mooeypoo
Moderators-
Posts
5698 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by mooeypoo
-
Enough. Thread closed, as promised.
-
rktpro, thanks for taking this on, it seems we missed it this year! Just one thing -- usually when we do it, we have a set of basic rules just to make things fair. Here's last year's thread (by ydoaPs): http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/49983-user-awards-2010/ So the rules for the previous years are listed below. rktpro, if you're up to it, please take the lead on this one, as you've started the thread and seem to be active! Thanks for that. Here's last year's rules, which should mostly be observed this year too: rktpro, contact me if you want anything else done this year, but i think this can be fairest and easiest for counting later. We could publish your winners at the end. Good luck y'all, ~mooey
-
1+22.2+135=158.2 is not a mathematical formula. It's not "doing science", it's making a calculation. If you don't know what 1, 22.2 and 135 MEAN and where they came from, and why it's 22.2 and not, say, 22.32 or 22.12, then this entire exercise is simply meaningless. Let me sum this exercise up, in big font, so to make sure you read it (since you seem to be skipping points you dislike): You are not a scientist, that's fine, I'm not an artist. If I were to come to you and tell you how art works, and then insist you listen to me and publish me as an artist, you would get as frustrated with me as we are with you. The only difference between us on this case is that I admit I am not an authority on how art works. You seem to insist you know how science works despite how many times we repeat that you don't. I think you should take a step back and learn a little about how science works. You have the wrong concept about that. Case in point: Because it's not the way science works. (One more time, with feeling.) Also, I wouldn't hold my breath on that apology. Please do. You'll get the same answers. Actually, you might get kicked out sooner. I've been very patient. Because they don't take the time to study what they claim? I agree. Good luck, friend. Do let us know when another science forum hails your theory as true and sends you off for publication. Now, please, unless you have anything of value to your theory to add, do stop this mocking attitude. You tried, you failed, move on. ~mooey
-
That's not the vacuum we're talking about, matty.
-
Also, the EArth's rotation is slowing down, *because* of energy expenditure. (see "Tidal Acceleration", which is usually negative acceleration [hence, deceleration]) Nothing is free, not even energy. What's expended, is transformed to something else, and is taken out of the system. That simple.
-
RULEZ FTW YO \m/ I HAZ RULEZES. And a translated version: ! Moderator Note Let me remind you that we have rules of conduct, and we're serious about them. Personal attacks and ridicule not only will not fly, it will get you on a giant wind turbine out of this forum. Don't do that again.
-
And as a shameless promotion to an SFN user's blog (in SFN blogs, incidentally) that is completely on-point, and, I suspect, was written as a result of this thread (or partially at least), this is an excellent account of why numerology is not science. Regardless of where this thread is ending up, this is a relevant and good read.
-
Sorry,what do you mean? g is acceleration, and in this context of newtonian mechanics it's constant acceleration regardless of location... Also, are you suggesting the atoms are falling = the air is falling? I'm not quite clear as to what you're saying.... can you explain?
-
Right. I wanted to start answering but it seems I would just be repeating everything I already said. You want to create math without understanding what mathematics is, and you want to create physics without really understanding current physics. We all know what pi is. You learn that at school; you even test it at school, and later, and you keep verifying exactly what it is. The origin of the Pi ratio was never a problem. This thread is not just unproductive, it's starting to get annoying. You are ignoring what people tell you and you skip questions you feel like skipping. Discussions don't work like that, and guess what? Neither does science. I really think that if you are serious about finding the backing for this "theory" (sorry, it's not even a theory yet, so far it's a wild hypothesis without backing, and even that I'm not quite sure is the proper description) then you need to pause the "I KNOW BETTAH THAN EVERYONE ELSE!" attitude and sit down to read a little bit about what the current mathematical models *actually say*. You want to argue against them, the only fair thing is to first know what they say. From what you state throughout this thread it's clear that you don't know what the current models are, you're not entirely sure what the field equation actually represents (which it seems is why you are replacing PI with random numbers) and what "vectors" are. For that matter, you don't seem to know what "derivatives" mean, since you want us to take a derivative of a constant and claim that will give us another constant. It's frustrating, I don't even know where to start. So I won't. You seem to be a tad too energetic on the expense of clarity and scientific methodology. We're not here to rub your ego and tell you what a great idea you have. We're here to do science. You ain't doin' it. You have some reading to do. ~mooey
-
Also, I must point out, you don't have to be religious or a theist or even spiritual to enjoy reading the bible. The fact I personally don't believe there's a god, and I personally disagree with some (or a lot) of the moral judgments in that book, does not prevent me from finding it an absolutely brilliant source of dogmatic education for people who lived 2000 years ago. It raises important questions even if I dislike the answers it offers. It serves as an example of how education was done back then - with a touch of brainwashing, dogmatic speech, very careful symbolisms, etc. It gives us an idea of what was important back then, if we can ignore the religious/spiritual dogmatic interpretations and work on it as a literary source. It doesn't stop me from appreciating the literary value in the stories in it, and what impact it had on society back then (either the spoken stories or the written accounts). I am quite tired of excusing my interest in the bible, and the fact I enjoy reading it. Quite a number of theists seem to think I have no right to read it the way I do and need to conform to a particular dogma, and some atheists seem to consider it an exception to the rule of respecting books (and avoiding book burning, say) and claim it should be either avoided or hated. I like it, and I refuse to give monopoly over how to read it to *any* group. It's a piece of literary history that has impact on societies back then, and now. We should respect it for what it is, regardless of whether or not we agree with it or believe it to be the word of almighty god. ~mooey
-
Opposite how? 1/pi ? 1-pi? 100%-pi? What's "OPPOSITE"? You want to do theoretical mathematics, and you don't seem to speak the terms for us to understand what it is you're doing. "As if it were pi ratio" -- and yet it's not the pi ratio. It's not even remotely CLOSE to being pi ratio. The ball is far from my court, my friend, as far as we're concerned, this is a madeup huge number you pulled out of your hat. You make the claim, the burden of proof is on you. It's not on us. We can't tell you how you found it. We have no way of showing YOU the math YOU need to show us. This is ridiculous. You're no longer being misunderstood and vague, you're starting to disregard our rules here. Go over them again, please. And please read that post I referenced, it was not for decoration. The fact we're criticizing the methodology you're taking doesn't count as a personal offense. You wanted to know if your theory is scientific, you should be ready to accept a no. Work on the details and get back to us. Science doesn't work like that. I guess we're done, here, then. ~mooey And in any case NO publication will accept this without having a FULL mathematical account of everything, and have that mathematical account be *reviewed* (read analyzed and repeated) by others. There's no escaping this.
-
I'm the only one taking the time to answer, I'm not the only one looking. Regardless, the point is the same. OUT OF THE RULES OF THE FORUM you should follow the post I posted. It's not just about me reading your post. I was trying to be polite about it. Well, this is really up to you. I'm not going to waste my time insisting you help your own idea. I pointed out the problems, it's up to you if you want to fix them or explain yourself better. You insist on showing a number without telling us what the origin of that number is -- that won't work, and it's not just "me" who's "saying" "it". Capital letters won't help you either. You were asked to answer some questions, and you ignore them. We're here to follow reality and physics and mathematical evidence. The original Pi ratio was discovered with proper math. I think you have some reading to do, it wasn't just a number that mathematicians plucked out of nowhere and then insisted it's useful. The fact you don't KNOW where it came from doesn't mean it was an invention out of thin air. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi Pi is the ratio between ANY circle's circumference to its diameter. That's the ratio pi represents. It's not just "a ratio" we invented to make people happy and use in mathematical symbols. It has a meaning, a clear meaning. What does your ratio represent? Ratio between what to what? You can't just invent a number, call it a ratio, and insist it's useful and then be surprised we are skeptical. You didn't tell us positions OF WHAT. This is getting tedious and ridiculous. I shouldn't be wasting my time convincing you to be clear. We told you from the start that we need to examine the theory to see if it's valid - and I told you also the difference between scientific validation and "art" --- the idea of "hiding the facts" or "masking things" is BUNK in science. You show it to the world so we can REPLICATE what you do. Only by letting us replicate it can we be sure you're correct. That's how science works. It's up to you if you want to do science or insist you hold the gold key to the universe but hide from view. I can't check or test something I have no access to, and no one else can either. The reason I'm the one answering you is because there aren't many physicists who will take the time to take a look at what you're saying when it's clear you're hiding things and not really cooperating. It's simply a waste of time. If you don't want to share it, don't. If you want us to help you, you have to answer the questions. It's really that simple. It was an example of LOGIC, whic clearly you missed. It seems you need to read a bit about that too. Guess what? Science is not about emotions or ego or intuition, it's about properly describing reality, and the way we test these are by analytical examination, by evidence, by experimentation. You seem to insist to go by science but reject the method by which science works. With the risk of being yelled at for involving ethically-conscious food items, I will remind you that you cannot eat the cake and leave it whole. You either want to do science --- and then you must follow the rules --- or you want to do it your way, in which case forget about making this a valid scientific theory. And no, it doesn't matter which topping. Good luck. ~mooey
-
The idea is right up to the part about the density. Think about it, Aisha, deep ocean water are cold because sunlight doesn't reach it (that much is true) but also, they are very deep underwater... they have the weight of a huge body of water above them -- a lot of mass is pressing them down, which increases pressure, and why the density is higher. Does this make sense? You might be able to look up things more easily now.
-
Tomato Tomahto.
-
So you picked a number out of your hat and called it "pi ratio twin", and now you plug it in and find weird relations you call "twin"...? Where is this number coming from? Obviously if you replace Pi in that equation you will get a different answer. Position vectors are vectors, and coordinates are coordinates. You're mixing the two up in a way that makes no sense. You have to show where these "positions" came from, so far it seems like they're random. If you don't explain what those numbers are and why you use them, the entire thing is meaningless. You put a number YOU call 'twin' into an equation to show that twin exists. That's circular logic. Think about this case: I want to show that unicorns exists, so I state that since unicorns are animals and animals exists, therefore unicorns exist. I'm sure you'll agree that the above sentence is meaningless; in order to prove the existence of unicorns I assumed the existence of unicorns. You're doing the same thing with your numbers. In your proof for the existence of a "twin", you're assuming the existence of a twin. That does not follow, it's illogical and makes no sense, not in sentence-form or in mathematics or in physics. You have to tell us where these numbers came from. Are these observed? Did you find them through an independent equation WITHOUT assuming the existence of "twin"? What are they? We cannot go on without an answer to where the number came from. If you don't have that answer, then your theory is no different than my unicorn statement. Please go over the "You have a theory" thread. I am quoting it for your reference here. You REALLY have to follow these guidelines, or we're not going to go anywhere with this: Good luck. ~mooey
-
Also, just pointing out here, but the middle east (and mesopotamia especially) is not a very mountainous areas. It's easy to say you'd RATHER build a tower on a mountain if there are mountains around. You build it in the low lands when the low lands is all you have access to. If you don't want to get into this, don't post absolute-sentences that demand further questions... As in... why would he talk to the trinity if in nowhere does it say that, when in other occasions God has been talking to his followers (or "readers" / "listeners" of the stories) and that's not quite believed to be "for the trinity" and more importantly, how does that CHANGE anything? Hit-and-run posts are fun, but they're not quite sufficient for good debates. ~mooey To be fair, in the OT at least God is ALWAYS being referred to in "plural" and also, the word itself is "Elohim" -- the "im" at the end is a suffix used to state something is "many". This is usually explained as saying he is *everything* (though i'm not too sure I accept this solution) and also as a form of respect (like in french). To be fair, this isn't the only place god speaks to himself in the 'many'. It's kind of like speaking "high language". French has this too -- to speak "respectfully" to an elder, for instance, you use the plural form "Vous" rather than the singular "Tu". Same is happening with respect to God when te word "Elohim" is used. English doesn't have a separation in "You" if it's one or many, but hebrew does and in the biblical text a lot of time it's used for respect, not just for God. Kings are being spoken to like that too in quite a number of cases. I do agree it's a problem in general (not just in this quote), but this, as far as I know, is the common interpretation. ~mooey
-
Is this a riddle or a homework question (IE, should we 'guess the answer', or explain how to try and solve it?)
-
Yeah, I'm completely confused, I'm trying to make sense of what you're writing there and it's very difficult. Numerology is, by definition, unscientific, as anything that is "occult". It has no scientific evidence and hence cannot be used to prove anything scientific. If you mean for this theory to gain traction, I suggest you avoid using non science, and stick to physics and math. Okay, pet peeve here,but an image cannot "reveal" anything since you are the one who made it. It can demonstrate, perhaps. I don't see what it is it's demonstrating in this case. There are two arrows that seem to be "pointers" to the number and two ellipses... which ones are the "position vector" ? neither is the common way of actually drawing a position vector. The meaning of the image isn't very clear, I'm not sure what it is you're saying with it. What are those ellipses? are they perpendicular? What do they represent? What twin? What are you talking about? I see ellipses and a sphere. You really are being unclear here. You need to define the meaning of your terms. You state "twins" as if it's the most obvious thing in the world and just proceeds on it without defining what, exactly, you mean by "twin". .... What? This makes no sense. Neither does this. Where did you get the coordinates? did you invent them? did you discover them? How? Are they observable? What, for all that's worth, are the "twins" ? I've skipped everything because you keep refering to "TWIN" when twin is not explained, you don't say where you got your initial numbers (are these from observations? are these constants? which? where did you take the relations from? etc) It's unclear wordsalad. You need to speak physics and math, not "words" with "quotation" "marks" and no definitions. Also, numerology is not going to help you get this into the scientific mainstream. I don't mean to offend you, but you haven't talked theoretical mathematics or physics in this post or thread. You posted numbers that have no meaning and seem to find random connection between them. Either you explained yourself poorly, or you don't quite understand what the role of mathematics is within theoretical physics. Either way, your conclusion does not follow the premise. .... What? No. It doesn't explain singularities. No even close; it barely explains what a twin is. Requires evidence and proof which you did not supply. Also, "The God Particle" is a fun dandy pop-media name given every time scientists try to find the "next order" of particles, it seems. Which particle are you talking about? Sorry, but you didn't. Try again please, and this time explain what twins are before you state they exist, where you got your numbers from, etc. Also, take into account that any and all physical and mathematical theories must (I cannot emphasize this enough) MUST be possible to repeat and replicate results. That means that you HAVE to tell us how you found these numbers so someone else can observe the same values, follow your method and confirm your result. Otherwise the theory is bunk by definition. I think you should go over this thread regarding what constitutes a proper scientific theory ("So, You've Got a New Theory..."), and try explaining your idea again, this time with a bit less flair and a bit more concrete data.
-
Not all of God's actions (or myths) in the bible are out of morality per say, some of them are meant to explain current situations or phenomena. In this particular case, the generally accepted explanation, at least from what I've learned, is meant for two main goals: 1. Simply explain why so many nations exist that speak such different languages. If indeed God created all of mankind, and the chain of existence of humanity follows from Adam and Eve and onwards, then language should ahve been at the very least *similar*, if not the exact same. And yet it isn't, and it wasn't 3000+ years ago either. The writers at that time needed to find a "plausible" reason for their flock of believers, and this is as good a reason as any; the multiple of languages doesn't work "against" god's existence, but rather "for" his existence. It's a rather brilliant brainwashing move. 2. It serves for a moral story against gluttony of knowledge -- that is, against aspiring to conquer "god" or rise above the nations, etc (I'm sorry, I forgot the term, but I know there is on in English and now it's going to kill me until I remember it, so if anyone can help here, I'd appreciate it). In any case, whether we agree with the specific morality or not is irrelevant. I disagree with 80% of the "moral judgments" of the bible -- they are still meant as moral judgments, though, for the flock that read and followed the teachings of the biblical leaders. This is a story that means to show that you should be careful not to overstep your bounds. Actually, the interesting thing is that I heard this biblical reference used in medical ethics cases, as to metaphorically ask the question of "are we gods" (regardless of belief), which seems to imply the story does have some moral judgment in it, even if you (or I, or anyone) disagrees with the conclusion or premise. ~mooey P.S, I always found the story ITSELF (literarily speaking) very interesting. Hebrew chunk (if anyone's interested): Genesis 11:1-9 -- I'm reading it in hebrew, but you can see the hebrew/english version (side by side) in this link. According to jewish scholars, part of the "problem" was that the builders of the tower wanted to avoid a second flood disaster by building a tower that will go above any water level. So now it's not just about "reaching the sky" for the sake of overtaking God's role, but rather work against God's judgment/punishment, which is why God got angry.
-
Singularities aren't "walls" in outer space, nor are they an area of space that comes to an "end"... and quantum mechanics might be crazy, but my point was that it's still no less real. Even after three semesters of hating it, I still respect it. In any case, you really need to tell us what this is about before we can advise on the actual science, so I'll wait until you have something more formulates and we'll take it from there. ~mooey
-
"News" or peer reviewed? There's a difference. A big one. Actually, you're comparing two completely different fields. In music and arts "public confirmation" counts a lot. In science it counts for nothing; a paper can be disliked -- but if there's evidence and the math and physics are consistent and hold to scrutiny, public "confirmation" doesn't matter. Nature doesn't care if we like its rules or not. For that matter, I don't think you'll find many undergraduate physics students who "like" quantum mechanics. It's mind boggling, confusing, anti intuitive and full of weird math. And yet the fact it's annoying and anti intuitive doesn't mean it's not describing reality quite well. If a theory stands for scientific scrutiny, it holds. That's what peer review is about. Yeah, again, you're comparing different subjects here. This is how science works: You submit a paper, people try to tear it apart and scrutinize the living hell out of it. If they succeed, it means the theory wasn't too strong. If they fail, it means the theory is sound, and proceeds to gain acceptance. About this 'twins'... you.. will have to explain a little better. Pi and 180 degrees are obviously related, but what are you talking about the "twins" at 360 degrees? you mean apart? which twins? you're not being clear. I'm not quite sure what to say about the first paragraph in this quote, but there are quite a lot of Physics, Math and Chemistry PhD and Masters here that can review and help. I don't think the level of math here should worry you, or the level of physics. What you should probably take care for is staying focused and explaining what you mean. The above statement ("twins" and 360) is really not very clear what you're talkinga bout,and we might have problems helping you if we're not sure what you mean. ~mooey
-
I think you can start with laying out a bit of a more structured explanation. How is this new theory explain things the current theory cannot? What evidence do you think support your theory?
-
I think we guessed enough about what the original poster might or might not want to perhaps say but didn't. We can wait and see what he wants if and when he comes back to this thread to clarify and actually participate in the discussion.
-
Skeptic's Guide to the Universe - http://www.theskepticsguide.org/ Brilliant 1-hour podcast about science, rationality, science education, pseudoscience, etc. The team works well together and they're very funny. It's one of my top Podcasts that I listen to.