mooeypoo

No. And that was not on topic. It was also not a recommendation, it was a politely-looking encouraging suggestion from a moderator, hinting you should AVOID posting anything that is not following the subject of the thread. It was meant to warn you against breaking our rules, infinitesolid2. I recommend you stop mocking a friendly suggestion from a forum moderator and go read our rules.

Trust me, I was there! I went through something very similar a few years ago. I was also shocked, and I was also quite impressed, until I read a bit about the methods and I stopped being shocked. You know what, then? Good thing the clairvoyant gave you that motivation, even if it was a bit of a weird way to give it My point, however, is that as a scientist, you will need to exercise a bit more skepticism and try to find explanations to events and phenomena that fit reality. Those can be difficult sometimes, and you shouldn't give up looking for answers. The only thing that bugs me about your clairvoyant story is that it is a perfect example for a case where the "easy answer" - that the clairvoyant has supernatural abilities - is not the logical one. Not without further proof. As a scientist, you should demand more rigor. That's my only point. However, seeing as you seem to take this as your catalyst rather than a case study in supernatural abilities, I think we can move on from this story Incidentally, I'm a physicist-minded soon-to-be Astrophysicist. I'd go for that, but I'm biased. A double-blinded test is required.. Seriously, though, if you want to get into astrophysics, I suggest you get into the "light" stuff first. You should first get into what stars and planets are, how we know what we know about the Earth's orbit around the sun and the Moon's orbit around the Earth, etc. Read a bit about Einstein's special relativity and general relativity, but take into account people spend their entire lives studying these subjects and astrophysics in general -- don't expect to be an expert in two weeks! But you can definitely get into it. And the more you read, the more you'll figure out which sub-specialty or specific subject interests you, and you will be able to get more information and more research into those. Biology is not my strong suit but there are plenty of bio experts here to help you out if you so choose. I wouldn't know where to recommend you start with that, so I'll let them do that. About magnetism, it's a humongous subject, I suggest you start "small", with relatively simple experiments you can do at home, like understanding how to create a (temporary) magnet from metalic objects (bang them together, hard) and why that happens, then maybe look up some experiments with magnets and electromagnetism. Do you have any university courses you can take for introductory physics? If you can, it is worth it. You'll get the basic stuff that you can move on from there, see what interests you and pick specific subjects to continue researching. This applies to the other subjects as well, of course, like biology and chemistry, but i'm less inclined on those so - again - I'm biased As a side note to this, you need to understand that these stories are inspirational but they are mostly false. Newton didn't *really* come up with his theory because an apple fall on his head, it took him years of study and research (and some rigorous math, he invented calculus..) to come up with his (multiple) theories. The story told is a simplified, romantic version. But I think I get what you're saying, and I think that the best way this can happen is if you just start reading up on the subjects you find interesting. No one expects you will be an expert in two weeks and come up with some revolutionary theory in a month - but if you start getting into the subjects, maybe the "ooh!" moment will come in the shape of a specialty you find interesting, or an idea you feel you must research into. Many times the process itself is more important and fruitful than the "question" that lead to it. By exposing yourself to as many questions as you can, you will have the best chances in finding your 'way' into what truly interests you and makes you passionate. That is HARD to tell. There are so many things that are "big" and "great" and awesome that already have a chance of existing in the relatively near future, this is a question that only you can answer for yourself. Stem cell research can produce insanely cool applications. Space research has been incredibly fruitful in the past 40 years, and Biology/Immunology has concrete results you can experience for yourself. Many of the "cool" inventions were discovered accidently when the researchers were looking for something else entirely. Some were gradual progression into the "cool thing" from a "not so cool thing"... it's so broad, that it's really not easy to answer. You need to get yourself a bit more familiar with the subsets of the scientific subjects you find interesting and your passion will spawn from there. I always knew I love space but I didn't know what, exactly, I want to do in that subject.. it's a huuuuge subject! But now, as I'm studying and broadening my knowledge about it and about what exists (and doesn't) and what the community is researching and what not-just-yet, etc, I keep getting ideas on what I want to do. On what makes *me* passionate. Start by reading the general things and see which of the above subjects you want to start with, will be my advice. If you can find a general course in your town's university or school, even better -- usually those include labs and very cool experiments you can't do at home. Just start reading.. your curiosity will lead you to what interests you. ~moo

Many claimed clairvoyants and psychics do something quite "simple", actually, that is called Cold Reading. If you master it, it's really not hard to make it seem as if you're the best clairvoyant in the world. Some of them are self-deluded. Some know exactly what they're doing (and how, and mean it) and some are not too good. There might be real psychics out there, sure. Might. Just like there might be anything out there, but so far, all and any clairvoyant that was actually put to a *scientifically rigorous* test (that includes your basic double-blided testing and some basic limitations that otherwise make their "discoveries" trivial, like checking them for radio transmitters) failed miserably. When you know what methods these people use, you see that their "predictions" are quite easy to figure out. Here are a few principles worth remembering: People tend to forget the misses and remember only the hits. Psychics tell you something "almost right" and yet still wrong for 10 times and hit the mark once or twice. Our human nature is to remember the once or twice that impressed us and forget the 10 other times where they missed. People have natural body language that isn't hard to decipher. If you know how to read body language, you know where to go with your questions according to the reactions of the person in front of you. Certain statements are so general and vague, they fit anything you want them to fit. That's a usual concept with astrology, for example, but it works well with other "supernatural" readers. The statement, if read separately, can fit almost any individual, but since the person listening expects to hear something related to himself, he or she makes the connection. People have a tendency to find patterns even when those don't exist. You can see this when you look up at the clouds, or at rorshach ink blots, or at randomly-placed anything. Our brain makes a visual image from randomly placed items, and we tend to see patterns. If you know this principle, you can take advantage of it. Also, remember that you have no way of knowing how many misses the clairvoyant had before you. Even if we relate to everything as purely statistical (and ignore all the other "tricks" that one can perform, consciously or subconsciously, to figure a 'good guess' out) then even let's say the odds of the clairvoyant being right with you is one in 10,000. It's enough the clairvoyant had 20,000 other people in her lifetime, and this "lucky guess", even if we ignore everything else, is still not all that incredible. It's statistics. There are very low odds of any man to be hit by a meteorite. And yet, it *does* happen, because the number of people is so large, even large-number statistical odds have an eventual chance of happening. So, in short, you don't quite have enough information there to judge if the clairvoyant is truly "good", or if he or she has any real supernatural powers. The only way to check this is to perform external test using a double-blinded control. And so far, all clairvoyants and psychics who went through such test (even those in which they agreed in advance to the rules!) failed. Completely. I'm not saying psychics CAN'T exist, I'm saying that according to everything we know, including all tests in the matter (and quite a large number of tests), psychics and clairvoyants most probably don't exist. Unless someone proves otherwise. Proves scientifically,though And perhaps wins a Million Dollars. Now, that said, I don't see anything wrong with having a new hobby, specially one that involves science and critical thinking. I think that's an awesome hobby, incredibly interesting and has a lot of potential in it for being and inventing something "incredible". But one of the strongest principles in science is the scientific method, and maybe you should read a bit about how it works; its purpose is meant to eliminate exactly the above "tricks" (again, some people don't realise they're using those tricks, and aren't doing them out of malice) and avoid subjectivity. So, to get rid of subjectivity, you use controls -- double blinded experiments, for instance, where you can't influence the result, or peer review, where people intentionally try to play "Devil's Advocate" with a theory, trying to destroy its principles, so that if it survives the process it is *truly* strong and valid. And more, and more. Getting into science is great, it's very interesting and rewarding, but it comes with its own responsibility and with a unique method. I recommend that before you start thinking what you should invent, you first read a bit about the scientific method and how experiments are performed. Then, start thinking what gets you excited about nature and science.. there are so many subjects - physics, chemistry, biology, environment... - the list is huge, and it really depends on what makes you excited. Inventing something - incredible or not - takes time and effort, and you should go for something that excites you and interests you. Good luck ~moo

Not until the OP comes back with her own question, as opposed to what we guess she might've been trying to ask. ~moo

Regardless of what you think or not think of any kind of subject, I would recommend you take a step back and watch how you speak to others. Whether or not people here will accept your opinion is one thing (this *is* a debate forum, and opinions - from all sorts and types - are welcome, whether people like them or not) but it's quite another how you answer others. It is part of our rules of conduct that you do not engage in bad language and personal attacks. Please avoid doing that, so we can have a civil debate and relate to the content of what you're claiming rather than the general tone. Quite simply, let me put it this way: If you want respect from others, you need to give it to them. This is a good advice in general, not just for this forum, but it also happens to be in our rules. ~moo

Myself.

I'm still waiting for the groundbreaking concept, regardless of how hard the math is, I'd love to know how escape velocity is related to the expansion of the universe or to a recurring big bang, and how such a thing can be proven.. Will the OP please continue her thought?

This is a better map: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=bryant+park,+ny&sll=40.675234,-73.971043&sspn=0.342139,0.405121&ie=UTF8&ll=40.753263,-73.983157&spn=0.00534,0.00633&z=17 Bryant park is just behind the NY Public Library, on 42nd and Fifth Ave. Cute little park with chairs and tables and a coffee shop and WiFi.

The videos were proven to claim false claims in them multiple times in this thread, my friend. I will repost the site I posted initially just to summarize the main points: http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/apollohoax.html But beyond that, not too long ago new and brighter pictures of the surface of the moon were acquired and you can *clearly* see the landing places + vehicles + human tracks from the various apollo missions to the moon, INCLUDING the first landing. (here: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html and here: http://www.space.com/news/090717-lro-apollo11-images.html are two examples) If you still claim that's not good enough proof, then perhaps you need to reassess how you define "proof" in the first place. ~moo

Mokele, I think he means a space ship, but regardless, that's a good point, even to space -- in order to move and such, you need to be relatively light, otherwise the energy requirements to make a movement (or change it, like change directions or stop) is going to be enormous. That's true for space AND ocean. Ragnarok, are you talking about space ship or regular ship? I remember you said something about a space ship in the chatroom, that's why I assumed this is a spaceship too, but I might be wrong. Obviously, We will have different points to relate to if it's meant to be in water or in space.

Okay, Ragnarok As we discussed in the chatroom, you need to start with a single concept first.. a ship like this probably has a whole bunch of technology that doesn't exist yet, so choose one and start with that first. If we start with everything, we'll stray too much and confuse everything, and the potential science of it can be lost. After you choose the one thing you want to start with, try telling us what your vision of it is -- what will it do? what's unique about it as opposed to other technologies that already exist today? etc That way, we can start taking your idea and see if it's possible physically, and maybe hypothesize *how* it may be possible -- that is, give you a few ideas on what to start researching and checking to see how to actually design this piece of technology, if it's possible. Take into account that you're not the first to think of developing such a machine/uber-weapon -- so when you explain what you think it should do, try to show us exactly what you think is unique about it, and maybe try to think how it can work in real life; what physical aspect can it use to do what you want it to do? how can you start developing it? etc. Let's start with narrowing it down and go from there. ~moo

Please take into account that hazardous materials are no joke. Playing around with them can result in serious harm, specially when the person involved doesn't know what they're doing, and/or is operating without proper safety measures. Please go over our Hazardous Materials guidelines.

Quotes are a way to put things in context; i quoted YOU and then asked you to start following the rules. If it wasn't clear, the "request" was made as mycapacity as a moderator in this forum, and is only phrased as a request for the sake of politeness. Following our rules is non-negotiable, and the rules include not being disrespectful. A commendable, but failed attempt. This is also not the only post where you are acting disrespectfully to others. This was a note to get the discussion going on track rather than to the gutter. Posting up "ga ga ra ba dum" after a reply suggests the other poster speaks garbage. You might've not meant it to seem this way, but it does. If your intention was to joke around about your lack of understanding, you are in dire need of rephrasing your jokes. Perhaps, but theres a difference between joking and disrespecting. You seem to be going slightly over that line. I'm assuming it's unintentional, which is why i did not give you any "points" towards a suspension, and I do give you the benefit of the doubt, but please try to step back, read what you write, and before you make a joke see if its appropriate to make one. If people put the time to answer you and 98% of your replies are jokes, then you're wasting their time. Welcome to Science Forums. Now please participate in debates where all parties are privvy to your jokes, not just you. ~moo Now please get this discussion back on track and away from petty arguments about the (very clear) set of rules we have in this forum.

triclino, people actually spend time giving you legible answers to the questions you raise. Either you stop acting like a child or stop posting. Do go over our rules. ~moo

This site summarizes probably 99% of the claims made by the moonlandinghoax people, who are usually claiming THE SAME THINGS over and over again, despite the fact they're mostly all proben to be just plain wrong. So, please, read: http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html And read again. And again, if you need. Here, I'll post the link again: http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html You're not the first one to claim this conspiracy theory. You're not the first to recommend e wathc this movie (I've seen it). You're not the first to post the *SAME* old claims. Phil Plait is doing a GREAT job answering *EACH and EVERY ONE* of the claims made. Not missing a single one. http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html After you read it, if you have any other comments or questions, please refer to them specifically, and we can go from there. Claiming that these "hoax" claims were never answered is, quite simply, absolutely false. Here's the proof: http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html ~moo p.s there's also these: http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Did%20we%20land%20on%20the%20Moon.htm And more.. so many more... so many ....

kleinwolf, no one is interested in your personal traumas; you either speak science and back your claims with actual scientific proof and sources, or stop spreading your weird sexual traumas all over the forum. I suggest you make your decision quickly, and go over the rules of the forum and the definition of "SCIENCE".

Excellent Now tell us how it works, so we can analyze it. On the face of it, it sounds implausible, I don't see how any of these can produce an anti gravity machine. My guess would be using electrodynamic effects to repel the dime away from a coil that produces electromagnetism. That, however, isn't exactly an "anti gravity" machine per say, but I guess you can treat it as one if you consider a "floating coin" as "anti gravity" (notice that the machine doesn't cancel gravity, it just produces a stronger force upwards). That's just semantics, though. Another point to think of, though, is that while this type of machine (and again, I'm guessing what you made, I won't know until you tell us how you made it) will work great on a dime, but will not work all that great on a human being or something close to that size. In those sizes, the electrical current needs to be quite high, which then results in potential deadly byproduct of electrocution (among other implications). So these are the explanations out of *GUESSING* what you built. I'll hold off a final judgment until you tell us how this machine works and what it does. Where did you find how to build it, by the way? ~moo

No, not always. You can't escape a black hole Think of a waterfall as an example. Let's say you are in a boat at the edge of it, and the stream is pulling you towards a very high waterfall. As long as you're away from the edge, you might be able to escape it, if you have a strong enough engine. HOWEVER - if you pass the edge and you start falling down with the falling water (after the edge, with the waterfall), then no matter how powerful your boat's engine is, you will never be able to go back up towards the waterfall's edge and onto the safety of the river. In that scenario, you "entered" a waterfall and you cannot get out of it. That is similar to what happens in a Black Hole. A black hole's gravity is so intense that at some point you will need to have speed faster than the speed of light in order to achieve "Escape velocity" and get out of it. Since nothing can go faster than light, that's just not possible. ~moo

Also take into account that the ranking is out of all the sites alexa "follows", which is a whole lot of 'em. Being number 96,329 out of 100,000 is very low ranking, but being 96,329 out of hundreds of thousands or a few millions is quite a lot better.

It was off topic, and so the post was moved to its own thread. Rocketman, you're welcome to ask questions, so if you have any that are unrelated to a specific thread, open a new one.

Also, a comparison to google isn't really suitable in our case. A comparison should be for two similar sites; you can compare most sites to google and they'll seem tiny. However, if, in comparison to other scientific forums we are larger, then that turns the entire analysis over.

I'm trying to solve a rather complicated question I was faced with using Lagrangians (this isn't homework, it's a challenge I want to solve, I just figured this is the best forum for that type of question). In order to do that, I've simplified the physical situation to show a flat ring being pulled (from the center, for simplicity) on a track shaped as a negative parabola. The ring itself represents a part of a spring, so the pulling force is relative to the spring constant. I've simplified it a bit for starters, see the following schematics: m would be the mass of the ring. The ball at the far end represents whatever mass is pulling on the ring and creating the elastic energy of the spring that pulls the ring through the parabola. (The ring represents a single rotation of a spring.) So I started by stating the location x and y of the center of the ring: [math]y = h-x^2[/math] [math]x = x[/math] and so my x is a function of time, while y depends on x, So: [math]\dot{x} = 1[/math] [math]\dot{y} = -2x\dot{x}[/math] And my energies: [math]T = \frac{1}{2}m ( \dot{x}^2 +\dot{y}^2 ) = \frac{1}{2}m ( 1 + 4x^2\dot{x}^2 )[/math] [math]U = mg(h-x^2) + \frac{k}{2} ( x^2 + (h-x^2)^2 ) = mgh - mgx^2 + \frac{k}{2} ( x^2 + h^2 -2hx^2 + x^4 )[/math] And so, the Lagrangian: [math]L = T-U = \frac{1}{2}m ( 1 + 4x^2\dot{x}^2 ) - mgh - mgx^2 - \frac{k}{2} ( x^2 + h^2 -2hx^2 + x^4 )[/math] First off, seeing as I learned Lagrangians 3 semesters ago, I'm not too sure I'm doing this right, so assistance would be much appreciated. Second, I now have a problem with representing the moment of inertia for the disk. I know how to do that with a turning wheel (or ball) but I am not sure how to do that for the ring that is moving in this direction. Is my initial representation correct? and.. well.. how do I represent the moment of inertia if I want to treat the ring as a rigid body moving at that "track"? Thanks! ~moo

People. There is a useful button at the top of every post with a little exclamation mark on it, that is used to report a post or a thread. When you do that, it goes on to the moderator's attention so we can review why you think a certain thread should be closed (or not closed). These type of discussions aren't helping threads continue well. The moderation team isn't everywhere all the time. Reporting a post gets us to notice it, and gives you the stage to explain why you think we should act a certain way, so we can enforce the rules if we must. Seeing as Bignose and the OP are still having a discussion, I'm a bit reluctant to close the thread just yet. triclino, you are urged to read our rules and start reading what others write to you. You seem to be assuming too much in their answers rather than reading about what they're trying to help you with. Please stick to the discussion. ~moo

They didn't mess up nothin', I just won. Haaaaii azuuure!! Hope you'll pop back into the chatroom! We missed you! Plus, damn, this forum needs some more feminine help. My hands are full.