mooeypoo

... oooookay now. And other than colorful pictures, do you actually have any math, evidence or actual science behind these claims?

Then they don't belong in a science forum, Peron. Plain and simple. If there's a test, there should be math, and if the math does not support the results of the test, then either the math is wrong (and it can be proven) or the test is flawed. Physics and math go hand in hand. There's no one without the other. You can't have a physical concept that has no math behind it. That would make it fantasy, not science.

No, I don't, all I need to do is look at the peer reviewed experiments that were done with it and showed your result to be dependant on other factors to tell you that your idea is seriously lacking. (What others have done for the past 2 pages of this thread. Read it again) The burden of proof is on YOU. not on us. We showed you where your theory is lacking, now you either re-assess your theory, or accept defeat in a mini peer review. Don't feel bad, many theories fail peer review. It's a great opportunity to revise them so that they're stronger, better, and are actually valid. Good luck. ~moo

By supplying mathematical concepts and detailing the experiment you've done. You can, alternatively, supply peer review evidence that state the above, if you can find it. Remember, though, that it needs to be peer reviewed to be accepted. Easy enough even if you don't have a scanner, a cell phone or a digital camera. No. No no. That's not the way science works. Science works by repeating the tests and checking if the measurements were accurate. And by reviewing the work of others, attempting to see what went wrong (the entire purpose of peer review). Scientists don't live next to one another - it's enough they publish the methodology of their experiments and the final results to make other scientists in places all over the world repeat those experiments and validate those results. There might be a fundamental error in your experiment that is hard to spot, and that is giving your flawed results. That's why experiments are DUPLICATED ELSEWHERE but Third Party scientists. You're just not supplying what you're supposed to: actual *scientific* reference and experiment methodology. How can this experiment of yours be repeated? If it can't, then it's not a scientific concept, it's a fluke. As you were repeatedly told in this forum, there are a million reasons other than your theory for the "results" you report, even if we do believe them. No one challenged the RESULTS you posted. People challenged your conclusion. You need to show the conclusion is ABSOLUTELY a result of the method of your theory rather than all the alternatives people suggested. If you can't, then that's that. And if it can, you need to show it. ~moo

Few does not mean none. You need to find one, otherwise the theory is moot. Why would there be few? You're not talking about some force we can't recognize, or a force that is hard to detect. We have accurate detection methods for magnetic fields. So accurate, in fact, that we have instruments that can identify minute changes in the gravitational force on the surface of the Earth. If your idea is valid, checking it should not be a problem. These type of experiments were done 100 years ago, with quite clear cut results, antiaging. On top of that, those are the type of experiments you can do yourself. The only problem you might find is measuring accurately, but that too can be resolved quite easily. Go ahead then. Test this. And then tell us: Are your results any different than Maxwell's and his peers? I don't know how a brick you charge up lost two pounds in weight, it makes no sense it did. To be perfectly frank: I don't think it did. I'm not accusing you of a lie, I'm just being skeptical, as I should be in science. If you want your experiment to be accepted, it needs to be repeated by third parties and the same result found. That means you need to provide the process of your experiment so we can all repeat it. Then, we can test the experiment *itself* (IE: did you perhaps forget something? Was your brick affected by anything other than gravity that might've caused it to 'lose' weight? etc). Then, we will test it ourselves and see if we get the same result. If we don't, that's the end of it. ~moo

Geistke, now you're being utterly rude. You're quoting people and putting the quote under different member names. Half of the quotes you attribute to me I did not say. This: Is swansont from post #49, which is later copy-pasted in its entirety again in a jumbled quote that seems to come from you (?). Sort out your quotes! Do not put words in other people's mouths and make sure you quote others' words as theirs and not as yours. You should also go over the rules of the forum, as well as the Speculation Policy. And for the last time: Stop using indent. This isn't a friendly request, it's a moderator's demand.

geistkie, you are not different than other member of this forum. Your posts are not "more special", and they do not require extra highlighting. Stop abusing the BB code. Use the "INDENT" tag when the INDENT tag is needed, and not for the entire post. That said, you have yet to produce actual math, even though it was repeatedly requested throughout the thread. The other debaters showed you how your theory FAILS in the mathematical aspect. If you disagree, the ONLY WAY to provide evidence that the theory is still valid is by supplying the MATH to show that it does NOT fail. Pretty explanations will just not cut it. You are the one making the claim, you are the one who has the burden of proof to convince all of us that you have a valid theory. The math is against your theory. Supply alternative math or accept defeat in this mini peer review. Don't take it hard; a lot of theories fail peer review. You should take it as a chance to improve it, think it over, re-evaluate it, and perhaps post it again when it holds more merit. ~moo

If both frames move at the same speed and parallel to one another, they're at the same frame........ that is, each person on their own "frame" will see the other one stationary relative to himself. As if they share the same frame, which they do, because they move parallel to one another and in the same velocity. Unless I'm missing something here, I don't see why you would need to use momentum here at all. ~moo

But the right calculation has no error in it, as swansont has REPEATEDLY told you. Which is it, geistkie? If it has an error, it is wrong. It can't have an error and still be right. Be serious, please. Only from a distance is a sphere "concentrated mass". If your distance is considerably larger than the sphere's radius, then you can treat it as a concentrated mass in the calculation. Otherwise, you can't. It's not about physics consideration, it's about practicality. A planet whose radius is a few thousand kilometers has effects over an object that is a few LIGHT YEARS away that are so close to an estimation of it as a "concentrated mass" dot, that we use just that. It's practically the same in large distances. You can also show that mathematically by calculating the limits when the distance X is extremely larger than the radius R. It's NOT the same in close distances. Huh? Physics and math go hand in hand. If you prove mathematically, and can pose *working* predictable models, then it's physics. They're not mutually exclusive. Your problem is not the criticism. Your problem is that your math is wrong. Look again at what swansont wrote you. I'm not going to repeat this again for what seems like the 5th time (at least). You have some basic flaws in the construction of your formula, and those result in flawed math. Flawed math does not lead to working physics. But you are wrong, you don't understand the math and the shell theorem does only pertain to spheres. You're just ignoring these claims instead of facing them. You're avoiding proving your math when people tell you you're wrong; that will not get people to stop telling you that you're wrong. It will just get people to stop debating with you. If you have problems in your math, you should fix them. If you don't understand where the problem lies, you should ask for clarification (though, I must say, I think with the amount of time people repeated these counter claims, you should just go over the thread again). But you can ignore this 'till the sun explodes and it still will not make your math right or your conclusion valid. This is utterly unfair. The people you refer to are professional scientists who work in the field of physics and math. They are not mindless automatons who swallowed what they're schoolbooks told them. The claims they put forth in this thread had EXPLANATIONS of why you're wrong, unlike your counterclaims which seem to be consisting of stomping-the-ground insistence that you're right and they're wrong. May I remind you that there's nothing better to a scientist than discovering some "new thing" - some revolutionary new idea - in physics (or math). Slightly and marginally less exciting (and yet still extremely desired) is having someone else discover this new revolutionary idea. Revolutionary ideas lead to more opportunity for research, more opportunity to find new stuff that no one has thought of before and stem from that new discovery, and - to the materialistic among us - an opportunity for fame and fortune. The rejection of your claim has nothing to do with them being stuck in "oldschool" science or being automatons. Their rejection has to do with your inability to provide proper mathematical concepts and face the problems that are raised by your claims. Oh, knock it off. No one's insisting on dogmas. We would LOVE to have revolution in physics. You're just not supplying the goods. You're not giving anything to him. He provided proper math, not some "whoopass" claim you can "give him" the "win" for. Seriously, it's as if I claim that 1+10 is 9, and a math expert tells me that it's 11, and I say "Okay, I'll give it to you". Really? Other than that, please stop using "INDENT" tag on all your posts. There's a purpose for indent, and it's not to get your posts glowey-greeny so that they might attract the eye. ~moo

This entire thing s copied, and violates our (and the WORLD's!) anti plagiarism policy. All you had to do, is cite this from the source. A quick google search showed this one: http://www.regentsprep.org/rEGENTS/mathb/2C3/electricalresouce.htm Don't forget it again.

Everything you say is moot without evidence, antiaging, seeing as your claim is scientific based, your evidence need be scientific based too. Claiming prosecution does not negate your obligation to supply proof for your claim.

You're dealing with semantics. Yesterday I stepped in a puddle of water at the edge of the road. It was deeper than I thought and my sock got completely wet. As a result, I got to the office with a soaked shoe that made terrible one-sided squeeks. Did anyone predict this? Nope. Does that make it an unpredictable event? Sure. Did it exist? Sadly, yes. And yet -- it's semantics. It doesn't mean that if someone actually TRIED to predict this scenario, it would have been impossible. I think you should redefine your statement. ~moo

Then you can't. At least not yet. At the very least, you should stop beating around the bush about it. You have no mathematical basis for your theory. People who actually know their physics and their maths cannot figure a reasonable way of producing such mathematical representation for your theory, so - either come up with one, or stop saying you have one. You don't. You are neglecting one important issue, here. Why would this particle produce the movement of the system? Peron, ten years ago (and perhaps now, still) "String Theory" was at its infancy. It had strong math, excellent predictions, but no falsifiability and no actual experimentation. That's an infant theory (though, even with string theory one could argue it is not really a theory because it lacks actual falsifiability, but the basis it has in math and predictability is so relatively strong, that this point is not clear). You don't have a theory, you have a statement that is based on nothing, has flawed logic, imaginative pronouns and some fancy schmancy set up. No prediction. No experimentation. No falsifiability. No "correction" of flaws of current theories. No way of adapting to current theories. No way of explaining how it is *better explaining reality* over current theories. You have nothing. You seem to state them as fact. That might have something to do with it. No, you made a fancy imaginative claim. It's not even an estimated guess, as such guess is based on estimation (duh) and you don't even have that. (you see how you state stuff as facts?) How do you know? How would you test for it? How does that affect the surroundings? Show a set of phenomena that are explained by this particle and its vibrations. But you treat your theory as if it's a fact (see above), and you insist we should consider it without the tiniest shred of scientific evidence. NOTHING. You need much more than a test. If your system above is moving, you should be able to show that the movement was produced by this particle (where would it move? how much? why? what in this particle creates this movement?) You need much much more than this test to show us that your space-particle has any sort of merit to it. ~moo

<shriek> Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.. oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.. oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.. oooooooooooooooooooooooo.. ooo... ooo .. oo.. o--Wait, does that mean I can safely watch "LOST" without spoilers? <Squeeeee!> Be safe, babe, and good luck.

Thread moved to Pseudoscience and Speculations forum.

I doubt that means asking others to answer for you. In any case, now that the exam is over - we are not in the habit of answering homework (or EXAM!) questions for you. If you want homework assistance, there's a special sub-forum for that purpose, where we can review your attempts and help you understand the subject. Good luck. ~moo

Yes, but that's not science, throng. Science is logic *AND* evidence. It's explaining REALITY, and to show that you are explaining reality, you need to make predictable theories that explain the phenomena they refer to. If you don't have that, you don't have a scientific theory.

Then your thought is fallacious, and apparently more closed minded than the scientists whose theories you claim to disprove.

"reason" that isn't based on evidence isn't science. Check this out: Premise: Unicorns are white. Supporting Reason: All stories about unicorns describe it as white, from more than one society all over the world. Conclusion: Unicorns exist. The above sequence is reason. That does not make it science. Read the speculation policy again, north. Reason without evidence is not science. It won't help a theory get accepted. It won't help your idea get merit. You MUST support your claims, specifically when they come in opposition with an existing theory that does have evidence to support it. ~moo

Well, you said that it's the matter in space. Either you mean stellar objects (stars, planets, etc) --- which produce gravity, and follow Einstein's theory, or you mean space ITSELF has matter, which is the same as saying Ether. Ether is just a name that was proposed to this so-called "matter" of space. You will need to provide more than just whimsey logic game to prove that, north. If you claim there's another phenomena here, or another force, or another "thing", you need to provide evidence. And math. And a clear way of proving it existence, and a way by which its existence is proven false. In short - your theory needs to be founded on evidence, be predictive, and falsifiable. Until you provide these, it's not a theory. And claiming a theory that is WELL FOUNDED, proven, predictable, and falsifiable, is not true but not putting forth any viable alternatives that - at the very least - equal it by evidence, is really not the way to get your theory to be accepted. By anyone. ~moo

Thread moved to Pseudoscience and Speculations.

Before Einstein's publication, the issue of "matter" of space - the Ether - was strongly believed. Scientists devised experiment upon experiment to show how this "matter" in space affects light and other phenomena. Experiment after experiment showed no difference between a claim that ether exists and a claim that ether does not exist. For one of the more famous experiments, see the Michaelson-Morley experiment. Therefore, the conclusion is that Ether is irrelevant. If something has no effect on the environment, it's as if it's nonexistent. For example, I can claim an invisible pink unicorn pulls your feet down to earth - which is why you don't fall off it when it rotates. However, if my experiments fail to show any sort of phenomena related to this unicorn, or affected by this unicorn, then it is irrelevant. It's as if this unicorn doesn't exist. The physicist Lorentz, who lived in Einstein's time, had a hard time accepting the idea that Ether does not exist. He knew of the experiments, and he knew that PRACTICALLY speaking, the experiments show that Ether isn't there. But he repeatedly stated that regardless of his own personal feelings against getting rid of the Ether, it's quite obvious that it isn't needed. Your claim-premise that space is composed of matter has been shown to be false. Unless you have actual evidence to provide that may shed light on a different conclusion, whatever logic follows this premise is bound to be flawed too. ~moo

I'm not angry, I'm frustrated. You insist on ignoring the rules, and there's a pretty clear result to that. Unfortunately. Let me help you out here.

johnnny, please read the rules and Speculations Policy, before this thread will be closed too. We are not here to entertain one-liner meaningless posts. If you want to learn and debate, you're welcome to. If you're here for one-liner trolling and non-substantiated claims without evidence, please reconsider your registration. ~moo

Okay, enough is enough. For 7 pages of a thread you have asked questions and posed speculations -- alll of which were answered. And yet, you keep claiming you have no clue who thinks what and why and how. These issues were dealt with and answered to berfore in this thread. For the past 2 pages, we've been going in circles over issues that were resolved. I recommend you both go over the rules of the forum again, and over our "Speculation Policy", and I remind you that we are not a mythological funthought fantasy forum, but a science forum, and as such, we work with evidence, not earmuffed stomping-your-feet-on-the-ground attitude. This thread is closed pending moderation review.