mooeypoo

Wow. Wordsalad of mixing a bunch of claims from different fields together, and then finishing off by a HUGE illogical leap that is far from being demonstrated from this argument. BB space expansion concept cannot expand the light pulses beacuse they're not the transmitters--?? huh!? The expansion of the universe DOES expand light rays, regardless of what originates them or if they were their own originators. And what does the refutation of the aether has ANYTHING to do with the cosmological red shift....? The Redshift cannot be a product of space expansion... okay.... uhh... your claims make absolutely no sense, so why would your conclusion be valid? New Science - your insistence to avoid knowing what you're talking about results in your talking utter nonsense. This isn't physics. It's not valid science. It's a wordsalad. Whether you want to go to college or not, you should really study the claims you so blatantly try to destroy. Your explanation of them is utterly wrong, so obviously your proposed "corrections" are just absurd. You also need to provide substantiations, explanations based on SCIENCE, citations from other previous theories (not just claims "it was said" or "it is so"), and the dreadful of all - math. YES! This time, you must put forth math because you claim NUMERICAL values, such as "increase their length by 4-5 billion--- whatever. If you provide a number, you need to show how you estimated that number. I estimate 1.2 lightseconds. Without saying what made me estimate this and why this is a valid estimation, I might aswell be trying to estimate the size of manhattan with a toothpick. And you seem to be threatening to leave every time someone criticizing your theories - but then you add another thread with yet another kooki unbased idea. We can all do a great job explaining to you why your logic is fallacious, but if you're here to preach and run away when you're found to be wrong, then you might as well leave before the trolling reports do it for you. Cheers. ~moo

Are we supposed to salute now? Congrats ya'll!!!! You deserve it! Now spread your knowledge around so we can learn and become experts too Cheers

You came here, we're not supposed to go on your blog. When we request empirical data, you need to present it, not troll and try to get us on your blog. I believe you were also notified this was against the rules of the forum too. Oh. Okay, I won't waste my time, then.

It's called peer review, Merlin. It's not personal. Look at the rest of the pseudoscience/speculation forums and see we do this to all hypotheses, including our own. If you keep degrading the channel to personal attacks instead of proper science, we might have to stop wasting our time. Also, that will win you a suspension. Or a ban. Reporting your threads for flaming and/or personal attacks is really not contributing to my time. The reason we reply that your hypothesis is not empirically supported is because we haven't seen anything to support it. You posted a bit of info that might start doing that, finally, but that still awaits analysis. You are the one proposing the hypothesis. The burden of proof and show empirical process is on you. Not on us. We haven't seen it, hence your theory is not yet supported. I would recommend, as we are reading through your hypothesis to see if it's realistic or not, that you go over what Logical Fallacies are. Our examination and remarks might be more logical when you understand why we claim logic to be illogical. So far I've counted a few, among other things ad hominem and appeal to authority. You might want to refresh yourself on them to avoid them in the future. ~moo

Stop with the personal attacks already. Other than wasting our time reporting it, it's also not contributing to your attempts to make your theory valid. As I said, I *skimmed through* the humongous website. I didn't read it all. Which is why I asked for you to post what you think is your best proof in here. Don't forget you came to us, Merlin, we didn't come to you. The burden of proof is on you, not us. Own up to it already. Now. That said, I'm going to spend a bit of time reading through your proposed proof and answer after dinner. I will ask that you refrain from degrading this to a personal attack bashing, because if you continue, I don't think many of us will find this worth our time. Not to mention it's against the rules of the forum, and can earn you a suspension. Bzz. We can be adults about this, can't we? Now let's talk science instead of having a silly flame party. ~moo

That's not quite creationism, that's more like Deism. Creationism is the belief that the universe was created by a personal god according to the story of Genesis. Six days... 6000~ years ago... That's "Creationism". All other faith is not creationism persae, and therefore might not be incompatible with science the way creationism is. ~moo

No it doesn't. Darwin's Origin of the Species was supported by a lot of empirical evidence and made no mathematical predictions. And, like Darwins theory, the hypothesis of a non-local cause and effects is in large part about life on Earth and the behaviour of living organisms, as well as about quantum mechanics and astronomical evidence. Alrighty then, don't show math, show us the empirical evidence you keep talking about. I have skimmed through your blog and I have seen none to justify me spending time reading it in more detail, for the simple raeson that I haven't seen any empirical evidence. I've seen you CLAIM empirical evidence, but seen none. What I suggest is that you either point us out to the specific study that shows empirically that your hypothesis is supported in reality, or give us one or two examples of such empirical proof. Even without the math, you've given us nothing empirical other than your CLAIMS that you have empirical data. Where is it? Untrue. The fact you don't understand or don't know the current theories does not mean that the theories don't explain the universe. We know a WHOLE LOT about the processes in the universe and the way it "operates". The current theories are based in factual data, observation, have proper math and predict phenomena truly. All new discoveries support them, even those we didn't expect to find. If you propose a new theory, you need to give us a reason to abandon the current working theories. I suggest you do some research about the current theories, because your claim that they can't explain anything is just wrong. Well your question is weird.. You're mixing a bunch of subjects here and end up asking a question that cannot be answered. We know what goes on inside matter. We know how atoms operate. We know how molecules interact. We know how the universe operates. We know what happens to stars. We know how stars, planets and celestial bodies are born. We can explain them perfectly well. We have the math to support all of the above, too. What do you mean in your question about "remain the way it is" given the action of forces? Elements are AFFECTED by forces, and for that matter, they don't really "stay the way they are". Things move.. things evolve.. things change. Physics has a lot of supported theories that explain these phenomena. So does Chemistry. So does Biology. So does Geology. So do other sciences. Your insistence that there are no explanations is absurd. If you disagree with an explanation that is one thing, but saying there is no explanation when there is one is just silly. Really, now, how would you expect us to take anything you say seriously if you insist on claiming that existing theories don't exist? I can claim there's nothing to explain why apples fall down from trees. I can stomp my feet on the ground forever claiming there is no theory to explain it. That doesn't mean the theory of gravity doesn't exist. Whether you do it through college or through your own studies, I suggest you READ and LEARN about the subject you insist have no knowledge. ~moo

Yeah it *is* easy when you know PHP, but you need to first know php... First learn the basics, and then maybe find some login scripts in http://www.planetsourcecode.com so you see how they work. Good luck and keep us apprised if you need more help or create a first application ~moo

Ignoring the attempt to degrade the thread to a flaming bash, I have to state one thing on the demands for math: We seem to be doing it a lot lately, demanding math, which is logical (because it IS a scientific demand) and is requested as part of peer review. All good. But we're not there yet. Our demand for math might have been relevant if the hypothesis was scientific. Or well founded in reality. Or semi well. Or partially. Or even just 'logically explained'. 'Marginally supported'. Anything, really, other than a fantastic claim without any sort of basis to it. Demanding to see the math might have been relevant if the hypothesis in this thread had any sort of basis to it, was supported by observational data, was explained logically, or was shown to have even the slightest basis in reality. It does not. My fellow SFNers, you're wasting your time even if you DID have the math. I can claim an invisible pink unicorn is poking holes in the universe, which is causing gravitational fields to form. The hypothesis is so ridiculously unfounded and unbased in reality, that any demand on your part for me to show math is just utterly irrelevant. Before I show the math, I need to show why math will even be relevant. What kind of equasion can possibly prove what I'm saying. Why what I am proposing has any basis in reality. The first step is to explain why this theory should have any credence in reality, to show observational data, to explain its support in reality rather than fantasy. THEN - and only then - the math would be relevant. In short, guys, the math is important, but we're not there yet. Even if we're shown mathematical formulas in this thread that are perfectly logical, they are absolutely irrelevant, because this "thesis" is not yet proven to even HAVE a basis in reality. Merlin needs to first prove that reality supports his theory before we examine the efficacy of his theory by scrutinizing his math. Merlin Wood, my friend, you need to convince us your theory has any credence in reality on the expense of the existing theories. Forget about the math for now, it's irrelevant, I agree with that - you are not even halfway to explaining to us why we should even entertain the possibility of throwing away a currently working, proven, supported, realistic theory that can explain reality and produce working predictions with your theory. Do that first, then we'll talk. Oh.. and don't forget you chose to post in this forum. Lose the attitude. Peer Review is not personal. Your attempts to try and make Peer Review personal will not change the fact that your theory failed it. Good luck. ~moo

Oookay great now I can give a better answer (Thanks Capn DivideByZero - you need to first understand the concept of "Serverside Programming". It's not hard, just important. Read about it a bit here, for example. Also, you'll need to know a bit about HTML tags and CSS, because with PHP you're generating your pages dynamically, so you will need to "play around" with these. They're not hard at all, specifically since HTML is a "markup" language, and not programming (so it doesn't really have conditions, array, variables or anything most of the time). Same, mostly, with CSS. Then, look at PHP tutorials for beginners to get used to the basics. Don't get into mySQL before understanding what PHP does and how it works. After that, learning the mysql commands that php has will be relatively easy. Look up "PHP Tutorials" online. i found a few here, here and here. But there are many more in a simple google search. Places like PlanetSourceCode.com are good for example codes so you can take them and tweak them, and learn how to do stuff like that. Good luck ~moo

Yes, you can, it's not hard to learn, adn you're hijackign my thread Not that anyone replied to it, apparently.. ahem to all. I recommend you look up "php tutorials" in google and see about starting out in one. you'll need a PHP / mySQL server to test your code in. I also recommend someone split this up to a new thread mods?

Wouldn't that be a bad thing considering the environment changes so rapidly? Change of environment without evolution to the species ==> won't that result in humans not being adapted to the environment? That's also my main point in the question -- we seem to be changing our environment very quickly and quite dramatically, and yet not "allowing" our own evolution, in the sense that we don't allow mutations much (genetics kindof prevent them nowadays before birth..) and not allow quite natural selection much... so if we're not evolving but our environment is changing, what would happen to our species in a few thousands/million years..?

I disagree. There's no reason why evolution is incompatible with the idea of a higher intelligence, but it is definately incompatible with Intelligent Design the way its proponents define it. Intelligent Design states all species were specifically designed and created ALMOST-AS-IS by a higherpower, some sort of designer. That is directly in contradiction to the theory of Evolution that shows speciation by natural selection, slowly. If you saw the movie iNow posted, they give a great graphical representation for the difference: Intelligent Design shows species as "lines" popping out of nowhere. Evolutions has these "lines" connected to a tree. The theories are absolutely incompatible. Don't forget there's a difference between a belief in god or creator (that can take many shapes, from a personal-god to deism to a lot of other variations) and the theory of Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design is a formed theory (false one, but formed) - it's not equal to the belief in an Intelligent Designer.. there are more elements to ID, such as the statement that all species were specifically designed (hence created as is, hence no evolution, hence absolutely in contradiction of it). Indeed. Unlike the belief in a creator-god, which may be compatible with science (stetching it, in my opinion, but regardless), and is just impossible to prove or disprove. ~moo

Here I am again, posing such question. I think we spoke about this before, but not for a while, and I'm still unsatisfied with teh asnwers. I think the reason is my own lack of properly explaining the question that's bugging me. So I'm giving it another try. We (humans) are part of nature. We're also quite resourceful, so I don't think we'll go extinct any time soon, unless some catastrophe happens (hence, regardless of my attempt to define what I see as the "problem" that leads to my question, I don't think we'll die off as a species because of that so called "problem") - so don't take this as a 'doomsayers' hypothesis. I'm just wondering here. It seems that we are sort-of circumventing Natural Selection in our own evolution; that means that instead of Nature "selecting" the most-adapted qualities and having the non-adaptive qualities die off or not reproduce, we allow all sorts of "defects" to continue existing - from having eyeglasses to being born with mental retardation. (Please don't take my description as if I recommend killing of - or stopping the aid to- anyone who has "defects". I am NOT. I'm just trying to make my point.) Since we also developed our own sense of morality (that doesn't seem to exist MUCH in nature in terms of "allowing" defects to continue existing/multiplying), I don't see this situation changing. I don't think it SHOULD change, either, ethically speaking, but this thread is not about ethics. It's about evolution. I'm wondering, then: What do you think the outcome of this situation will be in the long run? I've heard in a science radio show (forgot where) once the idea that we might ahve to rely much much more on technology to keep our existence - so perhaps "bionic" people, or genetic engineering to the level of practically 'replacing' nature, etc. Do you think this is going to have a long term effect on our evolution? Are we not allowing our own species to adapt to nature (that we also change quite rapidly, too, without allowing ourselves to "get used"/"evolve"/"adapt" to the changes)? How do you see humanity in a few million years? Where do you think we're going with this Human Selection as opposed to "Natural Selection" ? Anyways, this is just a theoretical, philosophical thought. Please don't get into an ethical discussion here, it might be an interesting one, but it's not my point at all. I'm strictly thinking about evolutionary changes and "path" here. So.. speak philosophy, not ethics. We can open a new thread for ethical evolution choices if you think it's interesting enough to discuss. ~moo

Hey guys, I had an idea for a game - the basic 'scenes' are similar to a FPS, though no shooting is involved. It's more like "walk and evade obstacles" kinda game with an amusing twist to it. I'm a decent PHP/mySQL programmer, but I'm NOT good in games. I want someone who's good in either Flash or anything similar... It's relatively very simple with potential to become a bit more complicated after an initial "engine" is up. Anyone up for the challenge? I'll explain in more details if I find anyone good for it... otherwise, it's going to remain a surprise for the forum. also, if you have any programs you know that allow people like me with programming knowledge but rookiness in games to develop basic games, tell me.. i'll try it myself, if i find a good program to start with. Anyhoo, it's going to be fun. I think. I hope. ~moo

Also, it's important to note that Einstein wasn't the only one trying to develop a theory of everything. Others did - and still do - too. Many others. That makes the claim of actually finding one quite a lot less plausible (not impossible, of course) and requires much more supporting evidence. but then again - if you ignore peer-review in other forums, I don't hold much hope you'll listen in this one. ~moo

This is silly, we're churning water. There is NO SCIENTIFIC THEORY to date (NONE) that is accepted without empirical support and proof. None. Not Einstein's theories, not Newton's, not Darwin's... they're ALL supported by evidence, otherwise they would be tossed out of scientific acceptance - as other theories HAVE BEEN. Even if (and your depictions are very innacurate, but i'll entertain them) the scientists who came up with these theories lacked proper basis for them, they had to provide them eventually (Darwin's book is FULL of support, explanation, observational data and rational reasoning) or their theories were claimed bunk. - You chose to come to a SCIENTIFIC forum (that follows EMPIRICAL scientific method) and you chose to argue your case here. We put forth what should be demonstrated for us to be convinced that your theory/thesis/claim is worth consideration. Instead, you argue if you should even bother providing empirical support in a forum that is DEFINED by its REQUIREMENTS for empirical support (did you read the rules? perhaps you should refresh yourself.) Either provide the necessary to prove your theory, or stop wasting our time. ~moo ps -- btw, if you claim that others already done the mathematical and astronomical evidence for you, all you need to do is find a link to it.

Actually, untrue. Einstein was a theoretician - he explained and proved his theories logically and supported them with math, then wrote in his theses that he expects the experimentalists to support (or destroy) his theories. On top of that, whether he liked math or not is irrelevant - his theories were supported on proofs and maths otherwise they'd be joining the long long line of rejected false theories. If it's not supported in reality (hence - if it's not PROVEN) - it's not true. Well, not necessarily. Proving horses can be green can be achieved by finding a green horse. Observations, for that matter, are proofs too. However, if a theory is FAILING math (math doesn't support it, that is) or is against reality, it's false. Proven false, for that matter. Wrong. Newton (who was not 100% right, btw, remember? How could we have found out if his theories were just out of his head with no basis in reality? think about it) hypothesized his (MANY) theories, but then spent a large sum of his time proving it by mathematical data as well as observations and factual reference in reality. Newton's three rules are mathematical.... F=ma ... remember? Right. Where's yours? Just "Claiming" something's logical doesn't make it so. Claiming something is rational does not make it so. Claiming something must be true doesn't make it so. You need to demonstrate that your theory has any basis in reality. Arguing against it just deters from your hypothesis' plausibility as well as your personal attitude towards what is and isn't science, apparently. It's not about the pretty pictures, it's about what the pretty pictures represent. The data behind a graph needs to be explained, whether it is a bar graph or a logical-process flowchart. Otherwise you can't possibly separate between a TRUE theory and a CRAPPY one. I understand that you don't like math, I don't either, and I see that you have a natural rejection from doing the hard work and actually basing your theory on reality that works in real life rather than in our imagination or personal preference - but that is not science. It's wishful thinking. Bottom line: You suggest a new hypothesis that is against a current theory. The current theory explains natural phenomena VERY well. Yours doesn't quite. The current theory has proof in observational, mathematical and logical empirical data. Yours does not. By giving us proof (either math, observation, substantiation, logical (ahem-- EMPIRICAL logic, not your own prefered logic) methodology, anything like that) - you convince us to switch the current WORKING theory with yours. By avoiding proof and arguing against the need for such proof you're doing nothing other than joining the other previous (and current) non-scientific hypothesizers in these forums, and give absolutely no reason to give your theory any kind of credence. Convince us. With reality. Give us proof. ~moo

Scifi comes to life in this new creation: http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/13/scientists-create-cloak-of-silence-serial-killing-will-neve/ The only thing I thought was a bit disturbing was the title Engadget chose to portray (serial killers.. wonderul). Sounds pretty awesome... but it's not yet developed Also, I was thinking - soundwaves travel through a medium ONLY (air, water, whatever) and do not travel in a vacuum. Won't it be simpler to create a thin layer of vaccuum on the windows, in the walls, and - voila - no sound passing through? The entire 'tubes / meta crystals' angle sounds a bit over-the-top for me.. What do you guys think?

Very few people define "competent physicists" this way, I hope you know that. And, yes, proofs -- how do you expect a theory to stand on anything or be even partially valid without any proof or substantiation? If you suggest replacing an existing theory (that works and explains things quite well, btw) - you need to give a reason as to why your alternative is better than the existing ones. And show that your theory is more realistic.. hence proof. That's not science, though, it's art. ~moo

So if these so called "Competent Physicists" work it out and find you wrong, your theory is dead in the water? Where are these proofs of yours, and who would you call a competent physicist..?

I dont mean to be rude, but with due respect to anyone's religious beliefs, they're utterly irrelevant to a scientific discussion. [fix/add] I think I might be misunderstood myself, so I'll elaborate my point: The only way religion "gave way" to evolution is by history... as in, people used to follow creation as if it's science (bad science with no proof and an impossibility to prove it) and then gave way to real science when that showed up. I studied the bible too, for 12 years, and I never could find ANYTHING remotely evolution'ary in it to suggest the author knew about evolution, guessed it, or noticed it. It's still a nice book, I'm just saying it has no room in science. - Hence the fact ID is unscientific. I... am just not sure what you were trying to say there, bored_teen..? maybe i misunderstood. ~moo

Hey guys, I recently had to get into Joomla! and it's quite okay for certain purposes. The new 1.5 version is a bit more versatile than the 1.0 but still isn't fully supporting all the previous modules and components out there. I had to deal with a certain module that handles event listing and I found it lacking a certain (VERY important for my use) feature. I know PHP/mySQL and I know - relatively well - how joomla works, but I couldn't find any good tutorials (over the silly 'hello world' ones) that explain how to write modules or components, or how to expand existing ones. Specifically, I'm looking for the correct way to have the module communicate with the database, and that can't be done "simply" in PHP, it need to use joomla-functions, because different people chosen different presets for their table names (like "jos_table" or whatever else). Anyone knows anything about this? Any good joomla tutorials? Either 1.0 or 1.5 (as far as I understand, they're completely different, but I deal with both, so don't QUITE mind which to start with). Thanks ~moo

Yes, but then those 'gravitational wells' would result in "compression" effect where things move CLOSER together (like clumps of galaxies are 'attracted' to one another due to gravity), not in an expansion effect.... And water rise in the bath tub not because you add mass to it, but because you displace its volume, and it's liquid, so the displacement shows as a 'rise' in the level. I am not too sure I understand the relation you're proposing between volume-increase (water) to the expansion effect. If anything, it should contract.. no?