What makes it a "crackpot" physics web site? The fact that it has a theory different than your own?

One of the greatest pains to human nature
is the pain of a new idea.
- Walter Bagehot

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.

Others did have "those insights". Poincare & Lorentz, for example. Einstein just never credited them. Prompting E.T. Whittaker to not give Einstein any credit.

Smart puts up 3 cars to get tipped over. Gets ten or a hundred times that money back in free advertising. Smart.

32-bit Windows -- chrome taking 256MB...at first. Has shrunk down to 165MB a few minutes later. Not my idea of acceptable memory usage.

Opera, with 17 tabs, and it has been running for a few days, is only using 323MB

Couldn't agree more, with your comment, and with the submitter's point.

Interesting that my non-patched XP system is and always has been clean, whereas the Win 7 systems I support...that receive all patches and have current & working A/V...get infected regularly.

PIBKAC.

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.

You say "the only evidence is one flawed study". (1) not true, tons of evidence, (2) you can't prove something is the "only" by linking to a "study" that you say is the "only" one.

Regarding the movie I linked to, I happen to know more about that movie than I let on. Inside story type of info, but I want to preserve confidentiality.

In any event, it is not the movie but the information the movie reveals, that should be debated, attacked or learned from. Instead of doing this you ask if I am "for real". Since this is a pressing question for you, I shall endeavour to reassure you by saying I am quite real, with the usual numbers of fingers and toes.

I await you actually talking about the three or four points I brought up in my original post...

Oh, thank goodness you quoted Wikipedia. That settles it.

To the grandparent poster, check out "The Greater Good". Will totally change your view of vaccinations. One of the most profound things I learned was that in "vaccine vs no vaccine" studies, the "no vaccine" people in some cases still received the mercury (!) and in other cases received a different vaccine (!). That's right, there was no "control" group so they compared the health effect of a mercury-containing vaccine with...a mercury-containing control and/or a different vaccine.

Other juicy bits from that documentary:
- The number of vaccines given to kids these days is TEN times what was given 30 or 40 years ago.
- some vaccines still use mercury.
- some autistic individuals became so at the same time they (1) got a bunch of vaccinations and (2) were then tested and found to have toxic levels of mercury in their system, prompting (3) a successful lawsuit, and resulting compensation.

Best comment I've ever seen on autistic people.

I have extensive experience caring for and living with them.

At this point I agree with Dr. Robert Melillo, as I posted above. With TAS individual I live with, I have seen considerable improvement but it has come through repeatedly teaching new/better behaviors, not through letting the individual become more and more shut off.

FWIW, I think armchair experts are the biggest problem. Try living with one, or caring for many of them for many years. You'll change your tune.

The reason many call it a craze or a fad, is that it deflects attention away from the real cause(s).

I like the book "Disconnected Kids" because it points the finger at developmental imbalance in the brain. This makes the most sense to me because (1) when you've met one autistic person, you've met one autistic person, (2) many things can throw off development (especially with the dozens and dozens of vaccines now given to infants, and fluoridation, and microwave radiation broadcasters...I mean, baby monitors), (3) the guy offers techniques to re-balance one's brain that I think makes sense and work to at least an extent, (4) he has opened dozens of clinics to help treat people, etc.

"It's a fad" is the 21st century equivalent of "You're a racist!" Quick and easy deflection. The real fad is corporations having armies of minions who reverse-troll for their clients by the hour on social media and places like /. and Ars.

I'm not sure why you think security cameras are a problem.

Let's study the behavior of a customer called Nefarious. He opens packages in the store, pocketing a handful of delicious Lindt chocolates here, and pouring half a pound of Starbucks beans into his other pocket over there. A quick checkout for his case of Bud and then he breezes through the exit doors.

Retail has slim profit margins. Grocery stores, it is like 1 or 2%. At Costco let's say it is 5%. But the cost of Nefarious's visit is beyond what he took out. He left a $9.89 bag of Lindt that is fit only for the break room. Same for the Starbucks bag -- all 5 pounds of it. That case of Bud only cost ...I have no idea, not having consumed alcohol for 30 years, but let's say $18. Rough calculation, the store made a buck on the Bud, and lost $20 or $30 on the other two items. How long can they sustain that?

A big part of store security is deterence. You won't stop everyone, but cameras, or store walkers, or receipt checkers will discourage many from abusing the system.

I want to shop at a place that deters cheat, crooks and scumbags. This is definitely a case where, if you are not breaking the law what do you have to be concerned about?

Getting back to your camera concerns...When you were going through the checkout, the cashier was watching you. If you pocketed something, or tried to slip something past them in the bottom of your shopping cart, they would catch it. Cameras "see" more but notice a hundred times less. IOW, on average no one ever looks at you on tape. It is there to settle the question of did someone put something in their pocket (or what did the guy with the cap gun look like)?

If you really want to be creeped out, go to a clothing store. The level of security and inconvenience there is very off-putting (to me anyway). Stuff is cabled together. Huge dongles hang off that T-shirt you wanted to try on. There is a limit on how many things you can try on in the change stall with 2 foot tall saloon doors. Etc.

Still, the only camera that would bother me is one (1) in a change room, or (2) in a toilet stall. I'm not aware of any of those...