Bignose

But (T/T) is 1. It is a fundamental of the number system and operations as we know them. Anything (except 0) divided by itself is 1. I don't see why multiplying anything by 1 implies that the exponents can be greater than 1. [math]\frac{T}{T}\cdot 17 = 17 = {\sqrt{17}}^2 = {\sqrt[5]{17}}^5[/math] Why does there have to be a restriction on the exponents? And if there is a restriction, why not just state it? When I write an equation for the temperature of a block of steel, for example, it is understood that T (representing temperature) is greater than or equal to zero. If there is a restriction on a value in an equation, then that restriction is a part of the equation. If there is no stated restrictions on the variables, then they can take any value. Exponents less than 2 included. Your terms using logarithms unnecessarily places restrictions on the variables, because with the logarithms, you are limited to positive values. Use you first example just with negative numbers this time: [math](-6)^3 + (-3)^3 = (-3)^5[/math] If you do use your logarithm canceling, you will not get the same on the right and left hand sides, the logarithm of a negative number has an imaginary part. But, you can divide that equation by [math](-3)^3 = -27 [/math] and it is still correct. Where is the benefit from getting a wrong answer using your method? Where is the problem in diving the equation by -27? I remain thoroughly unconvinced of any problem at all. You said it yourself that "there is ... no value T which makes the first equation untrue when the second equation is true."

OK, well, then, you are just plain wrong. The dot wave is not the smallest energy level in the Universe. Because, dot waves are actually made up of something I call banana slinkies (which I will abbreviates as BS). There are [math]5.67\cdot10^8 \pi^5 [/math] BS per dot wave. There is more than one kind of BS, what I like to call ripe BS and rotten BS. I'm not sure which kind of BS makes up the dot wave, yet, or maybe it is a combination of both ripe and rotten BS. Fortunately, you showed me that I don't need no silly things like evidence or proof of this idea. Neverthemind that there is no way to detect or prove the existence of my banana slinkies, they exist. And just to run the gamut here, my theory is better than Einstein's, Feynmann's and Hawkins' all combined -- you all will see, they laughed at Columbus and Galileo, too. So, jerry, are you prepared to accept that your ideas are wrong -- the dot wave is NOT the smallest unit of energy, it is in fact the banana slinky? I await your response so I can begin to teach you in the ways of the BS. [/end silliness] Do you see how ridiculous is sounds to say something like "There can be no evidence of the existence of the dot-wave." ?!? We might as well say that angels push objects together and that is the source of gravity or say that the wishing of unicorns is what makes our computers work. The other alternative is that if you are going to stick your no evidence position, then this thread will probably be closed because then there is nothing to discuss.

I just want to write something somewhat similar to what swansont wrote here. I've written it before, and I'll probably write it again, but this notion of "establishment" or "orthodoxy" in the sciences is frankly ridiculous. All the "establishment" needs is evidence that backs up a theory. That's it. Period. If there is evidence that a new theory is better than the old one, guess what happens... the new theory becomes the "establishment". Sure, a few individuals who have spent their entire careers working on one idea that is now proven incorrect may be bitter or cling to their old ideas, but that is human nature. The community as a whole is constantly looking for new ideas and new theories! That's pretty much the whole reason they became scientists in the first place! But, they are not going to entertain every single thought or notion or passing whim of any person. That person with the new notion has to bring evidence to the table that what they say could be true. And, when you are trying to overturn some of the basics, you better bring a lot of evidence. So, that's where we are with this thread, jerry. You are proposing to overthrow a lot of the basics, so there better be just mountains or mountains of evidence. Let's see it. Without those mountains and mountains of evidence, you have a story, and nothing more. And, unless your copies of your theory also had mountains and mountains evidence to go with it, there is no reason anyone in the scientific community had any reason at all to bother reading it. If I told you I had the world's biggest gold nugget in my bathroom, would you just believe me? If I told you that my pet cat can fly and sing the National Anthem of Zimbabwe in a choir with Bigfoot and a leprechaun, would you just believe me? I'd hope not. You'd probably require me to provide some evidence. In exactly the same way, in order for the members of the forum to believe you, in order for members of the scientific community to believe you (and some of us forum members are part of the scientific community, too), you have to provide evidence. And, I'm sorry if I am repeating myself, but it is going to take mountains and mountains and mountains of evidence to start convincing us.

I still don't really see the point in making things more complicated than is needed. Don, in response to your mini-article there, can you cite one example where [math]Ta^x + Tb^y = Tc^z[/math] is not equivalent to [math]a^x + b^y = c^z[/math]? I.e. what value of T makes the first equation untrue, when the second equation is true? I am focusing on your line: How is this "wrong"?

Even to flesh out a little more of what CharonY wrote, if doesn't have to be "bio"statistics or statistics for the life sciences. The information is all the same, just that the examples are different for the different subjects. The mathematics are the same whether flipping a coin or seeing if a baby is M or F. Any introduction to statistics book should be fine -- and I am sure that there is a Statistics for Dummies book. I'd poke around on a good used book website, like abebooks.com, and see what intro to statistics books I could pick up for $1 or $2.

Correct units are completely, 100% necessary to match your words. If your equation doesn't have the correct units for an acceleration -- length per time squared -- then it isn't an acceleration. Period. Call it something else. Anything else. Call it "addeleration" or "superflying" or "travelling" whatever. But, it is NOT an acceleration. The term accleration has a very specific meaning, and inherent with the meaning is the correct units -- length per time squared. This is the most basic of concepts. I explained this to you using many examples, some farcical, some not. You know this, unless you were literally born just yesterday. When someone asks you how far it is to the post office, you don't tell them "750 lumens" do you? Or "1.6 Hertz"? Or "52 Ohms"? No, you answer in a unit of length "3 blocks" or "2.2 miles" or "3.1 km". It is the same thing. Your formula returns equally nonsensical answers. You call is an acceleration, but when you query your formula by putting in actual values, it returns something that is NOT a length per time squared. It doesn't matter if the acceleration is meters per second squared, kilometers per year squared, miles per nanosecond squared, leagues per fortnight squared, or parsecs per Gaussian year squared. It has, has, HAS, to be a length per time squared. Your equation returns a mass per length. Something like a kilogram per meter, or a pound mass per yard, or a dram per nautical mile or a batman per light-year. (How cool is that name of a unit of mass? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_(mass) ) You equation might as well return bunches of bananas per hogshead or deciliters per millenia, because the units that get returned are just as meaningless. Unless it has the units of length per time squared, it is NOT an acceleration. Just to head it off at the pass, it is also important to note that just because some combination of variables end up with the units of length per time squared, does not necessarily mean that that combination represents an acceleration. A good example is that units of torque are Newton*meters and a Joule is a Newton*meter. Torque and energy are two very different things, they just happen to have to same units. But, it is the very first step any good physicist/scientist does to an equation -- make sure it is dimensionally sound. So, the first step is to check to see if the equation yields the necessary dimension, And then the second step, if and only if the new equation passes the first step, is to investigate how accurate the equations is. Your equation fails this first step. Period. It needs to be remedied, because until it is remedied, the rest of the conversation is just a waste of time. You can argue about how awesome you think your equation is until you are blue in the face, but it is NOT an acceleration, and you cannot call it as such.

It is equally aggravating to post a reply and to be completely ignored. Was my post, #87, unclear? You asked for help, and I explained how people are trying to help you. You said nothing. You certainly haven't given a serious look at the help members are trying to provide. You didn't address any of the issues that were brought up by me or anyone else. Such as the incorrect dimensions. As I said in my previous post, this is awfully a lot like troll behavior. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you have to look at the issues being raised and address them. If your theory cannot take a few questions from random people on an Internet forum, how is it ever going to survive some serious scrutiny by something like a peer-review process to get a paper published?

0! is defined to be equal to 1, not 0. (Didn't check the rest, but I noticed that error straight off.)

Then please accept the help that is being offered in this thread. People are trying to help you. They are trying to tell you that your equation doesn't even have the correct units. They are trying to help you understand that having the correct units is essential in any kind of calculation. You know this. When you cash your paycheck, you expect to be paid in units of money -- not bananas or peacocks or telephone poles. When the cop pulls you over for speeding he doesn't tell you you were going 42 pounds per pizza in a 35 vortexes per milliliter zone. Units matter. That is the help that you appear to be asking for in the quote above, but you are refusing. You are asking for help, and yet you are refusing it so far. Accept the help. Unless this is just an empty request, in which case you are just a troll. Sorry to be so blunt, but that's the long and the short of it. There is lots of help in this thread, if you'd just accept it.

Actually, I think absolute is talking about energy at zero or little cost. It is typical crackpottery. He seems to be claiming that even a child can make a free energy device but someone (scientific community?) is repressing it. The only "energy source" that a child can make is a lemon battery: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_battery Even that isn't going to be "free" energy. It is energy that comes from the sun to grow the lemon tree. Energy always come from somewhere and always goes somewhere. absolute, if you aren't going to back up any of your claims, why even bother posting? For example, what is exactly meant by "gravity is an energy multiplier"?!? Typical word salad crackpottery in my opinion.

What swansont said. The sign changes indicate a change in the direction of the velocity. The equation is correct as written.

BA, in the simplest of terms, it is simply that energy cannot be created or destroyed. The next step is to understand that energy can be converted from one form to another, sometimes easily, sometimes not, but the total amount of energy is still the same. Some examples are burning gasoline which takes the chemical energy in the fuel and turns it into kinetic energy of the motion of the car. Now, that conversion isn't terribly efficient. I.e. if you just took the kinetic energy in the car, it would be a lot less than the chemical energy that was in the gas before it was burned. So, to complete the conservation, you have to look for the other forms of energy. Heat is the big one. Noise is also energy in the form of pressure waves. Energy used to charge the battery via the alternator. The chemical energy in the emissions. etc. etc. If you add up all these other forms of energy, it will equal the total amount of energy that was in the gasoline that was consumed. In the inelastic collision above, the energy available in the kinetic energy of the balls before the collision is equal to the kinetic energy of the balls after the collision plus the energy that was used to deform the two balls (that's pretty much the definition of an inelastic collision). The inelasticisty consumes the energy because work is needed to deform the balls; there is inevitable some heating that occurs during the deformation and noise that will be made. And, this is true in every single situation, with one possible exception. The Big Bang. It isn't that the conservation of energy was violated during The Big Bang -- it is that we don't know exactly what the Big Bang is and what was before the BB. Every other situation has been shown to follow conservation of energy. There are lots of different forms of energy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_forms But, if you add up all the forms of energy at one time, then some time later add it all up again, the two sums will be the same. Every time. No one has ever been able to demonstrate any example that breaks that rule. That's why there is no such device as something that can produce more energy than it takes in, and if you've lost some energy, you aren't doing the bookkeeping correctly. If you do it correctly, the sums are always equal.

I am very tired of people completely misunderstanding the billiard ball collisions. Especially when it is pretty much covered in every single university-level physics undergraduate textbook. Let's look at a perfectly elastic collision. Conservation of momentum: [math]m_1 v_{1i} + m_2 v_{2i} = m_1 v_{1f} + m_2 v_{2f}[/math] where the i means initial (pre-collision) and f means final (post-collision). Conservation of energy: [math]\frac{1}{2} m_1 v_{1i}^2 + \frac{1}{2}m_2 v_{2i}^2 = \frac{1}{2}m_1 v_{1f}^2 + \frac{1}{2}m_2 v_{2f}^2[/math] Now, assuming that the masses and the initial velocities are known, you can solve these two equations for the two final velocities: [math]v_{1f}= \frac{m_1-m_2}{m_1+m_2}v_{1i} + \frac{2m_2}{m_1 + m_2}v_{2i}[/math] [math]v_{2f}= \frac{2m_1}{m_1+m_2}v_{1i} + \frac{m_2-m_1}{m_1 + m_2}v_{2i}[/math] So, if we put your example in. Masses equal, object A moving at 5 m/s and object B moving at 0 m/s, if the collision is perfectly elastic, the only solution to that situation result in obejct A moving at 0 m/s and object B moving at 5 m/s. Therefore, we can obviously conclude that the collision is inelastic. To describe inelastic collisions, we have to introduce something called the coefficient of restitution, e. [math]e = \frac{v_{2f}-v_{1f}}{v_{1i}-v_{2i}}[/math] And, using the coefficient of restitution, the equations for the final velocities in terms of the masses and original velocities is: [math]v_{1f}= \frac{(e+1)m_2 v_{2i} + v_{1i}(m_1-em_2)}{m_1+m_2}[/math] [math]v_{2f}= \frac{(e+1)m_1 v_{1i} + v_{2i}(m_2-em_1)}{m_1+m_2}[/math] And, finally, when there is inelasticity, there is an energy loss due to the deformation of the objects that are colliding. This is given by: [math]\Delta K E = -\frac{1}{4}(1-e^2)(m_1 v_{1i}^2-m_2 v_{2i}^2)[/math] And, guess, what, if you add up the kinetic energy of the two objects post-collision and this loss due to inelasticity... it adds up to all the kinetic energy of the two objects pre-collision! Energy is completely, 100% conserved. This has been shown over and over and over again. So, let's look at your collision again. v_1i = 5, v_2i = 0 m_1 = m_2 = m v_1f = 3, v_2f = 2. So, let's look at this when we put these numbers into the equation for the post-collisional velocity after an elastic collision: [math] 3 = -\frac{5}{2}e[/math] Resulting in [math]e=-\frac{6}{5}[/math] And, if you put the numbers into the equation for the post collisional velocity of the second, and solve for e, you get [math]e=-\frac{1}{5}[/math] What you get is two different answers for e. In a binary collision, the there is only one coefficient of restitution. That is, the restitution of the first object colliding with the second object is that same as the restitution of the second object colliding with the first. Since there are two different answers, this tells you that in fact, this collision could never happen. The situation you describe is impossible. So, in summary of this long post. The laws of conservation of momentum and energy still hold. You just have to account for all of the energy. I hope this doesn't sound mean, because I don't intend it to be, but the study of collisions is pretty basic stuff covered in any decent university level text. I'd highly recommend you go back to the basics and read up before you declare the exceptionally-well verified laws of the universe broken. edited to correct a small mistake in one of the eqns.

Not to try to quibble about it, but I think that your quote there is just a little off. It isn't so much "we're not going to help you so do it yourself" as it is "we're not going to do the work for you". There is a difference. On the one hand, the person is spoonfed an answer -- they really have little or no idea where it came from, all they know is that they have an answer and their instructor gave them full credit for it. What have they learned? That they can take advantage of some nice people on the Internet to give them answers. On the other hand, by helping draw out some of the knowledge the poster probably already knows, and guiding them in the right direction, nudging them back on course when they make mistakes, but not actually doing the calculations/work for them, they at least have the opportunity to learn form the experience. Similarly, if a person just posts a question, I think that it is fair to ask them what work they have done to answer it so far. If the answer is 0, I think that it is completely reasonable to not give them anything back. When I was a Teacher's Assistant at university, I saw these exact same issues come up all the time. Students would come in hoping that I would show them exactly how to do the homework problems. They were hoping I'd tell them what equation to use, how to solve it, and them maybe just leave it up to them to "plug 'n' chug" by putting the problem values into the equation. I never did. If they hadn't done any work, I sent them away. I always told them that they should have at the barest minimum 1) a drawing of the situation 2) a list of the variables that are known and unknown 3) a list of the equations that may be relevant toward solving the problem and 4) a list of assumptions that may be applicable and their consequences to the equations. If the student didn't know how to answer that 1-4), then I helped point them in the right direction, but I definitely didn't just do it for them. Look, in the real world, they are going to have a boss that is going to expect them to be able to do these type of problems. They aren't going to sit there and spoon feed them the equations and the assumptions they need to do their work. The boss and the company hired them because they are supposed to be able to do these things. The students have to learn how to do it for themselves, or, simply put they get fired. I think that in general, the policy is working pretty well, at least the way I interpret it. I always try to get the poster to answer questions similar to those 1-4 above, and usually that gets them going in the right direction. Not always, and so it sometimes takes more specific guidance. Nothing is written in stone. In summary, it is a small difference in words, but I think it is an important point. It isn't "this is your homework, do it yourself!". It is "we aren't doing the work for you, but let's see if we can't guide you towards the right answer". I like the idea of tagging different threads as homework threads. In a similar idea, I wonder if the mods couldn't just move all the HH threads to their respective forums. That way, the threads are seen by each sections regulars and should get more eye-traffic. But, they are still linked back to the HH section, so that people know that the HH policy still applies to. You'd still have to put some sort of HW flag on them, too, though.

This is almost word-for-word my thoughts exactly. If someone is really dedicated to getting someone else to answer their homework problem for them, they will just reword it to sound like a "normal" question. I really, really, really like having a homework section with a "no doing work for the person asking the question" rule. I think that without this rule, it invites too many people to just seek the easy way out and hope that someone on the forum does their problem for them.

You are missing the concept of density -- mass divided by volume. The water "knows" that the air is trapped because the object weighs a certain amount and takes up a certain volume. And, the object isn't solid metal, because it weighs too little for that. It is the difference in densities that is important, not the absolute weight. A 1 inch by 1 inch by 1 inch block of wood floats the same as a 1 foot by 1 foot by 1 foot block of wood. Because the density of the wood is the same, even though a 1 foot by 1 foot by 1 foot block of wood is much, much heavier than the 1 inch cubed size.

This opens up a whole new can of worms, because numerical integration of these equations isn't always straightforward. Consider the equation [math]\frac{\partial{A}}{\partial{t}} = R[/math] where R represents all the functions and terms on the right hand side. First, you approximate [math]\frac{\partial{A}}{\partial{t}}[/math] by [math]\frac{\Delta A}{\Delta t}[/math] Now, your choice of [math]\Delta t[/math] can be critical, and can be determined by how you evaluate R. For example, let's write [math]\Delta A = A^{n+1} - A^{n}[/math] where the superscript n stands for the time level. So, n would be the current time, and n+1 would be one time step into the future. The question becomes do you evaluate R at time n, or at time n+1? Each has it's advantages. Evaluating R at time n is easier -- you have all the values of the variables at time n, so it is straightforward. But, you will be limited to taking really small [math]{\Delta t}[/math]'s because if you take too large of steps, the solution won't be very accurate and may even become unstable (oscillating). So, the other choice is to evaluate R at time n+1. But, then because you don't have all the variables at time n+1, you will have to invert a matrix, which is very computationally expensive and time expensive. But, you can take larger [math]{\Delta t}[/math]'s. This method is also usually much more stable. The best method can also depend on whether the partial differential equation is parabolic, hyperbolic, or elliptic. To complicate things further, partial differential equations can be mixed; that is parabolic in one variable and elliptic in another (or any other mixture). Obviously, there are many more issues (and the discussion on the above can get much more in depth). But, I don't want to go too deep into it here. I'd suggest you get a good book on numerical simulation. A good one is Lapidus and Pinder's Numerical Solution of Partial Differential Equations in Science and Engineering, though there are many more out there that are good because this is an important and difficult subject. It has almost become it's own separate field. There is the research into the physics that are described by the equations and then there is the research into determining the best way of using a computer to generate solutions to those equations. The big point is that care has to be taken in choosing your method of solving these equations numerically, because you want to be absolutely sure that what the computer outputs is based on the physics of the problem, and not are artificial errors based on the method of solution.

Sisyphus, You can integrate over the pressure force over the entire surface of the object, or you can use Archimedes' Law. It's the same thing. Virtually any introduction to fluid mechanics book will go over this. To be specific, please see any of the recent editions of Munson, Young, and Okiishi's Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics. A good course will have the students do both calculations for some simple shapes (blocks, cylinders, or spheres, cones, etc.) to prove that either formulation is equivalent.

pela, How can your words make any kind of predictions? Because science is all about predictions and testing whether what was predicted happened exactly as predicted or not. Words can describe a scene well -- we've all read good novels -- but they don't describe the exact details particularly well. I.e. the pressure drop through the 90 degree bend was 0.156 atm. The star's core has a temperature of 100 000 000 degrees C. The baseball curved 6 inches. The probe lands on Mars at 69.3454N degrees latitude, 12.802W degrees longitude. Etc. Words cannot describe these precise things. You need math. You need to know that if your equation predicts a pressure drop of 0.2 atm, or a core temperature of 200 000 000, or a curve os 12 inches, or if the probe lands on the equator of Mars, then your equation is wrong. Meaning that the idea the equation is based on is wrong. So, it is fine to have ideas. But, until there is some math to express precisely what the idea is, and make some predictions based on the idea, all you have is an idea. You don't have anything more. It isn't even really a "hypothesis" You have a story. It may be entertaining or you may really think it is right, but that doesn't mean anything about how right or wrong it is. Without math, it is not different than anything written by Arthur C. Clarke, or Stephen King. The right or wrong is determined by the predicitive power of the idea, and that can only be demonstrated through math. And, I'm sorry, but the "First doing business, than the books." analogy is horribly flawed. If you don't do the books right from the beginning, you aren't going to have a business for very long. A business is designed to bring in money. If you aren't keeping track of the money, your business will fail. Pretty much in the same way that if your idea doesn't generate some math and make predicitions, the idea pretty much fails. In summary, if you want to attract more than just a teeny tiny amount of interest from a science-based forum, you better have some math to generate some predictions. Otherwise, don't expect much. You have a story, you have zero evidence that anything you've written represents reality in any way whatsoever.

Buoyancy is a consequence of the pressure of the fluid the object is immersed in. The direction of "up" is because the deeper you go into a body of fluid, the higher the pressure is. (i.e. the highest pressure in the Ocean is at the bottom of the Marianas Trench).

blazarwolf, It isn't just spelling for the sake of spelling. In science, spelling a person's name correctly isn't just a sign of respect for them and their work (which it is!), but you want to spell someone's name correctly so that you can reference their work and look up the original papers if you want to. If you put "hizenberg" into Web of Science (a database of scientific papers by author, journal, and the recent ones have abstracts). Of course "Heisenberg" comes up with many results. Furthermore, science has many terms that are defined precisely. And, in order to be as clear and unambiguous as possible, it is important to use language as correctly as possible. We all make mistakes, both in terms of misspellings and grammar. But, it isn't that hard to use a spell checker, and it isn't that hard to spell a guy's name correctly. (For example, if you put "hizenberg" into Google, Google suggests the correct spelling.) If you use words incorrectly, including the spelling because sometimes all it takes is one letter to change the meaning of a word quite dramatically, and punctuation and grammar, too, because a period or comma can change the meaning of phrase dramatically, then to use your own parlance, the words and thoughts won't be conveyed correctly. Since you place them to be of premier importance, you would think that you'd want to give the reader the best possible chances of interpreting the words and thoughts as exactly as you intended. And the way to do that is through proper spelling and punctuation and using the words correctly. Lastly, I actually want to come back to the respect thing. It's a guy's name, and it's nice to get his name right to recognize the important contribution he made to science. If you ever get something published and make an important enough contribution to science to have a principle or law or theorem named after you, I think that you'd probably be pretty interested in making sure that people spelled your name correctly to recognize your contributions.

So, somewhere between these two statements, there is some middle ground. Because 1st all statements have to have some proof, and yet you dismiss some things as rubbish instantly. There are some statements which even you don't require proof for. Basically, all this comes down to is, your standards are some things are different that others. That's perfectly fine. I think that we all do this to a certain extent. I accept the word that Penn and Teller faked a video, because as was mentioned above, that is exactly the kind of thing they would do. I don't need any further substantiation. Science is like this too. You give a talk at a conference, and there will be people in the audience who go along exactly with what you say. And there will be some audience members who will ask questions, or will need further evidence to be convinced. This happens everywhere, you just want more proof on hoax claims, and that's fine.

I don't understand what you mean by "solve the [math]\frac{\partial{A}}{\partial{t}}[/math] part". That part represents the change of A with respect to time, just like the gradient (which you say you understand) represents the change of something with respect to space. t is just another independent variable like x,y, and z.

You don't need any special software to post in TeX, you just have to use the [ math] and [/ math] tags (without the spaces) For example. Which is easier to read: 3 * integral 1 to infinty ( rho^2 ( 1 - exp [ 1/(x * rho^6) ] ) ) d rho or [math]3\int^{\infty}_{1} (\rho^2( 1-e^{\frac{1}{x \rho^6}}))d\rho [/math]? See http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4236&highlight=latex for a good intro

But, how do you define a middle ground, John? I claim that there is an invisible faerie that lives in my backyard. This is a hoax. What possible proof can I show that proves this is a hoax? I can't show you a faked picture -- It's an invisible faerie after all. I can't show you can faked "powers" because I haven't claimed that the faerie has any. How can I or (more to the point) you prove that my claim is a hoax? -------------------------------- And, that is the big point. You can't disprove such a statement. The onus is on me, the claimant, to provide evidence to give reason to believe the claim. I have to provide reasons why someone else should believe that there is a faerie in my backyard. It is not on the other side to prove that my claims are a hoax.