mooeypoo

Dude, I live in New York.. Spammer? *WHICH ONE* ??

Awesome idea. Count me in. 1 or 2pm-ish is good for me, but I can make it at any time.

Sure, go ahead, produce it. It will at least give us the opportunity to finally analyze something where we're all on the same page.

And people who use it well, get lots of benefits from it, from traffic to sites to networking and exposure, and acknowledgement of brands and PR. I'm on, and i'm personally having fun. If you want, tweet me up: @mooeypoo

Good point, swansont. I meant something a bit different, but I accept the point you're making completely.

Mathematical proof requires some analytical skills, it does not involve magic or conjuring, so it is possible to reach at it without it previously being in a book. In fact, many *GOOD* math professors will ask you to come up with such proof to train your analytical mind, to see if you know how to approach it, to at least try. Of course it can be homework. It can be the best KIND of homework, the kind that actually teaches you something. If it was already in a book, it wouldn't be good homework, it would be good copying. That said, in order for you to even BEGIN solving such a question - homework or not - you have to at least start somewhere. Show us your style, show us what you're thinking, anything. This will help you, because you will get to start it out. And this will help us because we will see your style and have a better grasp on how to help you. Either way, you have to start cooperating here, triclino. Start listening to the replies people put for you and stop being so insistant that they spoon-feed you. I'm sure you're much more intelligent than that, and can do more than copy off the screen (or off some book). If you think we misunderstood your question, then please rephrase it. Otherwise, I recommend you just start reading people's answers and cooperating back. ~moo

No, the thread was created to hold your posts from *another* thread. Posts that were deemed off topic, and so were split up, in accordance to the rules of the forum.This method was picked instead of flat out deleting the threads and/or issuing an infraction for off-topic subjects. In short, proton, you began a slightly off topic discussion in a thread, and Martin thought it should go on in another thread. If you didn't mean it to be a separate discussion, then you're more than welcome to drop the subject. People have continued this debate in the current thread to solve the problem that arose in the original thread. That problem was offtopic. It's either solving it here or not solving it at all. Since we are a community forum, people assumed you would be willing to solve the miscommunication problem. This problem seems to persist, though, in some of the other threads you participate in. I really think you should stop stomping your feet in the ground claiming there's no problem and instead spend a bit of time trying to figure out why people complain that you're not being understood. It is a general rule in public speaking and debating, that if your audience has misunderstood you, the problem lies in your method of argument. Whether you think you have a problem or not, the bottom line is that people (and quite a number of them) think your methodology is a bit lacking. This thread was meant to solve the problem. If you insist on ignoring it, you're (sadly) bound to make it worse. You can go ahead and claim I'm out to get you, or that I don't know physics, or science, or whatever else you think you know best, but that will not change the fact that you are being asked to cooperate on this subject, and actively choose not to. ~moo

This thread is now on 24 Hour Suicide Watch. The thread starter has failed or is failing to support their position, has not managed the thread direction in a manner which supports its purpose, or is actively encouraging a disorderly discussion. The thread starter must bring the thread under control in order for the thread to stay open. Alternatively, there are more reportable posts breaching the SFN Rules in this thread than there are non-reportable posts, and all participants are expected to improve their level of input if this thread is to remain open. If the thread does not turn into a productive and rational discussion within 24 hours of this post, then it will be closed without any consideration of the moderation policy. All participants are responsible for helping to bring the thread back on track. This post is a standard text set by SFN policy.

If there's no discussion, stop insisting there is one. Regardless, I don't quite see how you would be in any position to give any moderator "advice" on how to run threads. I do recommend you make your point already and stop insisting you're the only person in the world who knows physics the way physics is supposed to be. ~moo p.s: No one forces you to participate in any debate. If you don't want to, you should just stop debating. We don't lose any sleep over this particular one, I assure you; our questions were meant to see if we can get a discussion - a contributing discussion - going, but if you don't think you should cooperate with that idea, you're more than welcome to stop "being drawn back" here. I must say,though, that you can't possibly expect to patronize people and then expect them to ignore it, or be totally surprised when they answer you back. Get with the program.

triclino, welcome to ScienceForums. Your question sounds like it's for homework, but regardless of whether or not it is, we're not usually doing "rigorous proof" for other people. If you want others to show you how to approach it, then just read the posts above (because they did tell you) and rephrase the question. No one here will just sit down and solve the problem (that is already solved) for you. If your intension is to verify that what you've already done is correct, then the least you can do is post some of it here for others to review. In short, if you want assistance, you will need to cooperate. Other than that, I urge everyone on the thread to remain patient and curteous and remember that we are here for a scientific discussion, and not some geusswork practice of the personal reasons someone asked a question. Everyone should stick to the topic at hand, and the OP should start cooperating. ~moo

Alrighty then, there's no point in a discussion, is there? ~moo

Not when your peers don't understand, or are unsure of, the context you are using it. And not when the context keeps changing. proton, it's not like only a single person did not understand your context or had a hard time with your use of terms - the entire posting-membership of this thread is insisting that you get off your high horse and start making sense for the sake of mutual understanding. You can insist that everyone's an idiot and misses your point until you're blue in the face, but that will not change the fact that if you don't start using conventional, *CLEAR* definitions, no one will want to debate you, because the debate will be absolutely pointless. Cosmology and Astronomy and Physics PhDs, who deal with these terms, definitions and highly technical papers on a daily basis have told you this, along with others who are "just" knowledgeable in physics. We're not here to compare intellect sizes, proton, we're here for a useful debate. Stop being the lone gunmen trying to put his sattle size on display, and get back on with the program. ~moo

Okay, proton, you seem to have missed swansont's point. Regardless, I'll answer your question: The physical definition of momentum is p=mv Mind you, relativistic momentum is slightly different. Photon momentum, for that matter, is entirely different: (source: http://frank.mtsu.edu/~phys2020/Lectures/Part_2__L6-L11/L8/Relativistic_Momentum/body_relativistic_momentum.html ) As most physics terminology, it relies on mathematical definitions. We use the descriptions of it to simplify the mathematical definition, but that doesn't mean the words of the definition are better.. So.. there are several "types" of momentum.. maybe you would like to tell us what you mean?

That's great, throng, because now I have no idea what you mean. If you agree I understand you, and I don't quite think I agreed with your point, then.. uhm.. what.. is your point?

Not necessarily. A constant is a single definition, not necessarily a single value. For that matter, G is a constant, but it can be different "numbers" depending on units.. if you change units (which you're allowed to do, but Im not sure when you'd like to do that), the number changes. but its MEANING doesn't change in that context. Here's what wikipedia says about a Physical Constant: (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_constant) The speed of light, c, fits that definition no matter how you measure it or what units you use. ~moo

That explanation would overwhelm me. I understood what you said, and I do know my physics, but it would require a bit of effort. Maybe it is the fact English isn't my primary language, maybe not, in either case, we are trying to help people understand physical concepts even when they're not physicists or physics-oriented. Specially when an obviously confused member asks a question that SHOWS he needs some help understanding these concepts. If you want to appear all smart and knowledgeable, publish a paper, where (sadly) you can use however high language you wish and no laymen will ever understand you. If you're answering a member that has some trouble understanding you, you're expected a bit of cooperation.

Sound, who knows, there's no sound in space, and it's absolutely irrelevant. Glow? Yes, absolutely. Specially since the CMBR glow is on the radio frequency, not just visible to the naked eye. So, for the fifth time, jsaldea12, it is NOT EXACTLY like a balloon. Maybe not the inflation of a balloon, but as we pointed out many times, the comparison to a balloon is very simplistic and only works until a certain point. ( source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation ) It's a good article to start with, and the accompanying resources are excellent as well. I suggest you read some of it, it might help you understand how inflation could cause the CMBR. ~moo P.S: "CMBR" is the "Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation", so it already has 'radiation' in it, and saying "CMBR Radiation" or "CMBR blackbody radiation" is just redundant. Plus, Blackbody radiation isn't precisely the same thing.

Then: It's not science. We have no reason to replace the current theory (that does have predictions, quite accurate ones) with a messily written idea that has no math and no predictions. You just looooove inventing laws, don't you. Wordsalad. Makes absolutely no sense. For one, that law does not exist to everything. There's a law of conservation of energy, but that doesn't mean there's conservation of everything. Second, your sentence structure makes no sense. I have no idea what you're saying. WHAT blackbody radiation? Where? Evidence, man. EVIDENCE!

We understand, you can't answer our questions, or acknowledge the fact that we show your statements to be false.

Religious posts were taken off this thread. Please stay on topic and avoid religious topics, as these are against our rules of conduct and usually end up in a non-scientific discussion.

Please go over the rules of the forum - we do NOT allow for religious discussions here. If you want to discuss religion, go to a theology forum. This thread is closed.

Again? Really? Seriously, do you REALLY think that repeating crap will make the crap less crappy? Stop repeating your statements, we've shown you that they're wrong. Repeating wrong statements will not make them right, it will just make you someone who repeatedly states wrong statements.

.....?? First off, inflation of a balloon DOES make a sound. Go inflate a few balloons and see for yourself that the stretching rubber makes quite an audible sound. Second, there's no sound in space, because sound requires a medium to travel through, like air. There's no air in space. Third, what the heck are you blabbering about and how does that even relate to anything you've said before or anything we've asked you to clarify? Are you even reading what we write to you? Explosion is different than expansion, and not just by its sound. Did you even study physics at all? Like.. elementary physics? The type that explains the difference between explosion and expansion? Doesn't sound like it, in space or on earth. I think you should go over the definition of "Black Body Radiation" again. http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/black_body_radiation.html And about what a nuclear explosion is and isn't, and what it produces (and doesn't). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_nuclear_explosions http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/effects.htm Nice fantasy. You should publish your own fiction stories, at least you'll get some recognition from science-illiterate 12 year olds. Unless, of course, you want to change the face of physics, in which case, I would recommend you go read the definition of "MATHEMATICS" and then supply some. Wonderfully written bunch of googligook. Let me reiterate this term, I think you might have missed it, and perhaps you do well by looking it up in the dictionary (along with some basic physics books to read): Mathematics. Learn some, supply some, otherwise your hypothesis will forever remain in the realm of a mediocre science fiction idea. Supply some math and predictions, or stop wasting our time. ~moo

That's not evidence, it's a REPETITIVE STATEMENT. Evidence will include analysis of observation and mathematical data. You are consistently ignoring us, reposting your statement as if that will make you right, and then have the guts to claim we ignore your posts (or delete them). Be serious. Be scientific. We're not a free-for-all fantasy site, we're a science forum. We're being very patient and cooperative here, but we won't keep debating you for long if you refuse to cooperate back. At some point we'll just declare this a collosal waste of time and end up *REALLY* ignoring your repetitions. ~moo

But if you're using mock language and refusing to explain yourself, we don't understand your question. If it was all clear, this thread wouldn't have been open. You talk your own language instead of the conformed language of physics. Good luck with that?