mooeypoo

Yes, I agree but only partly. I think that the pseudoscience/speculation is a good draw (and it's actually worth checking in the statistics) for ppl who look up pseudoscience stuff on google, search for info, and wanna know what to think. That's why I answer those posts, btw -- for the unsuspecting masses who happen to read them. I don't want people to come out with a feeling that there's validity in stupid claims. On the other hand, I want people to see that science people are not automatically dismissive. But then again, the attempt to show that science people (us!) are accepting can get a bit too far, at times, as we tend to be overly nice to trolls. There's a difference, imho, between crackpots, innocent ignorants and trolls. Crackpots argue pseudoscience and then either leave or shuttup when they encounter a "death blow" to their theory. Innocent ignorants really do believe what they say, and sometimes can be shown their errors, or at least convinced to read a bit of info about real science (triumph for science!) Trolls are preaching annoyances with a tendency to the idiotic and a relentless allergy to factual data. We should probably be a bit patient with the first two. The latter should be dealt with, though. Again: it's not so much for the people who make those claims, but rather for those who find us, read through, not necessarily are too well versed in science, but care enough to try and get to a conclusion. It's enough that most "controversial" (that is, what pseudoscientists WANT to be controversial, and usually isn't in real science) subjects give mostly-pseudoscientific results in google. The least we can do is make sure we give a true, just and patient answer to our threads at these cases. But trolls are trolls are trolls. They don't listen, they won't listen, they talk circular logic and idiocy, and should just be spotted and stopped. ~moo

Is this going to be a bashing thread? I made a mistake answering the wrong thread, but the post is still valid - I am not sure that we need this new thread, I'll just copy/paste this into the correct - INSANELY IRRELEVANT - thread. My purpose wasn't feeding the troll, it was to try and get all of you to stop wasting your time and feed the troll. If anyone thinks I'm wasting my time doing a back-and-forth with someone who has no respect for others, not attempting to listen and strawmanning the other side, then they're wrong. btw, ironically enough, the mistake I've made was to refer to MotorDaddy instead of New Science. VERY weird how it seems to truly fit both, but since I wrote this for NewScience and MotorDaddy just showed up in the IRC chan and started his stupidity, I got them mixed. Funny. Maybe this should be doubled up and pasted under all troll-threads instead of moved to its own thread. ~moo

This thread reminds me of those american soap operas. "Bold and the Beautiful" type, where you stop watching at episode 10, come back at episode 7443 and it's EXACTLY the same. I don't know if you guys don't notice because you're in the midst of the debate or because you're too involved with defending science as we know it, but if a mod decides to randomly delete 40 out of 55 posts here, no one will miss them. It's REPETITIVE. The repetition is obvious, too, to an outside observer: MotorDaddy asks a vaguely strawmanish question. SFNers answer. MotorDaddy straw-mans the answer to fit his imaginative view of physics. SFNers correct him and point out the strawman. MotorDaddy claims his first question wasn't answered. SFNers take more time and effort to bring forth multiple accounts of citations. MotorDaddy claims everything is wrong, all publications, all scientists, all methods of science, all methods of physics -- other than his own, uncited, imaginative version of physics. SFNers argue he is wrong and supply the answer. MotorDaddy ignores the answer and asks the same first question under a different phrasing, pretending it was never addressed. And the cycle continues, more or less the same, for 58 posts. MotorDaddy: Your physics is a sham. People have been way too polite with you in this thread and forum considering the fact you come to a scienceforums network (that deals with SCIENCE!) and ask questions while expecting us to ignore reality and science. You then ignore everythingeveryone says and repeat your questions. SFNers: Stop wasting your time. If we had a hint of cooperation here - somethingto suggest that MotorDaddy is even interested in wasting 10 minutes of his already-busy sfn-time *READING* your resources (let alone trying to understand them), then perhaps this would've been a worthy cause. But he's obviously not. He's not reading your answers, he's not reading your resources, he's ignoring your points and then claims you haven't answered them. That is no longer trolling, it's ridiculous silliness. I suggest we all take a step back and go over the thread one more time, calmly, so we can make sure we're not wasting our time (again) answering repetitions. I think we all have better things to do than to repeat yourselves for someone who refuses to acknowledge even the smallest effort. If we don't, I'm afraid this thread will get even more ridiculous. Do the experiment I did and see for yourselves: take a break from this thread for a week. When you come back, see if someone's claiming the sun is 5 meters away despite of all of science, and decide for yourselves if such a claim (which is getting seriously similar to the claims taht ARE made in this thread) is worth dealing with. With respect to most of you, ~moo

Yeah, I'm planning a "Corrections/Additions" video, and those would definitely be in it. I actually had a few mails about this subject.

Do people read the question before they vote?

Awesome. Who's my Guinea pig?

Hmm.. this is REALLY interesting actually. As an instinct reply, I have to say that since the chocolate is relatively VERY small (compared to the wave), I would guess that the change in speed is very miniscule too. I laid out possible causes for the margin of error that I had in my experiment - for one, I can't be sure of where EXACTLY to place the chocolate so that the waves are 'hitting it' in their "x-axis" points of contact. That's important, and it probably sways the result much more than the change in speed. But the idea that we usually ignore the differences is interesting. I will have to check, though, what the differences are to be sure if that's a major cause. The difference between 2.2*10^8 and 2.3*10^8 may sound small, but they're quite large when you think about it.. I *think* it's more logical that we have calculation/experimental errors than an actual change in the speed. And as for 3.0*10^8 -- This, I would guess, is a historical/convinience reason. When you speak about the speed of light generally, it's much easier to say 300,000m/s than to start saying 299,792,458m/s But.. again.. good point. I think it's a good place for our Physics experts to come into the picture... Klaynos? Martin? Anyone? Maybe they can shed some light on the matter, in whatever speed... ~moo

Here is your place to suggest more cool ideas for experiments, or for other cool phenomena that you would like me to demonstrate. If you think you have something too cool to share (surprise, perhaps?) you are also welcome to send me an email: experiments [at] smarterthanthat [dot] com And don't forget: When in Doubt, Try it Out!

Hey Ladeira The point of saying "Rubbing Alcohol" is so that people can find it in a store. When I looked at the written directions for the experiment, some of them were uber technical, which seems to be against the point of doing an easy HOME experiment.. so in the vids I try to set things up in a way that people can find the materials easily. Basically, Rubbing alcohol is not a chemical 'symbol' but it is a product, and that's what it's called, it's the most available product in any store (it's the stuff you use to disinfect tools at home) and has enough concentration to fit the experiment. I might consider adding the more 'chemically technical' terms to the blog posts, though, in the future, for the more chemically-oriented people ~moo

Yes, yes, I seem to have an affinity towards bending stuff, specifically wet stuff. Last time I bent a laser beam using water, and this time I’m going to magically bend water using a plastic comb. Science magic! Okay, well, it’s not quite magic, it’s science magic, which means it has (as always) a perfectly good explanation to it. But - can you guess it? (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.

Notice: This experiment is incomplete, and unclear. There were several attempts to correctly state the situation, but at the moment, a new re-make is planned to explain exactly and thoroughly what is happening to create this phenomenon. Well, this is going to be sweet, short and to the point: Fire in closed spaces can really suck. Ha, I was dying to use that pun for a while now, and here I had the chance. This experiment is a really short and sweet one, and can join your mental arsenal of “party tricks” for the partying geeks. It can really impress anyone, and from now on - you are going to know what makes this happen. Ready? (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.

The human body is an incredible machine. Though far from being perfect, we have evolved to what we are today through a process that took millions of years of mutation and natural selection. There is one little piece of us, though, that holds the secret to our existence, and the history of our species: The DNA. My main interest is usually physics and astronomy, but I have always been fascinated by that double-helix molecule and its meaning, both philosophically and realistically; since the beginning of Genetics the human race have progressed exponentially. It’s just, simply, amazing. So when the “rogues” of “The Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe” Podcast debated the history of DNA discoveries, I decided it is time for some biology experiment. I am about to show you how to extract your own DNA from your own bodies in your own kitchen. Yourselves. It’s aliiiiiiiiiive! (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.

Water is dense. Alcohol is Dense. But they’re not the same density, no siree. They’re differently densed. Which means we can use that to our advantage. And we do, in this experiment. Well, this is more of a “Show off your geektitude” physics trick that will amaze and enchant your buddies anywhere! Okay, well, maybe not anywhere. Or anyone. But it is geeky, I promise. And will get you some attention. And it’s cool. And it’s useful. For parties. I can switch the contents of two glasses without using a third glass. Yes, I can. Don’t believe me? Well - When in doubt, try it out! (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.

If I sail a ship to the far far seas, continue on, and on, and on and– well, you got the point. Where will I find myself? Well, if I travel in a more-or-less straight line (ignoring weather or geography, or time constraints, or my pending homework) I will end up right where I started. Why? Because the Earth is round. Duh. Today we have a lot of sophisticated (and simple) methods of calculating the curvature and size of the earth. But how did humanity figure this out in the first place? I mean.. it’s so easy, without the help of satellites, airplanes and Jules Verne, to look at the flat horizon and mistake the earth for a flat table top. How could anyone figure out not only that the world is not flat, but also calculate the size of its radius? Well, when in doubt, try it out. Hey.. I think I like that motto. It’s rhyming, and rhymes are usually true. Just ask Dr Seuss. Plus.. it works! (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.

It’s Goo! It’s Solid! It’s Goo! It’s Solid! It’s— both??? My mom always told me never to play with my food, but in this case, I think even she will agree to make an exception. Not only am I going to play with this food, you should too. It’s way too fun to pass on. (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.

All super-thieves know that lasers go straight. It’s the tenet of their masterplan to jump over, crawl under and squeeze between those annoying laser beams around whatever-it-is they are interested in stealing. It can take them weeks to study the angles and train to spray dust over it so they can see them. Talented thieves. I wonder what would their world look like if they knew that light can be bent. Well, in huge distances (like space) light is bent with gravit, which is pretty cool, but it takes a big body of mass and quite a large distance to do that. I am not going to travel light years to see light bend. I’m going to do it in my own bathroom. You can too. In your own bathroom. (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.

You probably hear this every day, that weird phenomenon sounds makes when it whooshes you by quickly. In fact, the entire ‘whoosh’ effect - that ‘zzzzzzzzzzzhoooooooom!’ that seems all children are familiar with and use as a description for a passing car is a great hint that something is going on. (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.

Consider: You’re a deer on a dark road. A pair of headlights is suddenly approaching you. Fast. You stare at it intently… wondering - how fast is the light moving? Now, if you’re that deer, chances are this wouldn’t be your first concern. Or maybe it would. Maybe that’s why they take so long to move away… long calculations about the speed of light flood their minds.. (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.

Smartass. The sun doesn't move away from us enough to cause its visible light to change much for our naked eye to notice (actually, the sun doesn't move, we do, but you get my point). And my point was to show that if someone insists on claiming an absurdly unrealistic claim as reality, there is no point in even getting into math. The sun is not blue, it's orangish-yellow. It's not square, it's spherical. Anyone claiming that an observed, proven fact is not a fact is missing something in terms of perception of reality, even before missing something in terms of scientific endeavoring.

Quite fitting for the quotes thread, I'd say.

Where's hebrew?? With the occasional bible-junkie crackpot theorists popping into our forums, I think I proved that knowing that language is an advantage. BTW.. isn't the choice of "English" slightly redundant? Is there anyone on this forum that can read the poll and doesn't speak English? ~moo

Look back at the posts and follow the links and explanations people worked on putting for you, the answers are there. Trolling reported.

I did tell you that your assumptions - that created those numbers - are wrong, therefore the numbers are wrong. Example: I claim the earth is rectangular. I supply math. To invalidate my claim, you don't even NEED to go to my math. It's irrelevant. Math can be 'true' and yet meaningless. Which it invariably is in my claim. All you need to do is prove that the earth is not rectangular, and you invalidate my claim, math and all. We showed you how your assumptions and how the way you produce your conclusion - including the way you produce the math - is wrong. Therefore your numbers, your math, and your conclusions are invariably wrong. Stop insisting silliness, and start talking science. Or perhaps reconsider if a scientific (with scientific rigor and analysis) forum is the right place for you to post in. ~moo