mooeypoo

I couldn't make out anything of what you're saying. Instead of sending us off to another site off-hand, could you possibly summarize the main points of what your theory states? I am not too comfortable going off downloading/activating some random doc file, to be honest. ~moo

So the fact that it started happening much more after I started working out in the gym, is.. logical.. i guess. Well, thanks for the info guys I think I'll see a doc just in case, since occasionally it does hurt and it's not very comfortable, and.. well.. I would rather be safe than sorry But you've certainly helped me handle the weirdness

Hey, Hearing the joints 'crack' is nothing new to me, of course, but I never really researched the real reason. Someone told me it's bubbles within the joints, but I've never researched this. Recently, my knees have been talking.. a lot. I mean, every two movements (literally) they pop. It's not usually painful, I barely feel it, but it's quite disconcerting. I'm already scheduling a doc's appointment, but it takes a while to get a specialist, and for now I'm kinda weirded out. Can anyone help out with an attempted guess at what may cause this? I'm not in top shape but I have been training in the gym, and I've tried to refrain from running on the treadmill, and using those elliptical machines instead (to get a more 'fluid' motion, I was told it is better on the joints). In any case, this is weird... Thanks! ~moo

The Big Bang was not an explosion, it was an expansion - there's a huge difference. I think you should read a bit about the theory.. your claims against the theory are not really representative of what the theory actually SAYS. This is by far not the best resource, but it is a good place to start from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang

*shriek* math!???!!! In a scientific proof!?!?!?! *shriek*

yes, but.. what... is .. that?

Bignose, in all fairness, the claim'er did put forth a proof of his 'invisible faerie'. In that aspect, he did fullfil his responsibility and provide a proof. The problem is that the proof wasn't good enough, and was shown to be a hoax (perhaps not in this thread, but in others, linked). The burden of proof goes BACK to the claiming side in this case. Just clarifying

http://www.sparknotes.com/testprep/books/sat2/physics/chapter8section2.rhtml

Oh, most definitely, JohnB, but the difference between the dreamers that contributed to science and the "dreamers" in this thread (hence, the bigfoot proponents) is their METHODOLOGY. First off, about the people's responses in this thread: I think that since we've all seen this argument (bigfoot exists; here be videos to prove) and we've all SEEN the videos before and *discussed them before!* -- and reached the conclusion that they ARE, indeed, fake - we simply stated they are fake now and told Mr Dreamer proponent to do the hard work and actually look for the thread where all the claims are laid out. That thread exists in this forum, and it's quite long. I just found it annoying that people lay out claims (always the same, btw), run off when it suits them, then come back months later when they think we may have forgotten the answers we gave and expect us to - AGAIN - analyze things we've already analyzed. It's a waste of time, and since bigfoot was a subject on the forums more than once or twice (ahem, with the same videos, seriously), I really didn't have the strength to go over all the nitty gritty points. I did mention this reason before, btw, and I did give out links for a pretty good debunking videos and some debunking texts. I think that served quite well under the circumstances. Now, about your claims: I completely see what you mean about the dreamers, JohnB, and this is one of the issues that I, too, try to hold myself and examine my automatic responses too. Even now when I'm taking physics courses and get "fed" the usual formulas, I try to see how they're proven, and why, and whether or not they are permanent or temporary "truths". Because I agree with you; things change, and we should avoid dogmas, and we should accept dreamers, as "crazy" as they seem to us. BUT The difference between the dreamers and the crackpots is that the dreamers work by the scientific method, and the crackpots don't. You can claim whatever you like, and you can go research whatever you please (or, well, whatever you find funding for), but if you don't follow the scientific method - make unfalsifiable claims, present strictly unreliable proofs, use logical fallacies to explain your reasoning, etc etc - then you're a crackpot. But a person claiming the SAME IDEA as the above crackpot - but following the scientific method until a conclusion can be formed (be it after minutes or after years), is NOT a crackpot. This thread here is crackpottery because it is following crackpot methodology instead of the scientific method. I agree with your claims, and I agree we should keep our minds open. I also agree about the standards and about keeping the standard high for everything. But the methodology is extremely important,it's the differenec between a discovery and a quackery. Bigfoot itself is not the problem; if the suggestion that an undiscovered species exist somewhere would've been PHRASED SCIENTIFICALLY and falsifiably, then it wouldn't have fallen into the realm of quackery. But Bigfoot proponents are following methodologies that are NOT SCIENTIFIC. They insist on anecdotal evidence as 100% correct when it's OBVIOUSLY (in ANY field of science) not. They use logical fallacies to explain their logic. They ignore contradicting evidence. And more, and more, and more. But look at the issues above, JohnB. Those issues would've been quackpottery material no matter which claim they would 'represent'. Even a claim that is a TRUE one! Because it's not just about the claim, it's about the method. It's about the thinking. It's about the theory too. Bigfoot is a quackery. "Boobagooba" the perhaps-existing missing link species in the jungles of god-knows-where might NOT be, if the CLAIM for its existence is scientific and the research to find it is conducted scientifically. Think of another issue here: UFOs are quackery, but alien life isn't. Why? Well, UFO visitation theory is stated in such a preposterous way, such an anti-scientific-method nonfalsifiable anti-logical way, that it's just bunk. Alien life outside of our planet - visiting or not visiting - is unknown, and deserves research. SCIENTIFIC research. Following the scientific method. And perhaps we'll get answers this way, too. But you can almost count on the fact that we won't get anything with "UFO Visitation" theory, because *anything* can be included or excluded from it out of whim.. it's made of statements that are, by themselves unfalsifiable, unscientific and anecdotal. I hope I manage to get my point accross, which is why I repeated them a few times. I actually agree with you about the importance of keeping an open mind. but this issue is VERY important imho. And it can help us discern between science and pseudoscience. Actually, I need to find this but I believe Michael Shermer wrote an article about this too, and it was quite interesting to read. I'll have ot look it up. ~moo

I'm not sure where I 've heard this from, but I think that this is one fo teh more powerful sentences in this topic: The more we know, the more we ask. Essentially, the more we are advancing in our scientific knowledge, the more we change previous discoveries or thoughts or theories, and therefore we open up more questions -- which means we have MORE things to figure out and find. If the world was going on a 'straight line' of advancing - more and more knowledge without a significant amount of new questions opening up, I might've said that we would eventually reach a saturated state. But that doesn't seem to be the case to me.. it seems we're finding out more and opening up more questions, or understanding more just to grasp more of the universe... that means (to me, at least, this is more philosophy than proven science, I think) that we will always have more to figure out. That's my 2 cents worth.

insane_alien -- the second mass shouldn't interfere or affect much since there's no friction. Since there is no friction, it's as if the on-the-table mass doesn't exist... it's not supposed to be affecting the left-right forces (because no friction exists) and therefore no effect on the T (tension), which is equal to, therefore, the mg of the first mass. if the other mass was suspended in the air it would've been different (because then the F=mg of the second mass was actually affecting the system) but since it's not... Or.. where am I forgetting something here?

mg -- gravity times the mass -- is operating on the Y axis only (hence, top-to-bottom). That means that the mass that hangs off the edge will be pulled downwards at F=mg Now let's look at the mass on the top of the table -- it's only moving on the X axis, as we can see. So it is in equilibrium on the Y axis. Tabletop Mass M (Y-Axis) - F=mg downwards, and n ("normal")=mg upwards, to account for the equilibrium. Tabletop Mass M (X-Axis) - since it's attached to the rope and to the other mass, the rope exerts tension T on it that is equal to the F=ma of the off-the-table mass. Since there is NO FRICTION from anything, there's no repelling force, so the top-of-the-table-mass will have only the tension T operating on it, and therefore will move at F=T=mg. If there WAS friction it would've been different, since friction is dependant on the mass and operates as a repellent force (opposing the movement). As for the answer, since none of the questions seemed to ask for a time or an acceleration, I am not sure I understand it either. If we have VALUES for the mass (or at least for the distance from the edge of the table, or the length of the rope) we can calculate the amount of time that would pass. Otherwise the acceleration is gravity. ~moo

I haven't checked this out so I'd love it if you post the experiment results.. But instinctively, I'd go with the bleach, since it's a white shirt and bleach would.. well.. bleach any stain, even if not clean it.

roflmao, you go Klaynos.

By the way, I must say this is one of the more productive and interesting debates I've had in a while in the Pseudoscience/Speculations forum. It's these type of debates that make me feel I am improving my scientific thinking. And I do see your point, JohnB, and I think that sometimes some of us SFNers do have requirements that are over the top. But not in this case. And I think that you are doing the same, a bit, too. Two things here: (1) You are right. All claims should be backed up by proof. If we had a perfect world, we would all probably be requiring high-level proof for EVERYTHING. And the more advanced our evidence-gathering equipment is getting, the higher our requirement for evidence goes. For example, 100 years ago no one knew about the possibility of DNA tests. As a result, the threshhold to prove rape was lower - eyewittness accounts, even partial, might have been enough (or almost enough). today, however, we have DNA tests. Eyewittness account - when DNA is possible - is not enough anymore. Conclusive DNA tests is the way to go. (2) You're mixing two subjects that are not quite mix'able. Courtrooms are not labs, and law is not science. For one, a courtroom is by no means a scientific investigation; a courtroom is PRESENTED with the results of such investigation and people who have no scientific understanding (be it a judge or a jury) make a decision according to the law, which relies - among other things - on freedoms and rights of people. This is by no means bad, it's just DIFFERENT. True science investigation (in a lab, for that matter, so to speak), cares not for human rights, for emotions or for ethics. The *ACTIONS* that we do later might be, but the investigation itself has nothing to do with it. Here's an example: A scientific research about the differences in chromosomes (or whatever else, I'm not too good in biology) between Blacks, Asians and Caucasians might be valid scientifically, and will probably not be valid as a court case ("His urge to kill is justified by his being caucasian".. can you see this in a courtroom?). Beyond that, the 'quotes' you've put forth are unfair. If the video footage is the only presented evidence, and is shown to be fake (or, actually, is shown to have enough suspicion of 'fakeness') then yes, JohnB, the defendant will walk. Why? Because there's no proof for his guilt. Same here. The videos have been shown to be fake (we've given the examples and some multiple references about, if nothing else, why their validity is VERY questionable), and they are the only available evidence for bigfoot. The defendant walks. There's no proof. None. Yes, exactly, but that's not OUR job (the 'peer reviewers') that's the claiming-side's job. We asked for more proof and we got none more. I don't see the problem with that. That's true, but the claim "something might be there" is ALSO a claim by itself that requires proof. It just requires less proof than claiming something IS there. As an example, let us switch the term "bigfoot" with "unicorn", shall we? Claim: "Unicorns exist in the world." Fine claim. But if you were an animal researcher, would you just jump out and go find it? I think not. The claim requires a bit more validity. For example, stating it this way may help: A Better Claim: "Unicorns exist in the woods of central park." Okay. Now you have a direction. Still, there are unanswered questions that some more rigorous scientists might want to ask themselves before feeling like they're wasting their times with this (like how come no one has seen this animal before, and more). But no one would be against just checking this claim. It's actually not that HARD to check this claim. People would be skeptical - as they should - but sure, go ahead and check this. Examine this. Investigate. What would happen, though, after 20 years of investigation without findings? See, bigfoot is an oooooooold claim, and unlike my "little better" claim it's very vague, which makes it hard to check. But people DO CHECK IT. That's what drives me mad about those kind of threads -- people claim that science doesn't check these new claims when that is ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE. From "real" scientists to "skeptical investigators" (who go about researching using rigorous methods), people HAVE checked these claims. They just found nothing. Nothing but disproving the "available evidence". That by itself maybe not be an evidence against bigfoot, but it certainly plays a part in increasing the "extraordinary" aura it has. That again isn't quite fair. No one laughs at people who go check out slim-chance claims. That, actually, happens a lot in the scientific community. What is done here, though, is something entirely different. People HAVE CHECKED INTO THE BIGFOOT MATTER and found nothing at all where they SHOULD have found at leas tsomething. There chances to find a new species are well existing, but the chances to find a new species that leaves absolutely no evidence for its existence other than blurry videos (which most if not all have been proven fake) for over 20 years is possibly quite ridiculous. I agree with a lot of what you're saying JohnB but it seems to me that you're forgetting that the subject in this thread is not a new claim that is in need of more research. It *went through research*, and some people actually continue to go out and try to see if anything's left. If we go back to your own analogy with the courtroom, let's think of this case: A young blonde man is accused of murdering his neighbor. No wittnesses. No blood stains. The claim comes forth because another neighbour has a blurry video that shows the victim being murdered by a blonde man. The video's extremely blurry, and the neighbor who took that video has a grudge against the accused. That is, certainly, enough to get the police going on an investigation. And they do. And they investigate for an entire year and find no corroborating evidence at all that this man murdered his neighbor. Not even evidence you would have EXPECTED to find, like bootprints on the new rug or like fingerprints, or a missing knife. Nothing at all. How long would it take you, the observer in the case, to state that enough investigation time has passed, and enough "shouldve-been-but-weren't-there" evidences (things you EXPECT to find and didn't) were collected (in bigfoots case: hell, a poop sample from the area of the blurry clip! what, it went back to clean itself?? c'mon..) for you to state that the odds are that the blonde man just actually DIDN'T do it? Bigfoot is looked for and saught after AROUND THE WORLD (under different names, perhaps) for over 20 years. And more. People research this matter, be it scientists or skeptical groups. They find no evidence at all. NOTHING. Not even things that SHOULD be found if there actually IS a species in such an area. Nothing at all. For over 20 years. I'd say that puts things under an ENTIRELY different light, wouldn't you? Addition: I also meant to add that the bigfoot claim - for the way it's being presented, defended and has its goalpost moved here and there by its proponents - is also unfalsifiable. The claim for bigfoot's existence is not the type of claim you make when you believe of another *undiscovered species* exists. There need to be more information WITHIN THE CLAIM for it to be scientific, and therefore worth researching. You *CAN* prove a negative, JohnB, you just can't prove or disprove something that is unfalsifiable. But then again, an unfalsifiable claim is unscientific.

Maybe something with the sensitivity settings is off.. try to decrease sensitivity to low, apply, then revert back?

I must point out another issue with this -- the problem is not so much how high you jump (there ARE ways, specifically with the help of equipment, to get quite a significant height) - the problem would be the return-trip to earth and the consequential thud. As the saying goes -- it's not the fall that kills you, it's hitting the ground. If you're interested in making men fly (without an airplane..) you must tackle their way down (or rather try to make them NOT come down so fast).. going up is less of a problem.

JohnB - you make good points and my disagreement is again partial but I am in the middle of work so I will have to answer a bit later.. for now, I found this to be extremely relevant, while quite amusing (and making a good point, too): http://bootfoot.wordpress.com/ enjoy it

Thank you. Now PLEASE do that consistently. We are supposed to be a science forum with (AT LEAST) a basic requirement about what is and isn't a fact. And we are supposed to avoid plagiarism.

Yeah, ditto Thanks btw, all you guys who sent me some more clues on pvt. I completely didn't think about that above issue... nice riddle!

References!!!!!!!

Another point about this entire subject that I, personally, find extremely weird and makes the whole thing lean towards the "extraordinary" is that there's always talk about THE bigfoot; not "bigfoot" as a species, but as a ONE bigfoot - one animal, one sighting, never younger, always a male, and always talked about and refered to as a single being. That's hardly the way new species are being talked about or examined; even when researchers go to the depths of unknown territories, the thought is always about a new SPECIES, which makes the actual reserch more about finding its group, its family habits, its hiding places, the evidence of young, etc etc. But it seems that bigfoot is treated as a single "monster", like the Loch Ness monster, more than like an undiscovered species. ~moo

I don't even know how to start with your thesis, HappyCoder. You're missing a whole bunch of information there, and this idea is ONLY working if you ignore EVERYTHING ELSE WE KNOW. So.. here are some texts for you to read. It's all there, the information about what plate tectonics really is (as opposed to what you seem to think it is) and on to why expansion is just not physically happening. http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm06/fm06-sessions/fm06_MR53A.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics Specifically: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics#Plate_tectonics_on_other_planets http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/historical.html http://geoinfo.amu.edu.pl/wpk/pe/a/harbbook/c_iii/chap03.html A bit about the history and discovery of Plate Tectonics: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/geology/techist.html I understand that you want instant answers to your claims, but that is quite unfair; there are answers, many of them, but they're not instant, and you must stop ignoring what you don't feel like knowing or dealing with. What you are doing is more or less like if I would claim that gravity is untrue because I defy it every time I throw a ball into the air. That statement shows that I clearly don't know the basic principles of the theory I am trying to undo. Arguing with such statement is moot; first I must change my basic assumptions to one that are actually CLAIMED by the theory. In fact, that principle (claiming that a theory is one thing when it is not) is called a Strawman. And you've been doing it, knowingly or unknowingly, throughout this thread. Plate tectonics is not the only reason why we know the Earth is not expanding; it's just one of the *FACTS* (yes, facts, we KNOW the plates are moving in EXACTLY this way) that shows the Earth is absolutely, utterly, entirely, unequivocally, not expanding. So. Go read. I know it sounds condescending, but I don't mean it this way at all. If you want a scientific debate over a theory, this is a good place to do it, we just can't do it while your claims are illogical and unsupported by evidence, and/or when you present our "side" (the theory) in wrong terms so that you can answer it the way you want to. Good luck, ~moo

HappyCoder, you've completely ignored my post, which should answer about 3/4 of your complaints and show you why your insistence against evidence is ridiculous. It's so very cute that you're ignoring what you don't want to answer, it is. But it's not quite convincing, is it? Take responsibility and answer our claims, and stop blaming us for your lack of desire to go STUDY what the counter theory says. We're not a geology 101 class and we're not going to lay out the entire philosophy and methodology of Geology. Those answers are available online, we are here to give you pointers, not to teach you from 0 while you stomp your feet on the ground yelling that we're a pack of ignorant blinds. Go do your homework, read about the theory you're fighting so vigilantly against, sort out your claims, and stop avoiding claims that you find hard to answer. Don't ignore questions and claims you don't feel like answering; doing that is moving your already-questionable hypothesis from the realm of interesting (if completely unscientific and unproven) debate to utter crackpottery. ~moo

Dr. Pamela Gay in one of her goodies: explaining (trying to) what the possible shape of the universe might be and why we guess it so. http://www.astronomycast.com/astronomy/ep-81-questions-on-the-shape-size-and-centre-of-the-universe/ Astronomy Cast is brilliant, btw, very recommended. BTW: OMGOMGOMG, Capn Refsmmat asked a question! Dude! I thought you know everything.