Crack-Pot Ideas that still hold water

Yeah, I'll give it a try... Why don't we observe the popping now?And what about conservation of energy? Is there any descriptive law you can derive from the POP events that describe how energy changes in the system (both locally and universally)?

You're not saying "gravity is not a law." You're simply giving a mechanism to gravity. The same descriptive law (gravity, in the Newtonian formulation, is simply a descriptive law) holds.Can we know anything more about the pusher? Why does the pusher push? Does the pusher ever get bored and not push? Why does the pusher choose to ignore objects that are far, far away? And why does the pusher vary the amount of pushing as 1/r^2? Wouldn't 1/r be an easier calculation? Is the pusher some kind of math wiz?Also, how does the pusher do measurements of distance, to determine exactly how much to push? How long do these measurements and subsequent calculations take? Does that show up as a lag time in how the pusher adjusts his/her pushing after a change in distance between the two object occurs?

Yes, you're right. That is an assumption. In place of any observation, we have to make assumptions in order to make predictions. Good thing we have this new observation; it informs us that in fact things are NOT uniform over time. Good to know.Is there any predictability to when these changes take place? Can I know when the popping will start again? Is there any determination behind it?Also, when species go extinct, do they make a noise?Finally, how can a food chain, and the interdependence between organisms work in this case? Was there an order of POPping such that animals lower on the food chain popped first? Seems it must have been; if you POP a lion with no meat to eat, the lion dies. Or was the lion a herbivore before?

lol.How does the pusher handle the atmosphere?And if I'm not supposed to question the pusher, how will I get to know the pusher? What's prayer?Is it possible to push the pusher? I like to push things that are annoying.

I mean, it's fun, I'll probably play around some more.. for the same reason we all love puzzle games.Nuggin,What is the purpose of science?It seems like you think the purpose of science is to find truth. But I completely disagree. Science cannot tell us about truth. It can only help us create models of the world we observe. Those models help us manipulate the world.But the models themselves need not be truth. In fact, there's an infinite regress; you will never get an model or mechanism behind every part of another model. At some point you accept something as "irreducable", or you simply keep basing your mechanisms on a "yet to be known" mechanism.In physics, I guess the "irreducable" would be atoms. Oh, no, wait, protons and neutrons. Crap. Quarks. No? Gluons? Strings?And a "yet to be known mechanism" ... what is "randomness" in quantum theory? Or is that just taken as "irreducable"?Science says nothing about truth. Occam's razor ABSOLUTELY has nothing to do with truth, and EVERYTHING to do with building models to predict and manipulate our world. When it comes to building modles and doing computations, keeping things simple with the least amount of assumptions serves us well. In the face of multiple competing theories, you want the computationally least involved one. You want the most easily extensible one. You want the one that has less mechanisms to change when your model inevitably breaks, because all models are fundamentally descriptions of what we have not yet observed, and new observations consistently do not fit within existing models. That's why the scientific method is so powerful--we can make progress in spite of all this.But when it comes to truth... there's no way to determine which is the "best", or which is "right." The rules for choosing one "truth" over another are very different for those of choosing one model over another. Why do you think scientific models have anything to do with truth?I'll give you an example. One truth says nothing about the question, WHY? For those who want an answer to this question, for those who are dissatisfied with having no answer, how is a "truth" with no answer better than a "truth" WITH an answer to this question?Your argument rests fundamentally on saying that Occam's razor applies to finding "truth." That's a complete misuse of the principle. It's a practical principle about empirical theories. Occam's razor is not useful for that which is not empirical.I'll stop here for now. I'm not pulling your chain Nuggin. I'm speaking seriously.Ben

Fair enough.. but I'm going to post this post to you on another thread... or maybe open a new thread. And I demand a REAL answer then.I'll get you a crackpot theory in the morning. It's gonna blow your mind pal. And rest assured, THIS man (starting at 33 seconds) is going to have a LARGE roll in MY theory man.See? My theory ALREADY kicks ass--it requires Windows Media Player. And I'm just getting started...