mooeypoo

When modeling physical movement (lagrangians and hamiltonians are equations of motion, and are also differential equations) you use diff equations quite a lot. From movement of planets around stars to movement of various objects in various conditions. Actually, I'm going to soon open a "help me!" thread about those, soon, probably, to figure out how to solve and model these in Mathematica.

Awesome. Now, can you bring some actual evidence and support to your claim to stand in opposition to the INCREDIBLE AMOUNT of support relativity has? Thread moved the speculations forum.

Well, apparently not, seeing as the people in this forum are debating it. Regardless, whether god knows that or doesn't know that, he (or she) cannot participate in this forum debate, and is therefore irrelevant for the purposes of this thread. In short, lucky, please keep your comments to the point. ~moo

Yes, the lack of safety concern is always like this, mockan. We have a rule against what we call "HazMat" violations.. we have a lot of people that come here in attempts of playing around with substances that can REALLY hurt them, specially when they're unaware of the safety procedures that are required. The HazMat rule is in the chemistry forum (as a "sticky"). I appreciate your comment to others to be careful with the substance you're talking about, but we don't want to subject others - who are much more at risk of harming themselves - to harmful procedures at all. Seeing as this forum has a lot of kids and teens who come here in quest of new 'exciting' experiments to do, the concern is both ethical and legal. Just please be aware of that for next time. And welcome to the forum

I watched the movie, truedeity, and I moved it to speculation, not totally erased it. "Maybeverse" is not mainstream science, and so it's in the speculation forum, giving you enough opportunity to debate it. Calm down. I do think that you should go over our rules, though. And soon. ~moo

Yes, we have a whole thread here analyzing it, including evidence that it was, in fact, in all probability, a russian missile. Are you going to provide evidence to your claims or are we to just trust your word for it? Yes, you do. We just explained 99% of it in this thread. The fact you want to ignore the thread doesn't mean it's unexplainable, it means you're too lazy to read it and actually relate to the claims made. You'll be one of the few who do. Read the thread. In any case, you need to do much more than just "CLAIM" it, truedeity. I suggest you start reading our rules, my friend. This is getting tiresome. Great self promotion. And just like this post, it has no backing or evidence whatsoever. We are to just trust you and ignore all other evidence because you say so. What would we have done without you telling us, truedeity, what indeed. For one, we would have relied on evidence and proper substantiation rather than empty, bombastic claims we are to just "trust you" on. You are ignoring a thread where we discuss ACTUAL evidence and observations and we supply some links and actual physics. Instead of uttering the first nonscience nonsense that comes to your mind, I suggest you read the thread and - if you have any problems with any of the claims made - debate with proper evidence, explanations and backing. Again, and for the last time, we are a science forum. We require scientific evidence and we back our claims and substantiate them. We do not go around yelling the sky's going to fall just because we think we're oh-so-smart than everyone else. ~moo

And if you do search that in the forums, you will notice all threads are in the "Pseudoscience/Speculations" forum. For good reason. You're welcome to debate this, truedeity, but I remind you we require proof and evidence rather than cutesy movies and sound effects. Thread moved to Speculations.

Good step forward, truedeity. I will go over your post and respond as much as I can, but you might want to consider adding peer-reviewed evidence to some of your basic premises so we can actually move forward in a scientific manner. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Right, okay, uh: You need to explain what those "waves" of thought and energy are. Even if thoughts and 'energies' (whatever you mean by that) emanates out of the body, you need to supply some explanation as to why you claim those are "pulsing waves" and not, say, "continuous hums" or "bouncing beeps". You need to provide some evidence that those waves exist. You need to explain what is "Magnetic field of energy", and which energy you're talking about. And finally for this section, you need to show not only that this "Magnetic field of energy exists" but supply evidence that it interacts with your thought waves. Those are problems with your initial premise, upon which you seem to base your entire argument. You must address these before we can examine the rest of the claims. If the initial premise is wrong, the conclusion that's based on it is wrong too. Wordsalad and a mix of subjects. The idea we are "electromagnetic vehicles" (what does that mean?) has nothing to do with quantum physics. Yes, successfully. Huh? "We" who? Show us some references to actual peer-review scientists, since this is not what mainstream science says. Wrong. Somewhat true, though a bit inaccurate. Also, you're forgetting the nucleus. I have no idea what you are saying here. Empty claims mixing subjects. You cannot make a claim without substantiating it, truedeity, and expect everyone to nod and agree you must be right. Please don't pretend to "get technical" when you describe scientific concepts you don't know as if they're true without having a clue as to what the science actually states. What? What energy field? What are its properties? How do you propose to detect such field, and where are the evidence? Okay, I'm going to stop here, since quite frankly, you're making less and less sense, and I'm losing patience to read your wall of wordsalad. You need to deal with the problems I raised *BEFORE* we can even get into your seemingly *BASIC* lack of understanding of what Quantum Mechanics *ACTUALLY* means rather than what you would like it to mean. trudeity, you need to start talking science rather than incoheret mambo jumbo. We are a science forum, not a soundstage or your personal blog. I have to remind you that it is, in fact, the mouth that is the best orifice used for communication. Good luck, ~moo

Sorry, but why do you assume that all of the above are harmful? Radar I can understand, but Television? Satellite? Appliances? ...

We should put a disclaimer.

truedeity, this is a discussion forum, not a link dump. Please state what you wish to discuss rather than posting random links. Also, if you can find/make this audio a stream so our members don't have to download it (like upload it to youtube), it would be much easier for people.

Alright, that's great, just take into account that it seems we're all talking in circles here, vuquta. Somewhere, obviously, we've lost communication. That's why I'm trying to restate things here. ~moo

Post moved to its own thread in speculations, and closed. We already have a discussion about this particular "theory" in the movie-discussion-thing thread, truedeity. Keep your claims there, and not in threads that require actual science. ~moo

truedeity, I watched the video (painfully) and, quite honestly, I don't even know where to start. You speak of things you clearly have no clue about. I am sorry to be so blunt, but when you say: "the more you observe the more you're collapsing the wave function" and then continue to state that it's equivalent to "observing that your life is in shambles, then you're going to continue observing that and it's going to become more and more of a reality to you"* then we have no common language here. * Actual quotes from the video. None whatsoever. You do not "continuously" collapse the wave function. The wave function collapses upon observation (including 'observation' by equipment) and that's IT. It collapses into a SINGLE VALUE. There is no "ing" in it.. you are not "collapsing" anything over time, and it's not accumulating. The particle has potential states which, upon observation, only *one* is picked. That is, the multiple POSSIBLE values "collapse" into a SINGLE value. That is what "collapsing the wave equation" means. And it speaks ONLY of physical particles, and only of very *SPECIFIC* physical particles. It has nothing to do with your life being in shambles. I suggest you go learn some physics from actual physics books rather than from random youtube videos (or random idiotic videos that distort reality and use the term "Dr" to describe their guests VERY loosely [ie, What the Bleep do we know]). We are a science forum; we actually know our science, and this movie has nothing to do with the theory of quantum physics, absolutely NOTHING to do with duality of light, and/or with the way your life may or may not be in shambles. I don't even know if a discussion about this is possible in light of the sheer amount of utter nonscience woowoo that is going on in that video. Really. Seriously. Read a bit about the theory you so insist on taking apart and taking advantage of, because it says absolutely NOTHING of what you're suggesting. Show me an actual peer-reviewed quantum physics scientist that claims that Quantum Physics has anything to do with the bad times you have in your life, or how you can affect your own consciousness. The fact "What The BLEEP Do We Know" made a mishmash of known physics to serve its own agenda doesn't make that movie any authority over QM. In fact, QM has actual math and observations and predictions to it, which makes it a powerful SCIENTIFIC theory. The interpretation "What The Bleep Do We Know" makes is an insult to the theory, plain and simple. We discuss science here, truedeity, not newagey mishmash of confused statements pretending to ride a particular element of a scientific theory.

Another random post with this video was moved to this thread. truedeity, the video is discussing issues that are not part of mainstream science, and so they belong in the speculation forum. You are more than welcome to discuss the video, in this thread. Do not post this video elsewhere. If you want to discuss the validity of the claims, *THIS* is the place for it. ~moo

This is getting a bit annoying. You agree, and proceed to explain how your claim totally disagrees with what Klaynos said. Either stop saying "Agreed" (because you're confusing us) or stop confusing us with a followup non-agreed-upon sentence. We're talking different languages here. Is have a feeling this is a literal problem, vuquta. Are you using a translator to answer us, by any chance? It might explain some of the problems we have here in talking in circles. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Let me try and make this simpler: You have 2 frames of reference. We will stop calling it 'moving' and 'stationary' because these terms are only valid to a yet ANOTHER external reference. To the "moving frame" the "stationary" is moving and itself is stationary, so those terms are MOOT. We will call it Frame A and Frame B. Both Frame A and Frame B has a light emitter in each. Light is emitted at time=0 in BOTH frames. Initial conditions are equal. When the observer is standing at Frame A: The observer at Frame A will see the light at Frame A as a sphere. Frame B is moving in respect to Frame A, so the observer (at Frame A) will see the light from Frame B as an ellipsoid. When the observer is standing at Frame B, you have the EXACT OPPOSITE: The observer (now at Frame B) will see the light at Frame B as a sphere. Frame A is moving in respect to Frame B, so the observer (at Frame B) will see the light from Frame A as an ellipsoid. Without adding or protesting *any other information*, please just tell me if the case above is what you mean. Obviously, the drawings you supplied weren't enough, we each have a different case in mind and we keep talking in circles. Before we can discuss what does and doesn't happen we need to make sure we're all talking about the SAME CASE. Okay, see, this is confusing AGAIN. You kept saying "both" frames with spherical light, seeing the other frame as ellipsoid light, and you semed to have agreed with us when we asked if there are two light sources. And yet, now it seems there's only one. I'm confused. The term "stationary" and "moving" are confusing, and I have a feeling they're partly the source of half the confusion in this thread. The stationary frame is only stationary if you're the observer on it, and the moving frame is only moving if you're observing it through another frame. Since half of our discussion is what happens when you switch between frames *AND* move to a completely separate third frame (when you can 'watch' both frames), we might as well just call them "Frame A" and "Frame B" and define the location of the observer in each case. Let's first try to get rid of the confusion and then we can move on to the more particular part of your claim. ~moo

jackson33, this thread is in the "Ecology and the Environment" forum, a subforum that deals with the science behind phenomena, and not about politics. If you want to discuss politicization of this subject, do so in the Politics forum. Please stay on topic. That is, on the science topic, and not political topics. ~moo

Also, armies - as well as governments - are beaurocratical machines. It takes forever to change equipment, let alone switch software and train the technicians and workforce, sort out the money to pay for new software, etc.

Chaos, this is the second time you just dismiss arguments that oppose your own. In the article I posted initially, for instance, the fact that youve "heard all the claims before" is moot.. the claims *dispute* yours. The second post on the above thread (by JillSwift) is a mention about the so-called Mayan calendar "prediction". The only thing that the Mayan calendar has that has any remote connectiong to 2012 is that it goes by cycles, one of which intersects 2012. IT's not the first cycle, though, that the calendar restarts, and yet we are still here. The christian calendar also has cycles; a julian calendar ends each year. That doesn't mean taht the early christians thought the world is going to end each year! Same goes to the Mayans. However, you seem to be quite certain that whatever we say is moot regardless of evidence we provide you (seriously, all is said and done in the first link I provided, you just didn't even relate to it, and continue to make claims that are clearly shown to be invalid in that link, with proof) and continue claiming empty "OMG OMG OMG!" claims. We're not conspiracy forum, we're a rational science forum. We don't go by "AAAAAAAA!" statements and panic, we go by claims that are substantiated and validated through physical and logical proof. You have supplied none, and you continously ignore our counter-claims. That will not get anyone to believe this so-called theory. We are not at the galactic alignment. That much is proven. The Mayan calendar doesn't end, it restarts, and not for the first (nor second) time. There is no geomagnetic reversal. There's no planet X; we would have intercepted one if there was. The only REMOTELY SIMILAR actual-reality object is "Apophis", which is going to miss the Earth in 2012. If you want to be all conspiratorial and alarmist, you can make the (not too far off the truth, though unlikely) claim that it might hit the Earth on its next pass. The solar "storm" that's expected in 2012 is not going to ruin the Earth or bring technology down; it might do some minor damage to electronics, but it won't be the first time satellite engineers face this problem successfully. But if you are going to claim that since you've heard all the above it means that you are still correct, then we have nothing to argue about. Go to your conspiracy forums where people usually ignore reality for the sake of conspiracy adventure, you'll be much more successful there. If you continue debating with us, here, now, you will need to stop dismissing valid answers just because you think that you've heard them before. The reason people make jokes in the thread you've read is because it's the third time we have been discussing the matter, the tenth time it's been proven false, and the hundredths time someone posts that in the forum. We get tired going over the same false arguments all the time, chaos. We get tired and we just post the previous argument, because it is - quite frankly - frustrating to start a whole argument again just because the poster insists on ignoring all the SCIENTIFIC information that answers their claims and just go on a conspiracy rant. 2012 is going to be just like any other year. If you want to find important dates, try 2018 when we actually DO pass the galactic equator. Galactic Alignment: http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/ask-an-astrobiologist/question/?id=3397 This is a great image that explains it: (Source: http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/2012-the-end-of-the-world/) A short search on google about the so-called galactic alignment, and making sure the people who answer are actual SCIENTISTS (find peer review, even better) will give you more than enough if the above, and my previous replies, and the link I submitted, and the other topic discussed and the other topics in general about 2012 in this forum are STILL not enough.

In which frame! vuquta, you have to start paying attention to which frames you're talking about and you have to start being more concise in telling us which frame you mean. We won't be able to discuss any of it without it, because without a frame the above statement is meaningless. Not in all frames the center will be at (vt,0,0). Be clear. It seems to only be a problem because you mix frames. It will be much easier if you start specifying the frames you mean in your calculations. But I don't want to jump the gun here -- I mentioned all this in my previous reply, and I don't want to rush you for nothing. Answer my previous reply, we'll continue from there when things are a bit clearer.

I agree with Klaynos here - other than the math inconsistencies which hopefully will be clearer, you seem to be confusing frames. Read what I wrote about and my questions about your framess -- in a few cases you seem to relate to a *THIRD* frame of reference to declare your "simultaneity", which would require you to define it and make sure you use the transformations for it to make sense.

Please try not to. Math is a concise endeavor. It is exactly what it's written, not what it's meant. Errors like these produce absolutely different results, and turn the entire exercise 'suspect', because it doesn't follow. At the very least, don't be surprised we don't understand what you're doing when you are being careless with your mathematics. Just a side comment here -- this is another example of 'so-so' math exercise. I know that it's relatively clear to understand that you meant to close your missing brackets before the 'equal' sign, but it's only clear because I *ASSUME* that is what you meant. If you closed it anywhere else, it would produce an absolutely different result. This (assuming you forgot a symbol as well as your closed brackets?): (λ - )(1+λ) is not the same as this: (λ - (1+λ)) So while this error was relatively easy to 'solve' by assumption, you shouldn't make us assume *anything*, because our assumptions may well be wrong, and your exercise may well have lots of errors in it that you (and us) will not notice if you don't keep your math in order. With a bit more concentration on your part, we can move forward in this discussion without getting stuck on the nitty-gritty of stuff that might be less problematic after all. Yes, it is, it's showing either bad math or wrong result (which overturn your hypothesis). Try not to forget symbols. At the very least, try not to scold us for noticing it and asking for clarification. Yes, it's understandable, but just take into account that parens' can *completely* change an equation. So in the moving frame there's no symultaneity. Relative to which frame? a separate one from the mentioned two? without pointing out the frame of reference the "same time" means nothing. Wait, sorry, I'm not sure I understand you, so here's my attempt to be clearler: SR states that each frame of reference will see the light emanating at their individual frame of reference as spherical. Each frame of reference will NOT NECESSARILY (or, likely not!) see the light emanating from the *OTHER* frame of reference as spherical. Your sentence was less clear, I'm not sure I understand which frame you mean sees what as spherical. I don't understand what you're saying here, sorry.. can you describe your hypothetical clock situation again? Where is the clock, in which frame of reference, and what event is it timing? There's no meaning to "same time" unless you say in which reference those two events happen simultaneously. You just said that neither frame will see both simultaneously, so are you talking about a third frame? I'm completely confused. Describe your hypothetical clock and what event you are measuring with it, because I don't know if I understand what reference frame you're using with it.. ~moo

Also, the "fact" christ hung on a cross is an unproven fact (actually, largely thought of as an event that was exaggerated a collation of 2-3 separate other events) and the "fact" of actual date is even less certain. It's going to be horrifically difficult to deal with arguments that stem from unproven claims or claims that are proven false (like the 'passing the galactic equator') specially if every time we show it to be false (like the 'galactic equator') the OP makes the claim that, well, maybe it's not THAT relevant that the dates don't match. I mean.. 2012, 2018.. close enough. Really. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAlso, part of the reason we're so not-too-impressed with all these age-old claims, is because we (and about 80% of the internet) already discussed this topic, many many many times. Too many times. Here's one of the threads on the subject, covering the vast majority of your claims: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=44319

I will remind everyone that we are not to give the answers to homework questions, but only help in ways to solve them.

How about you read the link first and only then we can go into actual Physics, mathematics and the way we can actually know for quite certain where our position is compared to other places? The fact you don't know how to do it doesn't mean it can't be done. Read the link, will ya? I've read your claims, so instead of wasting both of our times, read the summarized answers and we can go on to discuss details. At the moment, you're arguing against proven facts, which leaves no room for debate. Since this isn't a lecture hall (or your personal blog) but rather a place to debate and discuss, I am trying to find a way where we can have enough common ground to discuss the basics. ~moo Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged It's also possible we will all develop a third ear and start jumping like rabbits. That doesn't mean it is PLAUSIBLE, or LOGICAL, or at all not absolutely laughable. To prove my "possible" i need to provide proof. So do you. "They imagined it 2000 years ago" is not proof.