mooeypoo

Excuse me, but my remark may have sounded cynical, it was not. I was absolutely seriously asking you how you could possibly test this, and I meant what I asked about the "laboratory". I might have asked this with a bit of humor, but it *is* a relevant question to analyze your theory, and your refusal to answer it seems slightly odd. The burden of proof is on you, not on us, so if you want us to analyze your theory, I think you better get off your high horse and start answering our questions..? Or do you rather we assume the answers, rather than asking you for clarifications..?

There's a difference between undetectable and unseen, and between undetectable and unidentified.

I'd love to know what you mean by "laboratory". I know what a laboratory is, but what is a "laboratory"? And how do you experiment in such? where are the results of such experimentation?

I must point out, yet again, that beyond the fact that this is a repeated thread (admittedly so, if you read the original post itself), one that has no proof, no substantiations, no attempts to explain its logic, refusal to supply the math, and lacking any and all kinds of scientific endeavoring at all, it also has a clear lack of respect of the rules from Mr Mitchell here. Mr Mitchell, the request to substantiate, give proofs and maths, is more than just the scientific thing to do. It's more than just your responsibility as the one who opened this (ridiculously repetitive) thread. It's the rules of the forums. Perhaps it's time you read them again. This is also the third time I am pointing this out to you. Will you go and read them already, or are we - again - going to have yet another vain thread messing around your insistence that scientific debates should go according to your wishes rather than according to logic and the scientific method? We are not here to give you a crash course in physics or Astronomy, we are here to analyze your theory. The burden of proof is on you, not us. The scientific methodology for proving and substantiating the Big Bang exists (and is repeatedly proven again and again with more proofs) for many years, and your claim that it makes no sense will not be what causes it to disappear from the scientific thought. If you are here to preach and insist "things aren't logical", all the while not supplying any sort of proof for your claims, you should stop typing and go read the forum rules. Just like you should've done LAST TIME. Save us all the trouble. ~moo

The one with more scientific proof is more logical.

We won't need to hold any breaths, because we have the scientific observations and facts on our side, which you don't. The fact you choose to ignore the science behind the big bang and the expansion and dark matter does not mean that the science doesn't exist. The fact you choose to not understand our explanations (for the fourth thread already on the same points!) does not make us wrong, you right and science invalid. Nice of you to ignore my point there, Mr Mitchell, but that too doesn't make the fact you AGAIN post the SAME points, that we have already addressed a few times already, in another thread, with quite the annoying tendency to move the goal post, ignore our claims, twist the facts and run off when it suits you. I don't even begin to get into your argument (it's hardly existent in your Original Post, and it hardly got 'filled' with any substantiation or SUGGESTED substantiation in later posts) because your methodology is - quite simply - annoying, and against the rules. Start listening to the claims people put forth before you utter such nonsense as science is wrong. People might actually start taking you seriously if you debate logically, rather than poke and run. ~moo

Isn't this the third or fourth time we've been having this conversation with you, Mr Mitchell? Didn't you, last time too, post the same general idea with no proof, argued for quite a while on the necessity of proof - quite a vain argument in a SCIENCE FORUMS - and then left it "unresolved" on your part? Is this going to be a recurring issue here, you posting vainly unproven sentences, then argue off-topic principles about the rules of the forum, then run off when you're proven wrong, then come back as if nothing happened and post this - SAME THING - again? Because just like posting an empty claim with no proof in a scientific forum, this above 'methodology', too, is against the rules here. You will not convince anyone without proof. Your attempts to make it seem as if you are surprised that we require proofs were annoying in the first time (didn't you read the purpose statement of the forum you signed up to?) and are extremely silly now. ~moo

Hey guys, A friend raised my attention to this article about solar energy. The article itself (very short article) wasn't the issue, but rather the first comment (lonnng comment, apparently copied off of some other publication about Zenith Solar). Some people told me that this is fake, and doesn't follow science or physical principles - but I am not sure I have enough background in Solar energy construction to judge for myself, so I immediately thought of you guys here in the forums! Help me out here.. can this be real, or is this a fake hoax/fraud? Again, I'm only relating to the comment, not the actual blog post. Thanks ! ~moo

Actually, this is a SCIENCE forums. Ideas are most welcome, but they must follow the scientific method. I can have a fantastical idea (from "fantasy", not from 'awesome') and this forum isn't quite the place for it. Tht said, I think your idea is interesting. It lacks evidence, but you might be able to produce a better logical-trail for it so it eases our minds. Our request for proof and substantiation isn't meant to be personal against you, but rather to see if your idea is a fantasy-claim (meant for a fantasy-forum) or an idea that might actually have some merit, if developed. ~moo

Of course you can "expose" a true believer, you just do it nicer than you would a purpose'ful fraud. Usually, the "Ghost hunters" use equipment that has absolutely nothing to do with any of the phenomena they're talking about, and whatever it does "detect" they are misreading it. Whether they are doing it on purpose or not, when they try to convince others that they should behave in the same manner of unquestioning ignorance, they should be exposed. We shouldn't bash them to death over it, and we would pobably do better to be nice about it, but that doesn't mean we can't - or shouldn't - "expose" them. Even for the sake of the intellect of the people who watch these shows and think them real. You know what? I'd rather people believe in ghosts but know what an RF detector does (and *DOESN'T* do) than people blindly saying "Woooow!" when something beeps and bleeps in the hands of those ghost hunters. At least in my opinion, scientific ignorance should be at least ATTEMPTED to be dealt with, so that's my personal issue with all those ghost-hunters (specifically the well know and well-watched shows) and their similars, whether they are professional fraudsters or "innocently" ignorant. We can consider this "analogy" to politics: If a person argues for (or against) the Iraq war because he's ignorant of what goes on there or what the motives are (pro or con, whichever), it doesn't mean we shouldn't point out the facts to him, regardless of a final decision (which he can make on his own, hopefully). ~moo

Here's the basic, quite repetitive, argument that is done throughout this (and previous) thread(s) about the expansion of the earth. It's not *PRECISELY* the same argument, and it is a bit dramatized, but it's written here to make a point. Please try to grasp it: Bob: "The bowling ball is expanding in average about 5 centimeters every 10 years. Look at the shapes of balls 10 years ago, and look at them now." John: "Okay, 5 centimeters in 10 years is 0.5 centimeter a year, which is about .042 centimeters a month, which are a bit less than half a millimeter. With today's instruments we can measure this fairly easily. Let's have that ball." == 6 MONTHS LATER == Bob: "The bowling ball is expanding because it is such a nice theory, and some of its claims are too beautifully put to ignore." John: "... But the ball is not expanding." Bob: "Says you." John: "Say the instruments." Bob: "But the theory of static bowling balls must be false, even if it does not fit reality. Our instruments must be bad." John: "If the bowling ball expands 'just because', it violates the laws of physics." Bob: "The laws of physics as we know them today are wrong." John: "But we can SEE the bowling ball does not expand!" Bob: "Says you." == The earth is not expanding. We can measure it for at LEAST the past 50 years, and we would've SEEN, noticed and measured it. It's simply doesn't. You'd think that satellites would've proven Expansion right, if it exists, and yet it keeps proving plate tectonics right and expansion dead wrong. As Klaynos has said, our measuring instruments grew SO precise, that we can actually measure the effect of PLATE TECTONICS on the electromagnetic fields now (on top of all the other measurements we ARE doing and ARE GETTING RESULTS in that SUPPORT plate tectonics and NOT expansion, inflation, or alien flatulation theories). Why we are still arguing for almost 100 posts about this, is beyond me. ~moo

You know, we *can* look at other planets and stars, and we *can* see how they're formed and how they "behave". Planets with a rocky-surface (such as earth) do not expand. If they would've been, we'd be VERY confused and have to deal with a messload of unanswered questions about conservation of energy and the way our universe operates, but since non of them does that, we're safe. The earth is not expanding either. Other than proofs against the expansion (which you already have in this LOOOONG thread, and in other threads, sadly, in this forum, and in MANY other *scientific* websites), the proof *FOR* plate tectonics is overwhelming (again, just read again the thread, if you don't feel like actually reading scientific publications about it). If you have a WORKING theory, that explains the phenomena well, is based on real proof, is consistent and can be used to *CORRECTLY* predict other phenomena, then in order to push it out of the way you need - at the very LEAST - an equally convincing (SCIENTIFICALLY convincing, not opinion'ally convincing) theory, that can - again, at the very least - predict the same accuracy (if not more), based on facts, etc etc. Just saying "but it might be!" is not enough. Giving random arguments for the "alternative" theory is not enough either. A single argument can be persuasive, and yet the theory can still be invalid. I suggest you go read a bit about Geology and Cosmology to see how planets form, why, what the mechanisms behind the formations are and therefore how Geological phenomena are predicted, analyzed and *follow* the same logic of such theories. Don't forget that we no longer live in the dark ages; we have satellites today that can measure the TINIEST changes in heights, sizes, shifts, movements, etc with quite a good accuracy on earth. The fact we can tell that the plates are MOVING, and that the earth is NOT expanding, should - by itself - give us a clue of what is going on. ~moo

Not only are changes "cool", but changes in science (anything that challenges a scientific fact/theory, let alone overturns it) mean: 1) A Nobel Prize for the discoverer(s) == Fame, Fortune, Money and Prestige. 1) More experiments scientists can now do == more work for scientists == more money. 2) Potential for future discoveries on top of that one == Fame, fortune and a Nobel Prize Saying that the scientific community is against changes is absolutely false. What is true, however, is that if someone insists on a new amazing discovery, and that discovery is found to be false, it's an opportunity for either shame (hoaxes, sadly, are discovered, every now and then, see the korean scientists gene therapy "discovery") or being discovered as wrong, which is really not nice personally. Science is rigorous in making sure that the discoveries are true and follow reality, but there are usually no-one happier about a TRUE discovery than the scientists themselves and the scientific community. ~moo

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/magazine/03trolls-t.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=trolls&st=cse&oref=slogin&oref=slogin Take a special note for their definition of trolls as a "Subculture with fluid morality" ... not sure if that makes me want to laugh really hard, or sob my eyes out...

rofl, brilliant... omg I'm so using this from now on EVERY TIME someone says "He" with a capital H. "oh, Helium?" haha. Brilliant!

Regardless of what "He" is, whatever "He" said seems to be "all ways off" from reality. Whoops, I'd say. .... Riiiiiight. Who did you say "He" is again? Because that "He" is either a VERY bad physicist, who ignores (his own work?) reality, or is jerking your chain. Which is it?

I should also remind whomever is still doing the "Plant/Planet" comparison, that this similarity exists in English. English is not the single language of the planet. Ahem. In Hebrew, for example, the word for "Plant" and the word for "Planet" are completely different in sound, pronunciation and writing. They're not even close, and I'm pretty sure other languages are the same on that point...

knol = "unit of knowledge" according to google http://knol.google.com/

Wouldn't being rigorous also include substantiating the claims with a bit more than "woooo" "haaaa" and "yay", too? I love it when being rigorous becomes a selective choice ~moo

Since when do we include sound in our energy considerations, regardless of whether or not it's produced, though? Am I missing something here..?? If anything, it should be air-friction (which, technically, would produce the sound), but that too isn't ENERGY, it's force. We either calculate this using energy considerations (sound and friction should not be included) or using forces (which means that it's a projectile movement, with initial velocity, bla bla). Or am I missing something..?

According to his other post, it seems he left the forum. In case he didn't, I would also want to know why sound is in the equation, and ask you guys if by "imbeded energy" you mean "embedded" energy, and, if that, perhaps, means "internal" energy ? I am not sure I understand that energy consideration..? ~moo

... what is "imbeded energy"? why do you have "sound" in your energy considerations? Why does your "momentum method" end with "final energy" result? Momentum is NOT energy.. the burden of proof is on you, not on us, it's our RESPONSIBILITY to ask you for proof, because we're science-minded people. If science wasn't vigorous about proof, our world would still be considered flat, the sun would still be revolving around it. Own up to your responsibility. You're the one who decided to come to US, not the other way around. Own up or stop wasting our time. When you registered there was a section about reading the rules (which you AGREED to, otherwise you'd not have been registerd). I suggest you also own up to the responsibility of READING the rules you signed up you supposedly are going to read, and save us all wasting valuable time. ~moo

You won't get anywhere preaching -- ANYWHERE in science. Not a forum, not a company, not a lab. Nowhere. You should also study a bit of physics, seeing as your theory is lacking in some basic newtonian understanding and some basic Physics 101. I'd go over it if you only show some inclination towards *DEBATING* (it's a *two-way* effort, darling, not just you talking and us bowing to your words). You seem to be insisting on preaching, though. I'd read the rules again if I were you. ~moo

You're in the wrong place, then. We're not here to believe, we're here to practice science. Follow the rules or leave, it's as simple as that. We want to be patient and helpful, but we really can't do it if you insist on preaching instead of debating. This isn't a theory, it's a group of sentences. A Theory is *substantiated* and relies on *reality*, logically stated and proven. If anything, this group of sentences can transfer itself into a *hypothesis*, but that too requires some grip on reality. That grip on reality needs to be demonstrated. This might be your theory, but the burden of proof is on you. In science, you don't just get to blurb a paragraph and be done with it. The job of proving, demonstrating and convincing others of your theory's truthfulness is YOURS. In fact, peer-review process (which, ideally, is to come next on a substantiated theory), demands that we analyze, disect and try to show how your theory is *NOT* true. That's the point of peer review. If your theory is strong and well based, we will fail, your theory will pass peer-review, and you will be on your way to submit it to a scientific publication and perhaps a Nobel prize. Yes, that was a statement to show you that we (and the scientific community as a whole) are not generally against "alternative" views. There are plenty of those out there, and many of them are aiming at a LOT more substantiation that your idea is. The question is - which one agrees with reality enough to convince us we should abandon a current *WORKING* theory for yours. Your excitement has nothing to do with it. Your theory is either true or false, it's as simple as that. You will not be the first one to be excited from a very imaginative false idea. You shouldn't take it personally, either. Science is objective, not subjective, and a theory's validity has nothing to do with how exciting it is, or how beautiful it is, or, for that matter, how simple or complicated it is. It's either working or not working. You should go read the rules a bit. That said, this is an absolute false statement. Newton spent his entire life proving his theories and hypotheses. His entire life. Perhaps you should read his biography. No, it doesn't. At all. Matter (mass) cannot be created out of nothing, velocity or no velocity. If you claim something, you need to substantiate it, and explain *why* you claim what you do. Where did you see this? Why do you think this is happening? Ooookay now. Scientific concepts that have existed for centuries have not just "popped out of nowhere". They're proven for centuries because they FIT reality, but before they were tried and tested, the theory was well substantiated to prove that (a) there is a reason to try it out, (b) there are ways to test it, © the experiments are repeatable, (d) the theory can be falsified And some others. *Every* scientific theory follows at LEAST these rules. If you think you don't need our approval, or our input, then you have nothing to do here. We don't really care for preachers in this forum. If you want to debate the validity of your idea, we're willing to participate. If you're only here to patronize, claim you know better (when you seem to miss very important things about basic physics in the process) and refuse to participate in a proper debate, then I suggest you stop wasting your and our time, and leave. And finally, reading the rules of a forum before posting in it is not only common courtesy, it's also a good idea in avoiding being kicked out, getting members pissed off, and being banned. I suggest you read the rules and follow them. ~moo

... substantiation? Okay, let me put this otherwise: This is a scienceforum. It means that we go by the scientific method. Many new advancements and discoveries were made through the scientific method. The people who made them won the Nobel Prize. Thy are hugely famous and respected. The Scientific community *wants* change. We strive for change. Because it's cool. And it gives us more work, which gives us more experiments, which give us more money. Now. The Scientific method states, among other things, that when someone makes a claim, it shall remain a claim until it follows logical methodology through factual data, observations and repeatable experimentation. A Theory should be substantiated, otherwise it's nothing more than an imaginative babble. If you want anyone to take you seriously you will need to drop the "wheee" and "waaa" and allow *us* to do the excited hums when we read your well thought-out substantiation of your very-well-based and *consistent in reality* brand new theory. One that might win you a brand shiny Nobel Prize. Then, we can say we knew the Nobel winner. And we can have more ideas for more experiments. Which will give us more things to do, more subjects to study, and more work. More science. More potential for new advancements. Substantiate, and then we'll go over your theory and see if it actually holds reality or denies it. After all, your idea invalidates current physics. If it is to be true (the odds are slim, but the benefit of the doubt can be given), it will completely shatter what we know about velocity, mass and many of the current physical (and chemical) theories. You can't possibly expect us to jump and accept it without the slimmest line of proof. Work on it a bit, and post again. We'll discuss it in a scientific matter - as appropriate for a scientific forums. You came to us, not us to you, remember? Good luck, ~moo P.S: This isn't a vocal conversation, it is a *written* forum thread. Please try to avoid stating something in one paragraph and then saying "sorry, I meant [something-else]" in another. You *can* edit your own post and delete the mistake, specifically when it's in the previous paragraph. It is very confusing to make sense of your theory when you state one thing and then flip your statement on the next paragraph.