mooeypoo

lucky, I am a skeptic too, and I know what you mean. In life and in science, there has to be something that you're less skeptical about. I know that in some manner, everything is "only" 99.99999% true, which leaves a (tinsy tiny) margin for error, but at some point we all mark a little line in the sand where we keep the stuff that are "most probably true" and the stuff we keep a more open mind about. I'm curious: can you think of something that you're less skeptical about? Like something that you are taking - more often than not - as true? As an example, I'll give gravity for close-to-earth objects. When I drop an object I know it falls to the ground. There is always a chance that our equations are lacking, but overall, I feel confident in relying on this particular one until I'm shown that a problem with it exists. In the back of my head I might know that there's a slim chance of something to change, but it's not practical to *always* be skeptical, otherwise we won't be able to test for bigger and better theories out there. So.. is there anything you can say you consider more or less as true?

I thought a photon is not a valid inertial frame. Movement is relative.. it moved relative to the frame. Isn't that the point? I don't see the logic in this statement.. Again, logic doesn't quite follow. Totally lost you.

Not naive. Scientific method.

Look, if we were talking about the deep ocean, maybe we'd have something to discuss. We've reached those depths, though. No, you misunderstand my point: it's not that there's no definitive evidence, it's that there's absolutely no evidence to even suggest this is real, in light of overwhelming science to suggest it's an extremely unlikely idea. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In the case of Loch Ness monster, there's not even a tiny evidence. We should always keep an open mind, but we should make sure our brains don't fall out. I keep an opn mind as to the existence of the pink invisible unicorn, too; which means that when a valid evidence presents itself to get me to actually consider its existence, I will. But that doesn't mean I go around thinking that it *might*. Sure, it might. So might leprechauns. So might nessy. So might a lot of things. But to get people to actually consider the option and research what exactly is happening you first need to show evidence that something actually is happening. There's no evidence of that at all. None. ~moo

Light is a wave. Frequency is a property of the wave. I don't understand what the problem is, vuquta. It's like saying knowing mass of the object is not related to measuring its weight on earth. They're related.

A theory stands by the merits of the evidence that supports it, not the person that suggested it.

lucky, where's the 1%? We would test the 1% if we knew what it was.. there is no mystery... the lake is not that big for us to continuously miss a huge monster. For years people have been waiting with cameras with the INTENTION of capturing even the tiniest glimpse -- and we have NOTHING. In the past 5-10 years where almost everyone has a camera on their phone and a high quality portable camera they can take, and we would assume that with such an attention on that plce, we would be getting at least 1 good picture. One. There is none. NOTHING. There's no 1%, lucky. Unless we are shown otherwise, there is nothing to the "Loch Ness Monster" other than folklore. omg, I didn't even notice. That's it, it's official, winter break makes my brain rot.

There's no proof of sighting at all. Any and all claim were shown to be either wishful thinking by tourists or outright hoaxes. If there was any evidence to analyze, we could delve into the "what could it be" hypothesizing, but there's NOTHING to analyze. It's rumor. Folklore.

Okay so what is the problem, michel...? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light : The above sounds to me to be quite clear and concise. I don't understand why we are in need of another term like 'absolute' or why we would require another concept for it.

What's IFOR ?

Don't get me wrong - the site itself is nice, it looks fine. The problem is that when we rely on a *claim* then the claim needs to be supported. When a claim only appears in a single site - and the site is quite obviously a private site, that is not a government or anything like that - and the names this single site refers to appear onwhere else other than in this site (or other sites that clearly copied from it) then the credibility of the story is low. It has nothing to do with how your site looks, how well you write or how much traffic you may have. You could have as much traffic as Amazon.com and the specific story would still have very little credibility.. So.. really, it isn't personal. Good job on the site, cheers, really. But we can't take that story as credible, even if your site was the best looking site on the face of the internet. The general rule is this: if a story appears nowhere else than in a conspiracy site, it is probably a conspiracy theory. So, if you want to increase the credibility of posts in your site, you need to increase your standards of where you pick material from and how you support it. Also, if I were you, I'd add an 'about' page telling us who/what you want to achieve with that website. The lack of one was another thing that raised my suspicion about the site not being credible. It seems like you're hiding something. I'm not saying you are, and I don't think you are, but if you post stories without knowing if they're true (as you say 'worse case you'll correct them') then your standard is lower than our standard, and we will lower the credibility of the site and the post. It's not saying you're a bad person, it just says that the information on your site is not supported and might be false, and probably is false. You'll need to up your own standards of what you post in your site and how you support it if you want to change that... ~moo p.s - The first spelling that caught my eye is your title, where you write "A scientists" --> erase the 's' in scientists. Or erase the 'a'. It's either single or plural, but you need to choose. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedtyrone, take a look at the comments in that page: http://apophis.tk/it_wasnt_a_missile/ the readers of your site themselves say what I just did -- that the information is unverified and lacking credibility. You need to make a decision; if you want a site that people trust, you have to do some checking before you post stuff. Specially today in the "age of google", where verifying what you post takes no more than a few minutes.

Actually, not only should it move, it just did move. Speculations forum isn't "limbo", it's the rightful place of speculative hypotheses that aren't mainstream science. This thread is far from mainstream science. Perhaps if the original poster manages to prove his point the thread will earn its rightful place in a mainstream science forum. That said, the discussion can - and should - continue. The fact this is a speculation doesn't mean it's not worthy of debate. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Seeing as we can't yet detect them, we don't know, but the hypothesis is that they are like light waves. Light waves travel at the speed of light in a vacuum, but they *can* slow down in other media or when their wavelengths change. And since you're the one making the claim, you should be telling us what your hypothesis states regarding this issue - with evidence. What's clean energy? Electric, if we're to have a scientific discussion, you should start using proper definitions so we can understand what you mean. I am not trying to be a pain, I'm trying to make sure I understand your claim; there's not much meaning to "clean energy" in physics unless you speak of renewable energy like windmills. And you need to provide proof that gravitational fields interact with energy. For that matter, just like there are different types of forces, there *ARE* different types of energy. It might be true that gravitational fields interact with the energy of a photon, but that doesn't mean gravitational fields interact with all forms of energy. Then why would we accept your theory/idea/dream on the expense of existing theories that do have quite a large amount of evidence on their side? Mix of subjects here. The origin of the universe is a different issue from the way it behaves. But regardless, there could be other forces because we detect other forces. Perhaps it would be time for you to actually learn some basic physics. While we are here to debate, we're not quite here to teach you everything we know of physics - you're mixing subjects and make claims that are just simply wrong. There is absolute proof for electromagnetism, and electromagnetism is proven to act differently to gravity.. hence, electromagnetism cannot be a subsidiary of gravity. For that matter, if electromagnetic force stemmed out of gravity, it should've been DIRECTLY related to it. But in reality we see that this isn't true. A massive object made of metal will have the exact same gravitational field as a massive object made of ice cream that is of the same mass. However, two objects from different materials would create absolutely different electromagnetic fields (depending on the type of matter as well as their size). If electromagnetism was a subsidiary of gravity, you would get the same changes in the same objects -- an object with bigger gravitational field would result in larger electromagnetic field and vise versa. That's *not* what is happening in reality. It's nice to have ideas, but if they do not follow the evidence, they're not science. ~moo

Seeing as it was conclusively proven your claim is wrong, I, too, wonder how. Not quite. Gravitational waves can't surpass 'c'. They can travel slower. What do you mean by the second question? We know what interacts with gravity, do you mean to ask 'what interacts with a mass or energy'? Seeing as "mass" is the energy content of an object, sure. Logic does not follow. The fact that gravity interacts with energy doesn't make it the only force. We're seeing other forces like electromagnetism for example, that interacts with energy and electrical charges in a COMPLETELY different way that gravity does. The fact that I can apply direct force on a rock to move it just like I can apply direct force on a starship and move it (in the shape of thrust) doesn't mean that thrust is the MAIN FORCE that all others come out of. You have different forces and different effects. That much is not just 'hypothesized', it's absolutely proven. Your statement makes no sense, and the logic that follows doesn't make any sense either. That would create a visible and noticeable effect that we would observe. No such effect is seen in all the experiments done with gravity and its fluxuations on the surface of the Earth and on the various objects we sent away from Earth (and to "lagrange points" and other locations). Not in the same way as a gravitational field affects mass. In a different way. Hence different force. Maybe you should go over some E&M as well as gravity. The *easiest* and most notable difference is that in E&M, same charge objects *repel* one another, while in gravitational force, all masses (and in that sense 'energy content') attracts one another. ~moo

Strictly religious empty claim post. This is a science forum not a religious preaching stage, Electric. Please read our rules. The religious sub-forum was closed for a reason. Thread closed.

I don't know how much I take this site as credible, honestly. Ignoring the spelling mistakes (that don't add much cred to this), their linked sites suggest they have an agenda themselves in promoting conspiracy theories. If you can find this in any other sites to improve the credibility, it would help. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedlooked up "Dr Paul A Reed" and all the posts I found have *the same spelling error* (suggested they're all copies), and none was from a credible site. The fifth or sixth result is this thread. I couldn't find any information about the so-called Norwegian scientist either.

It's not about being better, lucky, we're all here to debate. Thing is, there might not be "better people" here, but there are people who know better. That is, there are experts here in physics and maths and chemistry that do know the facts better. Science isn't about opinion, it's about facts, so it's not quite about comparing the people asking questions, it's about comparing the evidence suggested as a response. That said, we do have people who are better at presenting facts and are better equipped in analyzing them.

moved to speculations. Lucky, you're welcome to ask questions, but ask them in the appropriate forum please, not in News. News forum is for SCIENTIFIC NEWS ITEMS and not random questions. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThe answer to your question is no, btw. Whoever came up with the idea that "pyramids have power" has no scientific proof of that whatsoever. The only power pyramids have is that they're pretty good in holding themselves up architecturally. Anyone making a claim about supposed 'powers' is in need of supplying evidence.

michel, we've been over these "topics" for 30+ posts, it's not like Chriton's idea is nipped in the bud before he has a chance to explain it. We are a science forum and we REPEATEDLY request that the discussion involve science rather than empty claims. It's part of our rules. We're being patient. The "Speculation" forum exists for debates about speculations and non-mainstream science. If the non-mainstream topic gathers enough evidence and merit to become a mainstream science, then it will be moved again to the appropriate topic. It's not a condemnation, it's organization. A speculation thread will end in closure, usually, when the poster refuses to cooperate in a proper debate, like what seems to be happening in this case. Perhaps it would be a good opportunity for everyone to go over the rules of the forum and its guidelines, and consider the fact we are being patient in this forum rather than outright closing it when the first antiscience (notice, 'anti science' not 'non science') post was made, in post #1. We're being patient, but we do need Chriton to actually cooperate with us for this thread to remain open. ~moo Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged We've already established we have different language incompatibilities here, michel (what was the last one, 'momentum', I believe). I suggest we stick to mainstream definitions. The speed of light isn't "absolute", because light *can* travel slower than 3.8*10^8m/s. The speed of light remains constant no matter which frame of reference you are in. If you want to call it "absolute", you may. If you wanna call it "bananas", you may too. It doesn't change what actually happens.

Repeated thread merged, and thread moved to the speculation forum. Lucky, please stick to one thread per topic. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged There's a difference between aliens the "UFO" style (kidnapping innocent people for anal testing, for whatever reason, good enough to remain hidden but screw up their landings occasionally to get 'caught', etc) and aliens "possible life forms in space". You should check out Panspermia: That, though, doesn't mean we were "planted" by intelligent beings, it just means life originated in another planet and was seeded here through some asteroid or something. Since life on Earth is very very similar to one another in the DNA level, it's very unlikely that humans were introduced completely from "outside" as an external element. If anything, the origin of life (the small tiny tiny cells ones) was "planted" here and not a full blown being. You also need to make sure that in your hypothesis (that aliens might have planted us here?) you allow for falsifiable tests. That is, if your claim is that aliens made us on the planet and took great care to make us appear, to all intents and purposes, as if we were created here (which covers all the bases and is indistinguishable from the simpler hypothesis that we WERE created here) then no, we can't disprove it, but it's also unfalsifiable and therefore nonscientific. ~moo

Yes (well, not *at* the speed of light.. very close to it, though, theoretically). But you would not travel at that speed to an outside observer. Here's the crux of it: You stand on 'firm ground' (for our purposes, that's the "rest frame") and you look at me, sitting on a train moving at 50mph. If I start running on that in speed (relative to me) of 20mph, then *for you*, I am moving at 70mph. However, if you look at my almost-light-speed-rocket, and inside it I try to run at the speed of light relative to me, *for you* I will not run at twice the speed of light. The relative speeds will cause my time to move slower, which would compensate for the speed. I hope that makes it a bit clearer. And, just a small point, light can travel at different speeds than "C", it just can't go faster than c. ~moo

Well, welcome to the forum, Chriton, we value curiousity here Your previous questions were a but confusing. If you have something specific to ask, please pick a subject and we could debate it in more depth. Otherwise, feel free to roam around the forums and see if anything interests you. Welcome.

That's fine, Chriton, but in order to explain to us how your views are comparable to the "views" of mainstream science, you need to do a bit better than just lay them out. You seem to think that our views are the same.. "science" has views and you ahve views and we each have our rights for our views. While technically speaking we all have a right to hold any view we want, in science we strive to describe reality, not just 'have a view' about it. Your views, so far at least, are opinions that are not backed up by facts, seem to outright oppose observation and evidence and have no logical validation or structure. Scientific "views" follow the scientific method, which demands objectivity, factual reference, observations, mathematics and the ability to produce predictions. The two are, by far, not comparable. If you want to continue debating your views on the thread rationally (which is what we do), you need to explain what are the basis of those views and start supplying a bit of evidence-based substantiation. Since science describes reality, it has no room for opinion, only descriptions that are based on facts.. your "interpretations" *oppose* the existing evidence. You need to give us some logic and evidence of your own, then, if you want to continue the debate. ~moo

That's not swansont's "theories", those are validated, proven concepts. I suggest you get a modern physics book and read it. I don't quite know what to answer to that. "Only" theory? The *entire* of physics? Are you sure you're in the right site? You can express your thoughts but if they stand in opposition to evidence, and you have no evidence to support *your* thought, then your thoughts are worthless. We're not a myth forum, Chriton, we're a science forum, we follow the scientific method and we require validation, mathematics and evidence to claims made. Seems you need to read a bit about the theories you claim to disagree with, seeing as you don't QUITE seem to understand what they say and the sheer amount of evidence they have backing them up. ~moo

Well, Chriton, to be fair, you didn't just introduce yourself, you introduced yourself and said you're here to propose a theory opposing mainstream science. While we welcome you to the forum, of course, we asked for some evidence for these proposed 'groundshaking' ideas. So, on that note, pick a subject that you want to concentrate on (Phi's right, you have way too many subjects in that post to cover properly), and we can discuss it. That's what we're here for, right? ~moo

Yep, I am closing this thread so the other one can go on consistently.. I'm assuming that ZolarV would also be happier having it all in one place. And, thanks CaptainPanic for the link to the thread that remains open.