mooeypoo

Dr Syntax, you need to start debating science and not empty claims. Not all websites are valid evidence. There is such a thing called "Peer Review", and articles that went through this process are more reliable - for a reason. Any child can open a site (let alone one on "tripod.com" domain) and preach whatever they think sounds right. That does not lend any credence to your claims, on the contrary, it just goes to show you have no viable evidence. This does not move the debate forward, it just makes it go round and round in circles. It is also directly against our speculation policy and our rules of debate here in the forum. Rules that - I must remind you - you agreed to when you signed in (remember the "I agree to the terms of use of this forum"? that's the one). Please go over our rules. Also, go over the scientific method. Go over what counts as evidence, what peer review is, and how to properly cite and use scientific data in your claims. Until you do that, your claims are empty. They're moot, and so is your proposed conclusion. ~moo

Sure, the basic concept of telepathy isn't all that far fetched, if only there were such things as brain waves that were "transmitted". As it turns out, those were never proven to exist.

Thread moved to Pseudoscience and Speculation. Please be advised that though this is the rightful place for scientific hypothesis and speculation, these still must hold to scientific methodology. That is, the evidence put forth should be consistent, and peer-reviewed articles should be put forth if a conclusion is drawn. ~moo

Stop, seriously, we're not idiots. You keep raising this bolony EVERY TIME you can. If you don't believe it, then stop talking pseudoscience as if it's science. YOU posted this as a topic for debate. We've been going over this topic in multiple threads over and over again and you keep dropping it (usually out of necessity) and then coming back to it after a little while as if this forum has never dealt with the subject before. Seriously? You are posting this subject as if it has merit. If you are not, then stop arguing with people who are trying to tell you that there's no evidence. You keep claiming there is, falling back on a "BUT I DIDN'T PROPOSE THIS" claim to hide behind. Gee. Either put up evidence, or stop raising this subject again. We've been over it, we've been showing you over and over again why the claims are bolony. Utter brilliant crap. You haven't shown us a single shred of evidence otherwise. So if this "isn't your topic" and you "don't even believe it" then we've just about covered any and every possible angle of this bolony and it's time you drop it. If you do think you have something to contribute (which you obviously do, seeing your REPEATED attempts to reopen it even in threads that have absolutely NOTHING to do with it) then stop giving us empty claims and start talking science. ~moo

Show the data. Where is it? Was it verified? Is he the only one claiming it? How do we know he's right? Can we corroborate his findings?? Let us deal with actual evidence, bombus, not just empty claims. To be honest, I don't think you have anything other than empty claims, that's why you resort to repetition. Prove me wrong, please. I beg you. ~moo

for the last time: Stop debating the person arguing the theory and start debating the theory, bombus! When you post the actual claims, you were shown that they're ridiculous and utter bolony. You chose to bring forth lots of people (ahem, 2) that support utter bolony. It means nothing other than those people support utter bolony. If you want people to treat this bolony seriously, your only course of action is to give us evidence that has merit. Arguing about whether or not that specific Doctor is or isn't a crank is irrelevant. We will not accept the theory just because he says so, we will accept a theory if we see enough evidence. It's time you put up valid evidence for the theory, bombus. Stop running away from the responsibility YOU hold as the person claiming bolony to be true. Prove us wrong. Scientifically. ~moo

Do you know the concept of peer reviewed articles, bombus? Seeing as this was a repeated request of you for a few posts in a few threads already, perhaps you should revisit that definition and come back to us when you have more relevant data. To be more specific, when you gave forth *claims* from the theory, they were dealt with. The credentials (or lack thereof) of the person claiming are irrelevant, whether he is a doctor or a crank. The *ONLY* relevance to the credentials of the person speaking is to speak of their methodology; it is no proof, but if a person is a crank -- that is, he is using flawed methodology repeatedly, then his claims are already suspicious. On its own, the claim of crank'hood is not enough to disprove his claims, but that is NOT what was done here and on the other threads on this topic. In this - and other threads -- on the matter of plate tectonics, the issue was the claims of the theory. They were dealt with and you were shown why the claims were wrong, *AND* what evidence support plate tectonics. You were asked to supply better evidence if you still insist on claiming that the evidence on the contrary are superior. Giving another website that is not peer reviewed - REGARDLESS of the title of the owner of that website -- is insufficient under any means. The theory you propose was shown to be crap. Bringing forth the people who still believe in that theory only serves to showcase who believes in crap, not to give more credence to the theory. Now, do you have anything SUBSTANTIAL and SCIENTIFIC to add, or are we going to continue down this path where you refuse to go by the scientific method and we go 'round and 'round and 'round 'till there's nothing left to rant about? Your choice. I recommend that before you answer, you go over the rules of the forum, and remind you that this isn't your personal website or blog, it is a community science forum. We go by the scientific method and a scientific methodology, not by who has the most sites written by a bigger title. ~moo

Stop being a child, bombus. You know it's not about the subject but about the methodology. If your intention is to troll, be repetitive and post unsupported claims, then don't bother. If you decide to actually do science, then you know damn well that there's a methodology to science, there are responsibilities you - as the claim poster - must adhere to. Seriously, don't think us fools, as if we did not expect that a meaningless, empty thread about (surprise!) geology is here only for the purpose of existing. You are not doing your OWN claims any justice by avoiding the actual fact. I recommend that unless you have something meaningful scientifically (not unsupported imaginative googligook supported by a handful of personal websites) you avoid reopening a thread that was closed because you insisted to ignore the rules of this forum. This thread is closed pending moderation review. ~moo

There was also no thread about the speed of light until someone asked about it. Geophysics is a huge subject. Opening a thread for the sake of opening a thread is meaningless. Do you have a question to pose? a topic for debate? an initial premise to argue? anything at all? If not, then there's not much point to this thread, is there?

Peron, you cannot put forth a claim that is totally unproven and then base an entire hypothesis on it, and expect people to accept that hypothesis. You need to start giving us references and evidence of *why* you think "there's no reason they shouldn't exist". There's no reason why the pink unicorn shouldn't exist either, and yet until I can prove its existence or show some merit as to why I have reason to assume its existence, relying on it for any sort of hypothesis is moot. Stop putting up empty claims. You already know this, you're not new to the forum - this is a science forum that requires scientific evidence and methodology. You have the burden of proof because you are the one suggesting a hypothesis. in other words: Where are these real science and real research, Peron? Look it up, post it. Give us something substantial to debate. We're waiting for some relevant claims, Peron. So far all you have is empty imaginative excuses. Those don't count as science. ~moo

I believe that is the "Bandwagon Fallacy" (or "Appeal to Popularity" or "Argumentum ad Populum", etc). Can be said about a bazillion different things and shown throughout history.. as bascule pointed out, smoking is only one of them.

Where is this actual physics, Peron?

Pseudoscience is discarding methodology in favor of seeking ways to convince others of the validity of an idea or phenomenon without evidence or in spite of contrary evidence.

If it wasn't clear, the sticky thread "Pseudoscience for the responsible" is an extension of the forum rules, and is not quite up for debate about the rules. Since the debate exists, you may continue it here, on the non-sticky extension, but the actual RULES - which all have agreed to abide to by clicking "I AGREE" in the registering process - are on the sticky post, here: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=43786 Have fun.

Let me make it easier on all, then. I thought it was answered, but it seems the discussion strayed a bit. So, for the sake of consistency, here's munion's latest question (I think): Was that the one you didn't get an answer for, munion?

munion your question was answered in the first few posts, and the discussion moved onwards to related question. Is there anything else you didn't get an answer on?

Geophysics is a huge subject, bombus. Is there anything more specific you want to discuss scientifically?

That might be, but not in their current form. In their current form, they're incompatible. And yet, each of them explains its own realm almost perfectly. So, the only way to produce a unified theory is to find one that explains *BOTH* at the same time. Yours doesn't explain both, it just claims to be a single theory. That's insufficient. You're missing the biggest part of science, sanandra. You're missing the part where you convince us by providing evidence and basis for your claims. ~moo

The Clairvoyant, take into account that the request for math is not an empty one. This isn't just us saying that the mathematics makes physics "clearer" or "more scientific" or sounding better, the point in mathematics is to provide the predictions! Think of it this way: A physical theory explains that objects are attracted to one another by the force of gravity. Great. I predict that when I drop an apple from some X feet height, it will fall to the ground and not fly up to the sky. In that aspect, my theory is predictive, indeed. But that's not the actual predictive powre. The POWERFUL prediction comes when I tell you how many seconds PRECISELY it would take for an apple to fall X amount of feet in certain environments (vacuum, no vacuum, etc). *THAT* is the predictive power that can tell me if my theory has any use to it and has merit or not. That's what maths gives me. You don't have to have the math to have a proper physical hypothesis, but eventually this hypothesis will have to have some mathematical backing if it is to be predictive and represent reality properly. ~moo

Nice, nice, point taken, kudos for trying. Of course, that only solves the single "issue" of light existing before the sun (btw - three days before.. quite a long time to build everything to starlight). There are quite a number of other issues and inconsistencies. But then again, one of the most intriguing things about the bible is that one can argue whatever one desires to argue by twisttwaggle the biblical interpretations to fit reality. For that matter, I can also argue that the entire chapter is, in fact, utterly symbolic and therefore the word 'light' does not mean EM spectrum but rather love, and the word "sun" does not mean our closest star but rather the joy of learning. Easy peezy. ~moo

Exactly that. One more thing worth mentioning is that the definitions are very important to clarify. That is, in the context of relativity, what we usually refer to as "mass" is no longer an absolute unchanging property of the object. We solve this by relating to the objects "rest mass" - which is the mass the object has in the "rest" frame (that is, in a frame where the object is stationary). Also, "p" in this context is different too. It is momentum, but not the same way we use it in non relativistic physics. This relativistic momentum has an additional relativistic "Lorentz Factor": [math]\gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}[/math] So, while classical physics defines momentum as [math]p=mv[/math], relativistic momentum is defined as [math]p=\gamma m_0 v = \frac{m_0 v}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}[/math] So when we see the "m", "p" and so on, when we relate to it in relativity context, we have to make sure we are using the proper relativistic definitions. This is a good reference for the basic definitions and math behind relativistic energy: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/Relativ/releng.html

I must remind everyone that even though this is titled "Speculation" forum, speculation is not empty random googligook. Speculations require some sort of evidence and support, otherwise they are not speculation but rather a rant. Please take the time to go over the Speculation policy: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/announcement.php?f=59&a=13 as well as our official rules of conduct: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/announcement.php?f=59&a=14 sanandra, if you want to be taken seriously, start treating yourself and us seriously, and start reading our rules. This isn't a recommendation, it's a requirement which you agreed to when you signed up. ~moo

The speculation board has rules. You are expected to support your speculations with actual scientifically valid evidence. What you have so far is gobblygook babble. Do you really expect anyone to take you seriously when you don't take yourself seriously? Einstein might not have said that, but he showed it in his mathematical formulas. Perhaps you should go over them. Prove it. Show evidence, something. Stop talking empty silliness and start basing your claims on actual science. Beyond the fact that you're practically interfering with actually interesting scientific experiments, you're also doing absolutely no justice to your own hypothesis, as no one will take any of this seriously if you claim to speak out of your own orifice. I recommend you read our rules, sanandra, we are being very patient so far with your empty claims - those are against our rules of conduct. Put up some evidence or stop claiming you know better than everyone else who actually (guess what) have evidence. You can maintain that cows coo and birds plop. So what? Until you provide some sort of VALID evidence, predictions, scientific methodology, you're not even raising a vaild scientific HYPOTHESIS. It's not even there, sanandra. You're so certain you're right, how about you go the tiny extra step to provide us with something a bit more concrete than "BUT EVERYONE ELSE SAY STUFF I DONT UNDERSTAND THEY MUST BE WRONG!" claims. Who knows, you might end up learning some new science, and perhaps teaching us some. I'm open minded, but I am not as open minded as to let my brain fall out. I suggest you follow that. And read our rules. ~moo

You were given experiments that were tested with electromagnetic waves -- which is light! -- you just seem to either ignore them or pretend they weren't given so you can make your point. GPS systems, I remind you, use both electromagnetic communication (light!) AND atomic clocks and demonstrate the predictive power of relativity. Do you even know what you are talking about sananda? You seem to be answering quite complicated physical notions with utter disregard to how science works. No citations, no evidence for your claim, just blatant claims. Please stop. And yet, how wrong. Read some physics, will ya? There's a reason light is "no longer just a wave", it did not come out of someone's orifice. Read. ~moo

Quite frankly, Clairvoyant, thinking you can revolutionize physics without knowing what physics is at the moment is pretentious. How do you know what you're suggesting doesn't already exist if you don't know what exists and how it was found? I'm not saying it's IMPOSSIBLE to reach a revolutionary idea if you don't know the current theories, but it is definitely much more improbable. It's as if I would expect to revolutionize the way cars are made without knowing how a car works other than it having wheels. I might be able to revolutionize a car, but that would truly be a fluke. I have much better chances to figure out a revolutionary car if I study how current cars work, what problems exist in the current process of building cars and what current problems still exist. Do you see the point we're trying to make here? ~moo