mooeypoo

JohnB -- I agree with the concept of what you're saying, but I differ with you on one critical point: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I actually wanted to write this reasoning a bit more thoroughly and ended up writing it for the "Expanding Earth" thread, which works under the same concept. http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=435220&postcount=22 I see what you're saying here, but I think that this point about being rigorous should stand in light of the quite extraordinary claim that is being made here.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I am not sure about the rest of the skeptical community, but I *am* trying to be skeptical of everything. I think that's the right thing to do, specifically going for research in astrophysics (and research in general). However, there are different "measures" of my skepticism. Different claims would "meet" different levels of skepticism, and hence different requirements for evidence. Example: Claim #1: The boss at work is sleeping around with other women while his wife is out of the country and uses office money to pay his multiple girlfriends. Response: I have no real reason to believe this, but the claim is not over-the-top outrageous. It might be true. I would require evidence, but probably would settle for relartively few evidences. Also, it's not affecting a lot of other subjects, which makes it less significant than if it would've affected other claims, proofs or situations. Claim #2: Aliens took over the government and are now running the most powerful nation in the world. This is a much more outrageous claim, and the same amount of evidence I'd have required from the previous claim would NOT be sufficient. Not by a long shot. First, this is affecting other subjects, such as astrophysics (the proven existence of other life forms), exobiology (how they look like, what their biological systems are, etc) and a whole bunch of other fields, scientific or not. In the Claim#2 case, I would first require evidence to show any REASON to start a more thorrough hypothesis before I waste my time. I am not saying I would never believe it, but I would definitely be skeptical, and the amount of proof necessary to convince me, or to start convincing me, is quite large. the claim of the expanding Earth is similar to claim #2. It's not just another hypothesis, it's a claim that states that EVERYTHING WE KNOW ABOUT OUR PLANET and OTHER PLANETS (and about geology, astronomy, and a whole bunch of other subjects) is WRONG. That's a huge claim. Huge. I demand evidence, and I think I'm not overboard when I demand a LOT of evidence. I certainly demand more evidence for this than I would for a claim of the type of claim #1. To remind everyone, Dark Matter wasn't accepted in the scientific community. Not until the proofs *for its existence* were overwhelming, and still it is being treated as a "transitional hypothesis" -- a hypothesis that works for now, but most likely would be replaced when we find out WHAT that dark matter is. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This really is what a lot of it is about. And in this case, it's even "worse": It's not just that I doubt the Earth is expanding, it's that there is an AMAZINGLY VAST AMOUNT of evidence (PROVEN EVIDENCE!) to prove otherwise. So claiming against such a huge amount of evidence (whether one understands it or not) requires quite a rigorous demand for evidence. ~moo

Meh, now help the riddly-challenged!! pvt msg me, please, I'm dying with this one, I'm missing something for sure but I can't see it....

Actually, you could try this out in a relatively simple experiment: Take a balloon, blow it up but not too much (so it's round enough to simulate the Earth but still has space to grow bigger). Take a bit of flour and water, and mix the two -- you will get a paste. Cover the balloon with this paste and let it dry (takes a few minutes). Now blow more air into the balloon and watch the "crust" break and expand. Do this experiment more than once if you really want an understanding of the process (to have more than one event that might be random). Look at the cracks and movements of your crust. See if it is similar to what you see on Earth. No matter how many times you try this, you will never get an area where matter "disappears" -- destroyed -- falls "into" the balloon. But you do get that on Earth. Why do you think that is? ~moo

Well, you have a lack of data then. That's hardly proof. And this might've been true 10 years ago, but today you have the internet. You have all the information you need for a *beginning hypothesis* about this online. Certainly information about GPS satellite history (google search). In any case lack of data is not proof. I don't have data the leprecauns exist. Should I devise a hypothesis of what makes them vanish and appear out of thin air? I don't ignore it. It's proving continental drift. Prove it. Prove it. Prove it. Prove it. Until you do, it's not existing. Just like the moon bounce doesn't exist. ~moo

I want to find a hypothesis to explain the phenomena of the moon bouncing up and down in the air every month. But the phenomena doesn't exist. It doesn't happen. But I will find an explanation of why that is happening. It doesn't happen. The moon is not bouncing up and down. But I have a good way of explaining why it might be possible that the moon is bouncing up and down each month! But it's NOT bouncing up and down, we know it's not, it's PROVEN that it's not. But I can explain why it is bouncing. The Earth is NOT EXPANDING. If you want to explain the phenomena of the expansion of the earth, the first thing you need to do is prove that the phenomena exist. Which it doesn't, or at least you haven't proven that it expands. First step: Prove the Earth disobeys all known physical and astrophysical laws and does, in fact, expand. Hence, that the phenomena exists. Then, and only then, will it be logical for you to hypothesize what causes such phenomena. And that's why your theory is bunk. Not just because of the poll, and not just because you have no proof of the METHOD, but because you have no proof for the phenomena, while there's a billion proofs AGAINST THIS PHENOMENA, and about double that amount of proofs for the methodology that explains why this DOESN"T happen. ~moo

Do I need to know something special about violins to solve this question? [hide]'Cause I wrote the combinations and solved the multiplications and I don't see it.. I either forgot one of the multiplications or I am missing something here with the violin. Meh, hint?[/hide]

JohnB, you have a few good points, but the main problem, at least in my point of view, is that we've already dealt with this before on this forum -- with these exact videos. We've pointed it out, too. Actually, that's a bit unfair. The scientific community *is* skeptical of Dark Matter, and the Higgs *doesn't yet* exist, until proven to exist. They're both considered a hypothesis. But the scientific community holds standards for what a hypothesis is, too. Hypothesis is not just shot out of thin air. It needs to have basis in reality and supporting evidence. The scientific community didn't accept the hypotheses as true. It still doesn't. But these hypotheses have enough supporting evidence to them to warrant an investigation where they are ASSUMED. Bigfoot does not. And as I have poitned out, there are first a few things to state and prove BEFORE bigfoot can enter that realm. Things that weren't presented at all. Instead, the matter of a video (which, btw, as I've stated also, is never good enough as proof. Ever. It's *always* on the realm of 'supporting' evidence, and requires more proof) was constatntly repeated. There's not much here that will warrant the idea transforming into a hypothesis, let alone proving bigfoot's existence. There might be, if the OP would find more supporting evidence for his idea. But he didn't.

Welcome back. We've answered all this bunk theory (Yes, its bunk completely, for the reasons we've ALREADY DISCUSSED with you) in the other thread. Use the search feature, the answers (IT'S TOTALLY, UTTERLY, COMPLETELY PROVEN TO BE BUNK). But nice try. ~moo

Don't forget sweating and drooling. Water is overall conserved on Earth, we don't really lose much to the "outer" environment (space). The main issue with water conservation is usually sweet-water - hence, water for drinking, and that usualyl stems for our tendency to take more than is available or more than returns to the specific location we are taking from (hence, drying lakes). The oceans are full of water, we just can't drink them the way they are. We need to treat them first, and companies seem to put more efforts in taking already-sweet water (less available) and put less effort and money into treating saltwater to have it either for drinking or vegitation. For example, Israel is a relatively dry country, its supply come MAINLY from a single lake in its territories that has sweet water. Now that lake is in dire troubles because it's getting dry from all the pumping. There are plans to build another treatment plant (Israel already has one), but they're - so far - plans only. If a treatment plan is built, most of the water problems will be solved in Israel (Not all). The problem with water is the SWEET water, not all water. ~moo

This isn't quite the forum to find contractors. I suggest you google contractor firms. If you'd like to know how to calculate the cost of painting the domed roof with integration methods, we might be able to help you there.

If this is indeed a mathematical problem and not some weird "haha" problem, here's how I'd start it, at least: We have 3 children we don't know their ages, but we do know that they add up to 13: x + y + z =13 We have another number on the door (let's call it R) that *we* don't know, but the student does know, so he has another equation: xyz=R What you're missing is another equation (3 variables, 3 equations), and the value of R. It seems to me that the statement about the violin is your clue, and it might be a cultural answer (do people start studying the violin at a certain age in your country, or perhaps it *means* another thing, like the fact he studies the violin means he is a twin, or something?). If you figure that out, you can solve it. I suggest you ask your professor to give you a hint.

Hey again, Okay, I have a hw problem that asks for a solution to an integral using 2 methods. I've solved them both but got two slightly different answers, and I can't figure out where I went wrong.... help! So here are my solutions, please help me out, it's all VERY new and I had to go through the book about 3 times before I could understand what it is they're doing. I thought I did well, but.. well, apparently I didn't, since the answers don't match. (a) [math]I=\int e^{-ar} \left(\bigtriangledown \cdot \frac{\hat{r}}{r^2} \right)d^3r = \int e^{-ar} 4\pi\delta^3® d^3r [/math] Since we integrate over all space, r is in the domain of the integration, the delta function is equal to 1, and we solve for f(a) which is f(0), because the function is delta (r-0). So: [math]I=\int e^{-ar} \left(\bigtriangledown \cdot \frac{\hat{r}}{r^2} \right)d^3r = e^{-a*0}*4\pi = 4\pi[/math] (b) [math]I=\int e^{-ar} \left(\bigtriangledown \cdot \frac{\hat{r}}{r^2} \right)d^3r [/math] We know that: [math] \int f(\bigtriangledown \cdot A) d\tau = -\int_{V} A \cdot (\bigtriangledown f) d\tau + \oint_{S} fA \cdot da [/math] Where [math] f(\bigtriangledown \cdot A) = e^{-ar} \left(\bigtriangledown \cdot \frac{\hat{r}}{r^2} \right) [/math] So: [math] \int e^{-ar} \left( \bigtriangledown \cdot \frac{\hat{r}}{r^2} \right) d^3r =[/math] [math] - \int_{V} \left( \frac{\hat{r}}{r^2} \cdot \left( \bigtriangledown e^{-ar} \right) \right) d \tau + \oint_{S} \left( \frac{e^{-ar}}{r^2}\hat{r} \right) \cdot da = [/math] [math] - \int_{V} \left( \frac{1}{r^2}\hat{r} \right) \cdot \left( e^{-ar}\hat{r} \right) d\tau + \oint_{S} \left( \frac{e^{-ar}}{r^2} \right) \cdot da= [/math] [math] - \int_{V} \left( \frac{e^{-ar}}{r^2} \right) r^2 \sin{\theta} dr d\theta d\phi + \oint_{S} \left( \frac{e^{-ar}}{r^2} \right) r^2 \sin{\theta} dr d\theta d\phi = [/math] [math] \int^{R}_{0} e^{-ar}dr \int^{\pi}_{0} \sin{\theta} d\theta \int^{2\pi}_{0} d\phi + \oint_{R} e^{-ar} \int^{pi}_{0} \sin{\theta} d\theta\int^{2\pi}_{0} \phi d\phi = [/math] [math] \left( \frac{e^{-ar}}{-a} \right) |^{R}_{0} (-\cos{\theta})|^{\pi}_{0}\phi |^{2\pi}_{0} + \left( \frac{e^{-aR}}{-a} \right) (- \cos{\theta}) |^{\pi}_{0}\phi |^{2\pi}_{0}= [/math] [math] \left( \dfrac{1-e^{-aR}}{-a} \right) 2*2\pi + \left( \dfrac{e^{-aR}}{-a} \right)2*2\pi [/math] [math] = - \dfrac{4\pi}{a} [/math] Meh!!! Help? What did I do wrong? Is my method even right???? help help I'm so confused... ~moo

That's an excellent point, I remember reading about it only after doing the experiment.. so I can't tell you (the pennies I've used in the experiment are .. well.. scattered throughout Manhattan, most likely). This would work great with either Zinc or Copper, though, but I wonder if one would give an advantage of the other.. can't say, since chemistry isn't my strong side, so I'll have to do some research. Anyone has any ideas? Would there be any significant difference between using either type of pennies (or mixing them, even, that might've happened in my experiment since I wasn't aware of it as I set it up)?

Wow. Okay, first off -- I really appreciate your responses and your effort. Thanks a lot, really, I am extremely confused over this subject and the professor acts as if it's the most obvious thing in the world. But I still don't quite get it, and I think it might be because the examples are a bit over my head - I don't think I got to that level yet, so, I can't make sense of it like that. Is it possible to "imagine" the dirac delta as a spacial function? My friend suggested that if we look at the function on the xyz axis, it might look like those depictions of the black-holes in 3D, with its 'center' located on the point where the function exists. Is that right? I understand that the dirac delta talks about distributions, but I can't quite understand what's the benefit of using that over others. My current homework, for example, have this question (under the subject of the dirac delta): So in this case, our distance vector is [math]\hat{r}=<0,d,0>[/math] And since this is under the dirac delta chapter (and looking at similar questions) we understood that the charge density would be represented as: [math]\rho(\hat{r})=q\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\delta^3(r-\hat{r})d^3r[/math] And since vector d is in the integration domain (of ALL SPACE -- infinity to infinity) then the delta expression equals 1, and the entire expression is, therefore, equal to q. But the question (if, indeed, we did it correctly, which I think we did, but do correct us if we haven't) is -- why use dirac delta in this case at all?? what does it mean to use the dirac delta in this case? I remember there are other ways to calculate surface and volume charge density (I learned it in the previous physics course) that doesn't invovle a dirac delta. Then what use is it? Is it more accurate? What worries me mainly, is that we are studying the methods and equations, but we will ahve to use them in the future and choose them ourselves. So, when I will encounter a question in Electrodynamics -- how do I know when I use the delta function, and when not to? What does the delta function give me as opposed to other methods, so I know how to pick it to solve certain problems.. Thanks again guys, and sorry -- this really is confusing to me... ~moo

Hey again guys, I was in a study session today with classmates, and we had a hard time answering a question that involved the dirac delta. But the difficulty wasn't so much the method (we have that in the book and as equations online), but rather with the concept. What is the meaning of the dirac delta, specifically in 3D?? If you need to "imagine" it in 3D - how would you describe it? How does it look? What's the point of it? If anyone can help with this, it'll be greatly appreciated.. we can plug in numbers into equations, but if we don't understand what the concept is, we have no clue what we're doing. Thanks in advance ~moo

you're ignoring half my post again. Reported. I suggest you go read a bit about the forum rules. And about common courtesy. I'll repeat myself and say that the fact you ignore our claims don't make them nonexistent, and your insistence to ignore half of my points does not mean you're right. We've handled these videos before, and we've answered them in this thread. The mere POSSIBILITY that they *can* be faked - even if they're not - transforms them into a low-quality proof. It doesn't mean they're USELESS. It means they're INSUFFICIENT. If I have a theory that is supported only on eyewittness accounts (that is a low-quality evidence) the theory is BUNK. It's not SUFFICIENT enough to be proven, EVEN IF THE EYEWITNESS ACCOUNT IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE. Understand? Please don't ask us to see more videos as more proof; if you want to prove your statements, it's time you take yourself seriously and supply *BETTER* proof. You refuse to give other proof, and then wonder why we dismiss your theory. Read up, my full post about peer review, and good luck next time. ~moo

Have you even READ what I wrote to you? You're nitpicking again. The moment we stated those videos can be fake, is the moment whatever's SHOWN IN THE VIDEOS CAN BE FAKE TOO. Show better evidence. And stop answering only what you're comfortable with, I wrote a lengthy post with a lot of explanations. Read it, digest it, come after.

Well, there's no more to add, then, since your standard is unscientific by itself. Let me explain this, yet again: You are the one making a claim. You are the one having to prove it. The reason no one believes you is because the proofs you supply are just bad. The reason they're bad is elaborated throughout the thread and other similar threads (remember the search function, it's very useful), whether you preferred to ignore them or not. If your evidences were quality-enough to prove Bigfoot, *but* WE would still claim it didn't exist, THEN, and only then, would we need to prove to you that there is a conspiracy, or an elaborate hoax, or such a similar occasion. But that is not the case. The case is quite simple: The evidence suck. In fact, you even said so yourself, that you take these evidences to hold less credibility than others (which you have yet to supply, btw, I'm still waiting for those long lost samples). So if the evidences are not good enough, the claim is not good enough. This really is the essence of it. Your claim that you need us to prove to you that there's a conspiracy has no bearing on the claim you're initially making, or the proofs you're putting forth to try and substantiate it. It's unscientific condition, and it makes your claim unfalsified, which means that it is, aswell, unscientific. If I were to claim the big bad wolf exists in the woods, I would need to provide proof for its existence before expecting anyone (or being able to demand of anyone) to go out and PROVE that it doesn't. It's just common sense. If I were to take the videos (and yes, my dear friend, people do claim that, as silly as you think, people claim it, supply videos for it of sometimes quite high level, and scream about it louder than the bigfoot fans, sometimes) of ghosts and demons and claim they exist, I would have to make sure I can PROVE they exist before demanding the scientific community should prove me wrong. It's just common sense. On the other hand, if I were to take the shape of the earth and believe it to be an elaborate conspiracy by the government (ahem, flat earthers, ahem ahem), this time *I* am the one who is in need of proving the conspiracy true before discounting the claim, because the claim is already PROVEN. This too is common sense. If I were to claim that UFOs exist (since you mentioned them, here I go using an example you probably are aware of), I would need to bring forth PROOF for their existence, before demanding my unbelieving masses to prove that UFOs *don't exist* by showing the opposite conspiracy. It's just common sense. If you are claiming bigfoot exists (and stop moving the goal post and changing your claims aleady) or that odds are that it exists, or that theres good reason to believe it may exist, or anything of that sort, phrased however you want, the burden of proof is on YOU. To expect people to prove you wrong is to take a step forward you didn't yet earn. That is just the scientific method. You have officially failed peer review, which is another step in the scientific method, meant to make sure that only VALID theories pass peer review. (remember flat-earthers? they'd LOVE to pass, too, and they have good points. But vain points. And they're vain for the same reason yours are, ironically, though yours not as idiotic.) The Flat Earth society has an entire, elaborate, quite well thought of (although completely separate from reality) theory, that has answers for every question. Imagine what would've happened if scientists would just accept the Flat Earth theory and its conspiracy theory that accompanies it, on the basis of personal "it sounds okay" reasons. That's why science exists the way it does. So we examine claims in a way that will actually PREVENT unproven theories from getting into the realm of science, which is REALITY BASED. That is common sense. Congratulation, my friend, you have officially failed peer review. You shouldn't take this personally, a lot before you have. And you shouldn't make this deter you from trying to prove your points further (as many are doing), but you should take into account that the way you constructed your theory is unscientific. A theory cannot be unfalsified. There must -- MUST! -- be a check, or a test, or a discovery that proves it wrong. Your requirement that we "prove you wrong" when you have yet to prove yourself right, is not reasonable, unfalsifiable, unrealistic, and therefore unscientific. Good luck. ~moo

What would convince you that there is no bigfoot? every theory in science needs to have one thing that if found will disprove it. Evolution has it, the Big Bang has it, *every* theoretical notion in science, in order to be considered scientific, must have such a thing. What is this 'thing' for the bigfoot theory? What, if found or discovered, will completely disprove the existence of bigfoot? You must define it, or your theory is not scientific. I assume that if true scientists are looking for it, they already defined it, and you'll easily find it in their research. Please state that here.

I rest my case.

You got it all wrong. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. If your evidence is weak, it's your responsibility to supply another. And you haven't responded on my links, which showed a few things: 1. That the video is fake (the videos show several REASONS and PROOFS why it's fake, so the 'proof of fakeness' is not a video, but rather a logical claim). 2. That there are dozens of such claims out there, most of them hoaxes, which means that the standard upon which such video will be accepted as nonhoax is HIGHER than others. 3. That there are no physical evidences whatsoever, which is not only casting doubt on such a phenomenon, but actually tends to disprove it, as there is no such thing as an animal (smart as it may be) that leaves *no traces at all*. Remember you asked what you ignore? Those you ignore. And the lack of physical evidence. But I have a completely different question for you: If your claim is not that bigfoot exists, but rather than there is a need to go check it out, then I want you to PROVE TO ME, please, that such checks were never conducted (since that is, essentially, what you are saying). As far as I know: 1. The quest to find more species is ongoing, just not this specific, rather unrealistic, animal. 2. Whoever finds a new species will be rich and famous. Your claim that no one looks for it is baseless. You keep moving the goal post and changing your claim. Either you claim bigfoot exists (which is what you said in the beginning of the thread!) or you claim it's uncertain and warrant investigation. I might actually agree with you on the latter, I just think you missed a few points in your research about the people who actually *DID* go search for bigfoot, and found nothing.

No, no, no. We skeptics are skeptical of everything. That's why we require such rigorous proof. You believers are believing everything that suit you. That's why you accept anything that will support your ideas and often ignore what doesn't support your ideas. That's the entire point. This is a scientific minded forum. You are required, by the forum rules, to follow the scientific method and a very specific standard for proof. You mean these samples? Or these, perhaps? there are also these, or perhaps these tests? There's also the sonoma bigfoot explanation, if you care to watch a nicely edited movie, or the Georgia incident, a nice one. There, that should give you a few ideas on why hoaxes are so damn easy to do, and what kind of evidence WOULD convince a skeptic (we're not asking much, just a *true* sample). With today's DNA testing that part is easy. And yet.. it wasn't done, or if it was it was proven fake.. What do you expect us to believe, then?

I haven't ignored anything, I've been patiently trying to explain all those claims you've found so weird, and why the videos you post (which I have seen before, and on which we have already discussed in previous threads, as I've SAID before) are invalid as proof. All that I do while you keep posting more and more questions *without* answering our quetions, then you are surprised when we dismiss your theory. I'm done checking your links, it's time you stop ignoring our claims whenever it suits you, and start being serious. The fact you don't LIKE our counter claims does not make them false, and does not make us the ones who ignore things.

The burden of proof is on YOU to prove that bigfoot exists, not on US to prove he doesn't. The videos, by themselves, are not valid proof for a CLAIM. They are, however, making good points in breaking up the original video, which is supposed to be a proof. The bottom line, then, is that the Patterson/Gimlin is *not* valid evidence. Think about it this way: How would you differentiate under 100% certainty between a cleverly made hoax and a blurry accidentally-taken video of bigfoot? How could you know for sure you're not being hoaxed? One way would be to go out and find bigfoot bones (which, btw, the lack of such bones should already, by itself, after so many years of search, raise serious doubts about any person doing serious 'looking' for the animal). In order to make sure that you do not fall into elaborate hoaxes (and I am not just talking about bigfoot.. this could've been a video about little green men, too) - and there are VERY VERY well made ones -- you must have a certain standard upon which you define certainty. A "ladder" of rating you give certain types of evidence. Eyewittness account will have very low credence. DNA-Approved bones will have very high credence. Both are not sufficient, by themselves, to prove the existent of bigfoot, but the more high-credence proofs you have, the better the odds that your theory is right. Videos - specifically the YouTube kind - low credence. Other than that, we have no need to prove our side, we just need to challenge your evidences. If they hold still after our peer review (which is a process of science) then it still has a chance of being a valid theory. Otherwise, you won't be the first to have failed peer review by questioning, and you shouldn't take it personally. ~moo