everything  right.  The form is perfect. It looks exactly  the
way it looked  before.  But it  doesn't work. No airplanes land. So  I  call
these  things cargo cult  science,  because  they  follow  all the  apparent
precepts  and  forms  of  scientific  investigation,  but  they're  missing
something essential, because the planes don't land.
    Now it behooves me, of course, to tell you what they're missing. But it
would be just about as  difficult to explain to the  South Sea Islanders how
they have to arrange things so that they get some wealth in their system. It
is not something simple like telling them how to improve  the  shapes of the
earphones. But there  is one feature  I notice  that is generally missing in
cargo cult science. That is the  idea that we all  hope you have  learned in
studying science in school -- we never explicitly say what this is, but just
hope that  you catch on by all  the examples of scientific investigation. It
is interesting, therefore, to bring  it out now and speak of  it explicitly.
It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of  scientific thought that
corresponds to a kind of utter honesty -- a  kind of leaning over backwards.
For  example, if you're  doing  an experiment,  you should report everything
that you  think might  make it invalid -- not  only what  you think is right
about  it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things
you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they
worked -- to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.
    Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if
you know them. You must do the best you can -- if you know anything  at  all
wrong, or possibly wrong  --  to  explain it.  If  you  make  a theory,  for
example,  and advertise it, or  put it out,  then you must also put down all
the facts that disagree  with it, as well as those that agree with it. There
is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of  ideas together to
make an elaborate  theory, you  want to  make  sure, when explaining what it
fits, that those things  it fits are not just  the things that  gave you the
idea for the theory; but that the  finished theory makes something else come
out right, in addition.
    In summary, the idea is  to try to give all of  the information to help
others to judge the value  of  your contribution;  not just  the information
that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.

---

From: "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!" (last chapter, "Cargo Cult Science")

---

Feynman!

His chess game analogy is one of my favorites.

Tedwilto said:

oh an cortez whats the formula goin on inside that pumpkin?

---

Smitington said:

ChuangTzu, for finding that quote.  The fact is as soon as I answered your question about time dilation and length contraction, you avoided the fact, and only resurfaced when the masses had apparently proclaimed victory over this thread.  You, and everybody else on here, fails to realize that as soon as people couldn't prove me wrong any more, this thread turned into people getting mad and calling names.

---

Quote:

which no body has been able to debate.

---

Quote:

Also, I provided an example for why quantizing space makes sense by asking the question if distance is a quantity, what is it quantizing.  Nobody was able to answer this question.

---

Quote:

This is when the thread turned more and more into personal attacks on me and testing how much other physics and math I know, but the questions and answers I raised before you guys gave up are still up in the air and there is nothing any of you can do to try to repress the fact that you couldn't debate them.

---

Quote:

I gave you my answer. Explain how my answer is wrong.

---

isaacein said:

If you ask me "If distance is a quantity, what is it quantizing?", I'll just stare at you in a weird way. I'm not even sure how the part of the question before the coma relates to the one afterwards. You might as well have asked "If the number of sheep in a pack of sheep is a number, what is counting?"

---

That made me laugh out loud. My roomate did not find it as amusing.

Im using that as a quote in my sig.

Tedwilto said:

isaacein said:

If you ask me "If distance is a quantity, what is it quantizing?", I'll just stare at you in a weird way. I'm not even sure how the part of the question before the coma relates to the one afterwards. You might as well have asked "If the number of sheep in a pack of sheep is a number, what is counting?"

---

That made me laugh out loud. My roomate did not find it as amusing.

Im using that as a quote in my sig.

---

Haha! Thanks.




Tell your roomate he sucks. I'm a genius okay?