mooeypoo

The best way to get famous as a scientist is to rock the boat. You don't get acknowledged for "obvious" discoveries. The main issue here is that rocking the boat should be accompanied by proper evidence, else the rocker is discovered to be a fool. If you can substantiate your statements, you're golden. As a future physicist myself, I can't wait for someone (me or someone else) to rock the boat and discover something new. That will give me a whole lot more to research, and open the opportunity to be pioneers in new discoveries. ~mooey You don't get to decide who's allowed to participate in threads, hal_2011.

If it wasn't clear, when we said that foul language and bad attitude is against hte rules, we meant EVERYONE. The next post with derogatory language will be deleted. You should be adults, you can speak without resorting to foul attitude. Also, there are RULES for this forum, and it is a private forum, not a publically-owned venture. You are getting services from this place for free, you're not paying or have voting rights here. The rules allow the owner(s) to do pretty much whatever they want. They happen to not do "whatever they like" but rather follow a set of very clear rules they and the staff composed. Follow it, or leave. It really is that simple. This isn't a free government. And this particular subject of the rules here is not up for debate or vote. The staff is a group of volunteers who take time to try and make the experience a good one for all posters, and most of our members take their time to help out and answer questions. You're welcome. All we require is that you follow the rules. It's not that hard. ~mooey

! Moderator Note As always, religious discussions go to the Religion forum. Topic moved to its rightful place.

We're talking about math, not apples.

You can't possibly expect us to "prove it to you" in a short thread. E=mc^2 is part of a larger statement, it's well supported both experimentally and theoretically with mathematical proof. You need to have a bit of a background in basic physics and in relativity. These are subjects that cannot be just "compressed" into a single "voila!" proof online. Quite honestly, keelanz, you need to cooperate here and do some of the learning yourself. There are quite a number of books out there that explain these concepts, if you want, we can probably recommend a few. With all due respect, physicists don't just spend years to study their stuff before starting research just to get a kick out of college and doctorate diplomas. A *tad* of respect and humility will do you justice; there are things you don't yet understand, and that's absolutely fine. Try to learn them before you declare they're false just because you don't understand how they work. ~mooey

swansont's understanding isn't the problem here, steevey, by your questions, it seems your understanding is not quite what the effects actually do. If you cooperate, it will make this debate a lot more productive. Also, sorry, I just realized exactly what you're asking.... heating on a stove top (with flame or with electrical heating) has nothing to do with electromagnetic waves. It's heat transfer.

Actually, oddly enough, that makes more sense than any of the other proofs I've seen. It still seems odd but I guess it works.

seems to me that if this "paradox" is the way to go, then it only works with infinite decimals. That would mean that 1+1+1=2.999... and not 2.999...1 Am I right?

I actually thought, at first, that you are all yanking my chain. This entire thing sounds ridiculous to me, honestly, but I must admit, mathematics has this tendency to have paradoxes that I simply don't get. Useful link to anyone who's as confused as I was/am: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999... (thanks swanstont) So now that I know this is actually REAL, I have a few questions of my own: First this seems to talk about infinite 9s after the decimal. Does this mean that the original post, with as in, there's a 1 at the end and it's not infinite 9s, is *not* the same as infinite 9s? The wiki has examples with limit goes to infinity, and this one doesn't... Second, why is this different than the mathematical paradoxes out there, where I can get a nonsensical result out of mathematical manipulation? Is this not nonsensical? The definition of .999 is that it's not yet 1, isn't it?? so isn't this manipulation resulting in a nonsensical result? I saw a math paradox where 1=0, simply by stating something like 1 = 1 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + ... and using rules of math, so I can change order of addition: 1 = 0 + 1 + 0 + 0 + 0 + ... 1 = 0 + 0 + 1 + 0 + 0 + ... 1 = 0 + 0 + 0 + 1 + 0 + ... 1 = 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + ... 1=0 This isn't REAL. It's nonsensical, it's just abusing the laws of math to reach a nonsensical result, hence being called a PARADOX. the 0.999... thing is also a paradox, isn't it? (btw, it's under "math paradoxes" category in wikipedia, if it helps my point). So.. what's the difference between producing nonsensical results that we laugh about and NOT treat seriously like the 1=0 one and this 0.999... one? This makes no sense to me.

Also, one of the main problems with "Ghost Hunters" is that they come to their experiment/project already with a desired outcome (to find the ghosts) rather than with an intention to gather data and conclude upon it. If you insist to find something, you'll fit the evidence to the conclusion, rather than reaching a conclusion based on the evidence you have.

I don't understand the problem. Not matter how many 9s you have in your 2.999, it's still, by definition, [math]3-\Delta[/math], where [math]\Delta[/math] is an arbitrarily small unit. Which is also, quite clearly, less than 3. What am I missing?

It's okay that they're not, they should just be in CONTEXT: as in, "quote" whatever post you're answering to, and we know who you're answering to. It doesn't matter that you didn't see the most updated ones if you do that. That said, you haven't answered quite a number of points Phi and I made a lot earlier in the thread. I assume you missed them, but if you can go back and go over our last 2-3 points, I think it can be a lot more helpful. This is a common thing that happens in a forum, that we all "talk" at the same time. That's why the QUOTE option is available -- to put things into context. ~mooey

What? Sorry, are we being cynical or is it really the claim that we can't show that 3-(smaaaal) is lower than 3? I'm just checking here, is this some mathematical trick-of-words or are we just playing around the concept for fun?

Who presumes that there's no life outside of our planet? The entire point of searching for "Earthlike Planets" is out of the assumption that there might be life out there. Scientists can't really make a definitive declaration yet, because htere is no supportive evidence *FOR* life outside of earth, but I don't know of many that state definitively that there isn't, either. For now, it's a search to see if it's plausible or not. Every discovery of such a planet raises the plausibility level, but doesn't yet supply enough evidence to say either way, so it comes down to scientists arguing their personal beliefs when confronted. There's not yet an absolute "yes" or a "no" in physics, though.

Also, this is precisely how the scientific method comes to play. You're not JUST using your eyes or testimony for measuring 100ml, you're using a device, and you are testing it EMPIRICALLY a few times; that is, the beaker you buy that says "100ml is here" is not made by someone who just looked and marked where he thinks the 100ml line should be, it was measured by devices, as accurately and repeatedly as possible. These "observations" are SUPPORTED by empirical evidence. Unlike ghosts.

timeoftimezero was banned for incessant trolling, abuse of the PM and Commenting system and personal attacks.

And enough of that. Carry on, nothing to see here.

The problem isn't your numbers, it's your lack of knowledge of elementary math. You can bring any number you want, but if you don't know what multiplication, division and power MEANS, it won't do any good.

You should've known better, next time buy a monitor 10^9 times bigger, and get a x1.1111 size picture. SO OBVIOUS!

It's used all the time for NATURAL things, because you already know it's the simplest explanation. Also, it's done in 'day to day life' in minor things. It is NOT done in science.

I don't understand your point. Depends for what, really. Scratching my nose? Sure, why not. If someone comes along and brings a better proof that, in fact, I did not scratch my nose but rather just THOUGHT I did, then I shall examine it. When a claim comes forth about seeing "weird things", the proper scientific course of action is to look for explanation, and not jump to the one we think is cool. Even by ockham's razor principle ALONE, there are about a dozen other explanations for most ghost/spirit "sightings" that explain these phenomena better. So why would I settle for an extraordinary claim that has zero corroboration, and better explanations? I don't quite get your comparison, there. Scartching the nose is not the same as "ghosts exists". The 'scartching my nose' part assumes I have a nose (which you can prove independently from site) and that it can be scratched (which can be proven independently) and that I can do it myself (same). The claim that ghosts speak to people or spirits communicate with people requires the assumption that ghosts exist (which requires evidence for that, and there is none so far), and then requires the assumption that ther'es a mechanism for them to communicate (which requires on its own some evidence this can happen, and there is none) etc. Ghosts are extraordinary claim - they're "outside" of natural explanation - and therefore require extraordinary evidence. Scratching my nose is within physical limits. You can prove it independently than simply my own feeling. I just don't feel compelled to do it every time I scratch my nose, because the fact I have a nose and it can be scratched was proven sufficiently for me to live with the very very small possibility that I might be wrong and, in fact, I didn't really scratch my own nose. The scientific method has clear methodology exactly for these type of questions. Whatever was done so far with spirits/ghosts simply doesn't go by that at all. ~mooey

Sure, I'm not claiming people who claim they've seen ghosts are lying. They most probably felt SOMETHING they can't explain. What I am saying is that we need to *test* what they witnessed, and not jump to the conclusion that it's ghosts. That's the point of science, as you say. Explaining reality, even if reality is the not-immediately-intuitive explanation. It usually isn't. There's a difference between evidence for court and evidence for science. For science, eye-wittness testimony is unreliable. For a courtroom, it sometimes is. Empirical testing and the ability to re-test claims are crucial in science, and they seem to be nonexistent in the claim for ghosts.

The poll question is irrelevant. Science isn't about belief, it's about empirical evidence. The reason I don't "believe" spirits exist is because there is absolutely zero evidence showing they do, and because the hypothesis raising the possibility of their existence is, most often than not, just not scientific (as in, it is not falsifiable and has no testing mechanism). If someone comes with a valid collection of evidence that can be empirically tested, I'm open to change my "belief". Also, I would suggest to the OP to do some checking about the "psychics" that wrote these books. Of course in their OWN books they sound convincing, but their track record (Specially miss Sylvia Browne) is absolutely far from convincing, if not utterly appalling. I would be more convinced by others, honestly, she's just a pure crank. http://www.quackwatc...Ind/browne.html one example (video) of her idiotic crankiness, she's doing a lot of harm with her prediction: http://www.youtube.c...h?v=hRc4LkBRjIc and this more famous case: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKX5yB-H2tI This also shows why these "psychics" can be EXTREMELY harmful. I love the "she can't be 100% right in all predictions"... isn't that what she's supposed to be if she truly is a psychic? Really, all she's doing is guesswork, and the way she's abusing her "famous" powers is absolutely appalling. ~mooey Here's a nice collection of videos about Sylvia Browne's predictions over the years. All absolutely wrong. It's not just "partially wrong", it's DEAD WRONG. Predictions for 2007: Predictions for 2008: There are more, but I think we got the point, and she's making me angry just watching it.

Oh my.