mooeypoo

Hey guys! I just wanted to let you know I have opened a new Facebook page for the SmarterThanThat project. Feel free (please!) to join in as fans and get regular updates on new and exciting changes that are coming up - as well as more and more and mooooore experiments! Here is is: http://www.facebook.com/pages/SmarterThanThatcom/30731268952 Yay! ~moo

I think it depends how you define "more important". While the laws of physics always apply, a philosophical point of view would state, possibly, that we already ARE in a subjectively conceived world. For that matter, I see myself differently than you see me, or someone else sees me, etc. It's not just about self consciousness or shyness, necessarily, either. It's a deep philosophical question, and pretty interesting one, imho. You can't change the laws of physics through psychology, but you can probably argue that you perceive some of them differently..? ~moo

Actually, allow me to be the smartass and add that your weight CAN change with change in speed (acceleration), if your acceleration is not horizontal (say, you're moving up or down a hill, or up/down and elevator)... Weight is the force that is exerted.. F=ma.. usually it's F=mg, but if you're accelerating up or down or diagonally, it will change that force, and hence change your weight. </slightly smartass> ~moo

That's why I said it was a blind experiment, and not a double-blind experiment. But still, in my case the arm was lowered quite considerably -- we were TRYING to think happy thoughts to get it to go back "up" again (the OP specifically stated that should be done!) and it failed miserably. It wasn't an issue of judging the level of the arm - it was DEFINITELY going down. I think our test subject should get some gym time on her arms judging from that experiment ~moo

Why? How do you know that what we see is not what we get? How do you know that we won't just develop better and better pieces of equipment that, eventually, will show us everything? Whether I believe that or not is a different matter. The issue is that since this is NOT a speculation forum (not that it would change the request, even if it was, and I think it should be) - you need to BASE your claims on facts, citations, some sort of logical trail of thought - anything, really, that would separate your claims from preaching to scientific debating. Regardless, this thread should probably move to the Pseudoscience/Speculations forums.. ~moo

Instead of being unhelpful by trusting science and everything we already know, or just by rudely making conclusions over the falaciousness of this experiment just because a lot of scientists happened to disprove it before, I decided to follow my own principle: When in doubt, Try it out! I gathered about 4 of us in the office (who were not too busy to try this experiment on the fifth) and explained the experiment to them. The test subject had no idea, was in the other side of the building, and therefore could be declared a blind experiment. It began by her putting her arm up and closing her eyes, with ipod music on. She was intructed to keep her hand stable, until we tell her to. Then, the experiment began. But we encountered our first problem: We couldn't decide what, exactly, constitutes "parallel to the floor" when an arm is concerned - is it 90 degrees from the body, or perfectly-parallel to the floor, even if the body tilts a bit. That required some show of talent, since it's not as simple as you would have thought to see both the arm and the floor at the same time without moving your eyes back and forth (and hence have a frame of reference) while thinking happy, merry, glorious thoughts. Then, we argued about what a glorious thought is or should be, after a particularly funny (but horribly cynical) fella in the office declared that he personally finds a scene from a horror movie much more glorious than a field of sunflowers. We just decided he would be the test subject next time we have an idiotic experiment. All in all, it was fun. Oh, and we actually did think good, happy thoughts eventually (we did that a few times, too, with attempt to imagine something beautiful, then ugly, then horribly bloody and gory and hellish, then quiet, solemn and peaceful). The arm's rate of fall was pretty consistent (it didn't even slow down with our happy thoughts. we tried!). Our test subject is quite angry at us right now, by the way. Even though she was supposed to be thinking NICE thoughts (we promised her icecream for her trouble), she only had bad ones after the end of the experiment after we explained what the purpose was. And she has a sore arm. Also, the majority (4 out of 5, the test subject being the fifth) decided that just in case there is merit to this experiment, there is no use buying her icecream. By the rate her arm was losing parallel'ism with the floor, we might aswell get her a psychiatrist instead. Great experiment, guys, thanks for 30 minutes of great fun at the office! ~moo

Well you're blatantly ignoring people and can supply no solutions to either the holes in your own nontheory and the ones that actually HAVE solutions in proven scientific theories. ...What does that say about you? I am not sure what you mean about the milk, but just like trolling, ad hominems are not a valid argument. "Ha. Ha." Trying to switch the subject into an attempt for adhom bash will not make us forget your theory is unproven idiocy, and that you have no respect for the contributors of this forum or science itself. Nice try, though. Emphasizing words don't make them true, and it doesn't prove them. You really should go back to junior high physics, my friend, or at least high-school level debate-class. And finally, I must congratulate you, as I do any one who accomplishes the same (and there are many): Congratulations! you just failed peer review. One of the best methodologies of the scientific method, that should encourage thinking and improvement. Whether you like it or not, your theory failed. You may take this as us being idiots, which you're allowed (just like you did in that other forum..) - and we're much better off taking this as it should be taken: A Learning experience for better scientific theories. G'luck next time, ~moo

.. is that supposed to be me?

And the same goes to this thread. Funny, how people can be so consistent that I don't even have to rephrase myself. Consistent. ~moo

I feel like I'm watching the ball at a tag-game gone wrong, all the while waiting for the judge to finally stop the carnage and declare an end to it. Or at least halftime. For almost 60 posts NewScience has been consistent in only ONE THING: Ignoring anything he doesn't like. For 60 posts you asked him to not ignore you. You repeated yourselves. You spent time sharing your love and admiration to science while begging he read your sentences. But he broke not. He ignored you. He still does. I would put my money on a reply that answers a twisted (and wrong) version of your question. I am psychic this way. Or maybe it's just because I read this thread as a relative 'outsider' for the past 40+ posts and I am not sure if I should laugh, cry, or call the medics. Have we not had enough?

I actually said "Metallic clips" I think, but it doesn't matter much since I didn't use them eventually..... (lucky I didn't bend over the box to look at the other compartment while the clip FLEEEWWWW up. That could've been... interesting... )

I agree, sometimes the mere presence of a moderator is enough to bring back control. Look at New Science and MotorDaddy's threads, their insistence on ignoring people's posts and keep posting over and over and over again the exact same (or, in 'better' cases - with a different phrasing) claim. That should be reprimanded. That's a difference in attitudes, though, and if it merely is a difference in attitude, then regardless of the contents, the latter is just plainly impolite and unscientific, even if eventually we might find out it has some sort of merit. If someone ignores others, he's not being nice and he's not following the scientific method that calls for PEER REVIEW. That's wrong in a science forums, whether you have it in speculations or in a 'normal' scientific forum or in the pseudoscience forums.

While I see the logic in that, I also think it would end up being redundant. First, how do you separate the two? There are a few pseudoscientific areas that are not completely "out there" but are enough to be 'pseudoscience' -- how do you decide which is which? not that obvious.. Also, I'm sure we'll end up just throwing away most of the post into pseudosscience anyways... so now it just saves us the trouble I kinda miss the "Philosophy" forum. It used to be philosophy and religion, and the religion part got it kicked out, but I think philosophy - if done right, and with no crappy insistences that it's empirical science - can be very interesting. But nothing stops us from posting phylosophical hypotheses in the pseudoscience/speculation forum.. no?

To New Science You are not reading a word anyone has ever written to you unless you can twist it to mean something you like. This is confirmed by the post above. What appears to be happening is a blunt ignorance of the forum rules, as well as incredible disrespect for both the entire field of physics and chemistry and the methodology and art of proper debate. Ignoring all sources other than the single one you like is not science. Twisting people's claims to make sure you can answer them is not science. Insisting we are wrong when you clearly havent' even read the answers is not even polite. Please stop taking us as fools. We have put more than enough time into your fantasyworld. The least you could do is read what we say. As I said in the other thread (in a post that was actually meant for you), this is beyond trolling. It's utter silliness. Thank you, ~moo I think it's time someone puts a stop to this, it's not going anywhere ANYWAYS.

I don’t know what about you, but I have a box I keep my change in. I’ve bene thinking for a while what I can do with that change - buy a boat, rent a jetski, get a trip on those cool X-Planes that go up to space, etc etc. Big plans for small money, I know, but.. I’ll keep on dreaming. Now, though, you too have something to do with your extra nickels and pennies you keep safe for future plans: You can do science with them! Yay! (Read more and watch the video...) Do you have anything to say? Wish to discuss the experiment? Ask questions or criticize the method? Post and debate here! Please don't forget you need to register to be able to post.

Wooh I didn't mean that it will, or that it might... I am just putting forth my opinion on the matter, and - btw - I really don't mean to get ppl on the defensive, so please don't read what I'm saying as if I'm accusing the management here of bad judgment. I care about the forums, that's all. We always have room for improvement.... ~moo

It's not about backing up my arguments, Capn, it's about backing up the rules. But I'll pay you to escort me anywhere.

That's a good point, but sometimes it takes a whole for those infraction points to "affect" a n actual action. Some users also love seeing a mod backing them up... <whistle> Don't get my wrong, btw, I'm not blaming or flaming, I really do think you guys are doing a great job. I'm just suggesting out of what I see in the pseudoscience/speculation forums lately. I think that for the innocent bystander readers, it is also useful to see how patient we are (And we ARE, wow, sometimes a bit too much, imo) and yet that we do take great care on the forum while not just banning someone out of nowhere. Take into account that the innocent bystander reader doesn't SEE the infraction points someone else got, he just sees that someone banned/suspended. ~moo

Oh, I'm sure, and the mods reaction time is great. I'm not talking about the 'behind the scenes' actions, though, I'm talking about the actions that are SEEN by the n00bs. I think that we - the regular users - know by experience and by our time here - that the mods are keeping order, but the new users, who are here for their own preaching-havoc, might not. Sometimes they might ACTUALLY NOT understand why they're banned. They might think some of us "have it for them" (graviphoton seemed to think I'm having a personal agenda against him while I was trying to get him to read the rules of the forum, for example). What I mean is that I think sometimes, when a post/thread/n00b is going out of control sometimes the mere presence (a post, a 'im not happy you dont read the rules' *public* notice, etc) of a mod can be better than the behindthescenes actions. At least that's my opinion. ~moo

Excuse me, but I got Graviphoton to admit defeat on his statistics/bible thread. Success again... ~moo

Yes, yes, the fact teh OP keeps changing the goal post is obvious to everyone. But the current 'argument' seems to be about what constitutes 'stable' and what isn't. Whatever the answer is, it has no bearing on the OP's question, since moving the goal post is a logical fallacy.. but it does have a bearing on my knowledge, which is nontheless an important cause. So, thank you. ~moo

Oh, I agree, I am not saying that the system is broken or not working at all. I'm just saying that sometimes - perhaps out of boredom, or strong feelings about science - we tend to feed trolls. I think when someone ignores answers consistently (let's say, for 50+ posts? and insists his/her own view of science is the only one, regardless of facts (who needs reality, pff), it seems to me to be quite indicative. My point is that when I debate someone (and i try to be polite), I try to keep in mind having those ignorants reading the thread. If my valid answers keep being consistently overrun by consistently-repetitive junk, I start suspecting troll'ism. If the person I debate with is consistently uncooperative (stomping his feet on the ground and insisting reality is not important, his own ideas are), I suspect crackpotness. If both happen consistently, I know it's a crackpot troll. I still try and think about the ignorant readers, though.. the crackpot is usually beyond help. ~moo p.s (addition): Oh, and if someone insist that the rules are unimportant, or that there's no point even READING the, let alone following them, he/she should be given a MOD-post to show him we're not here for his own little fantasy world preaching. I respect you guys as mods, don't get me wrong, I think you're doing a great job, I just think that sometimes you forget that the rest ofus *don't* get to see what you are debating "behind the scenes" about specific (or general) trolls, and neither is the troll. When things like that happen - before that troll deserves a ban or suspension, even - it might be a good diea to meddle with the thread *as a mod* and show whoever it is that the forum is being moderated, and that even though we are polite and open minded, we do not take insulting our forum rules lightly.

Klaynos, in an attempt to clarify something - both for me, and, I believe, for the OP - if a substance that has a halflife of a few seconds can be considered stable, how do you define an UNSTABLE substance?

What about the ppl we can help, though? And we did help some, it's not like EVERYTHING in there is trollish. We just need to make sure we HANDLE the trolls, and not let them take over.