mooeypoo

yay, me too! we need more scientists. You can have useful things to say regardless of your degree or aspirations, so that was a bit unnecessary - we will listen whether you are a PhD or a highschool student. But we will also require the same level of substantiation and proof from everyone. Your statements are interesting and the stories are intriguing, but you have to help us out here and put references. Otherwise, they're not quite useful, no matter what your background is. ~moo

Thanks iNow! but more importantly, I have a new user title!! squeeeeeeeeeee!

Here, I did a bit of the work for you. Now you have something to read over the weekend: Motion of photons: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00892.htm Planck's Constant and the energy of a photon: http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/quantumzone/photoelectric2.html can a human see single photons? http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/see_a_photon.html Interaction of light and atoms (Think.. why would they interact if there's no photon movement? you need to explain that if you still claim that photons don't move): http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/lasers/lasers2.html Interaction between photons and matter: http://mightylib.mit.edu/Course%20Materials/22.01/Fall%202001/photons%20part%201.pdf And more, and more, and more. Read a bit about the physics you insist is wrong, it seems you don't know enough to understand it, let alone crush it. You have a lot of work to do if you want to convince us (let alone the scientific community). Make sure you can - at the very LEAST - answer the questions your theory posts. At the current time, it's simply irrelevant, since it doesn't answer questions better than current theories (in fact, it has holes that the current theory fills), it has no predictions, and no reason for us to switch between the current theories to yours. Welcome to a mini peer review. ~moo

I'm not going to teach you physics you're perfectly able to learn for yourself with a VERY BASIC google search and some books. We already told you what's wrong with your theory, it's not a very large leap to study EXISTING physics, if you care so much in undermining it.

claims claims.. empty claims.. Have you ever picked a physics book? These things you dismiss so quickly have been proven for centuries. You don't seem to understand that you don't convince ANYONE by making empty claims without evidence. Don't forget: You came to *us*. You should stand for the burden of proof, which is on YOU. So far you're not even close to showing any sort of credence to your claims. ~moo

But it's based on no factual data. I predict that unicorns eat cookies. That's a testable prediction. At least it is theoretically, for when we find unicorns. It's also unbased - I need to prove unicorns exist, and I need to base my prediction on *SOMETHING* realistic, something physical, something that will transform the prediction from pure hypothetical mythology to a relevant discussion topic.

And as the speculation policy CLEARLY states:

Einstein proved it already. Actually, whenever you look at the sun, you prove it; the mere fact (FACT! proven!!!) that it we see the sun the way it WAS 8 minutes ago (and the moon as it was 4 seconds ago), PROVES photons are 'travelling'. Since you're the one claiming they're not, you not only need to prove your statement, you need to prove it FITS the current observations (of time-lapse between distant stars/objects, and more). We follow PROVEN facts. The burden of proof is on you.

In case it wasn't clear, referencing ANY non-peer reviewed work (specifically one that has no OTHER external references) does not constitute substantiation. Even more so when it is a post in the Pseudoscience and Speculation forum. Do you have ANY valid resources to back your statements up?

Referencing your own posts that contain no other references does not constitute proper substantiation.

The site won't be PG rated, the forum is, but.. since you're a mod, I wouldn't worry I didn't understand this one, I have to say. Fock? What did i miss....

Hey guys As you probably know, I have a site/blog intended on bringing science to the public. The site's about to take some direction-change, and as part of it, I want to include a list of funny (and slightly naughty) science pickup lines. And who better to help me than YOU, naughty little buggers. So, feel free to share your most science'y pickup lines. Please take into account that the forum is PG rated. If you feel you have a winner that is innappropriate for a PG-13 site, send me a pm about it. I'll pick the best ones and they will be featured (with proper credit to the suggester!) on the new, upcoming (very exciiiiting) site! Good luck.. ~moo p.s YDOAPS, I remind you this is a PG13 forum. Just sayin'.

First off, USE PROPER QUOTES! There's a"Quote" button, it really isn't that hard, and it's quite rude otherwise, seeing as our words are put out of context and restated by you otherwise. Second, ideas are worthless unless they are proven to actually obey the laws of reality, and predict how objects/phenomena behave. That is done with math. Regardless of your blatant distortion of history (Newton was, first and foremost, a mathematician, whether you like it or not), your own theory lacks any kind of proof, substantiation or basis that it is even remotely plausible. On top of that, the "alternative" theories - the physics theories of our current day - answer all the above questions, manage to predict phenomena, and just work a lot better than yours. So there's no reason for us to consider your theory if you don't meet the burden of proof. Even a minimal one. Which you don't. Now stop arguing about whether or not you should try to prove your theory and start proving it, otherwise just admit you have nothing and stop wasting our time.

Because you came to us suggesting a theory that contradicts all we know about physics. Unlike what you would like to believe, the burden of proof is on you, not on us, and you're not holding up to it. First off, use quotes, like we do, there's a special button for it and it's rather easy. Otherwise, we can't understand what you're talking about or who said what (and in what context!). Newton is the creator of calculus. CALCULUS! Mathematics! He discovered the laws of physics THROUGH his work on defining mathematical principles of calculus. Darwing didn't specify physics, he specified biology, which is different. He did, however, rely his ENTIRE theory on *OBSERVATIONS*. Eratosthenes *CALCULATED* the circumference of the Earth using geometry and MATH (sin/cos, length of shadows, etc). That is *ABSOLUTELY* using math. If you make the distinction of "having an idea" and THEN "using math", then I urge you to do the math now, seeing you already had an idea. It appears you need to do some history reading, too. ~moo

If you don't understand something, it doesn't mean no one understands it. It also doesn't mean it's not true. Math is PART of science. It's not being "reduced" to anything. Mathematical explanations are the crux of physics; our 'philosophical' explanations, our WORDS, are limited tools that explain the observable laws of the universe that are described by math. Math is not just there to help us 'understand' it, it helps us make PREDICTIONS (correct ones!) about our universe. That's extremely powerful. Well, the universe has laws we can observe and attempt to explain; we depict them using math. Yes, it's a tool, but it's a tool to depict physical laws. Saying it's "just a tool" is just like saying the brain is "just a tool" for processing thought. uh.. where did you study your physics, my friend? Photons are massless for a reason. Claiming that's pseudoscience just because you don't understand something doesn't make it pseudoscience. Seeing as the depiction of a photon as massless not only WORKS in explaining the universe, it also works in *MORE THAN ONE THEORY* that makes *TRUE* predictions about the world, you are in dire need of proving this above statement. Good luck with that. Personally, I'm curious to see how you do this. If you succeed, it's going to change physics as we know it, and seeing as I'm going to work in the field in a few years, this is going to create more jobs for me to hunt. Very exciting. Good luck with that.

Let's just say it's an internet project that (among other things) will help people with their courses. In a 17+ sorta-way. So.. maybe?

Thanks for this, pangloss, I hope "General Discussion" will give me more than the computer forum There is, however, another restriction I must must *must* (unfortunately) state; For various reasons that will become apparent to whomever picks this up, I can only use you if you are over 17 of age. (in other words, the project is NC17, or.. however you say that in your own country) Laws suck. And then again, you could probably see how *fun* this can be, just by the above restriction...? trust me, this will be a great project, and it shouldn't take too long AT ALL. ~moo

Okay, I can't do this myself, not if I want it to look better (and I do). Anyone knows how to program a good, short, relatively simple Flash program? Please help!

pioneer, your experiment would've been truly representative if division represented number of cuts. If it did, then, truly, division by zero would mean there would be zero cuts, and you would be left with 1 piece. But division does not mean number of cuts. It means number of pieces. What is a zero-piece? it is, arguably (arguably not because it's untrue, but because it's not-intuitive and not quite physical), nothing. How do you cut something to achieve zero-pieces? You can't. It's infinity. Mathematically. There's also a mathematical proof, I believe, but I will allow the math wizzes here do this instead, since I'm never sure I fully understand all the steps of it. ~moo

Which is why physicists use math to explore and explain the universe.

Oh, I agree, it *IS* a lot of fun, but I don't have time for this project to experiment, that's why I needed the help. I'll check out the tools, though.. I used to do some basic flash stuff but nothing too biggie. p.s: Thanks !

Hello all, I need someone that can help me create a relatively simple web based application to demonstrate a certain science concept. In general, the app should present a physical situation (like oscillation, for example) and adjust the movements according to preset formulas. I will provide all formulas, I just need someone who knows how to apply this to a fully functional web app. I can't pay, but I you *WILL* recieve full credit on the site this will be presented on. We can sort details in private conversation. Contact me as a reply here, or by pvtmsg. PLEASE -- only only only if you know what you're doing. I know what I want, and I know it's not hard, I'm a programmer myself (I do php/mysql) but I don't have the skill to do an online app that changes client-side (java? ruby? not sure). It's going to be worth it, I promise.. it's not your average, normal app. Trust me, it'll be fun. ~moo

Another thing occured to me while watching the "finale" -- if these truly were "water-beads", forming out of the water drops that were picked up, then they would have (1) different shapes and (2) try to 'absorb one another' - they wouldn't stay perfectly round and solid when there are a few of them next to one another. If the substance is supposed to be polarized (or lose its polarity, whatever) - it would do so consistently; not just with accordance to the size of beads the film-maker happened to have in his possession