mooeypoo

That's not true, this affects the photon itself, aswell. In fact, I am currently writing a paper about quantum entanglement; split superimposed photons that are entangled are under this effect - observation of one photon instantaneously defines the state of the other. "Spin" would define polarization, but photons can also be entangled in other free-space aspects that might influence other properties, not just polarization. The entire idea with properties being defined at the moment of observation is on of the problems Einstein had with quantum mechanics. Check out EPR paradox, Bell's inequality and Einstein-Bohr Debates. And, of course, photon entanglement. ~moo

Really? How do you know how electrons behave when you don't observe them? The entire principle is that observation equals interference. Obviously the behavior will be changed when interaction is done, that's the point Quantum Mechanics is making. There's no need or use for emotions, beliefs or thoughts, nor is there any form of demonstrated mechanism that any of those has any sort of detectable "force". The above is the third time I am putting this up for your consideration, walkntune.. the above also completely endangers your idea, seeing as it demonstrates emotion, thoughts and feelings are *NOT* affecting anything. Can you answer this concern already?

Da.

I don't understand what you mean? There's a very clear explanation to the double-slit experiment. The results repeat themselves quite consistently. Here's a primer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment Also, just for the sake of consistency here, if you're interested in talking science and disproving commonly accepted scientific phenomena, then here are the proper definitions: Work: Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_%28physics%29 Energy: Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy Force: Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force Notice that Energy isn't the ability to do work but rather a quantity of the amount of work that can be performed by the system. I know it sounds similar, but the distinction can be important. And force isn't precisely the 'pull or push' on a system. Again, these distinctions are important when you get into actual claims about what affects certain objects or phenomena. Now, that said, it's clear there's no "emotion force", and no "emotion work" therefore no "emotion energy". Same with belief. Your claim, then, that belief and thought affect phenomena requires some explanation about the proposed mechanism that the effect operates under. And that is without even getting into experiments that were done to measure such proposed force allegedly caused by 'thought' or 'emotion', all of whom failed to demonstrate any effect. ~moo

All the ones you evaded in the past 10 posts. Read the posts again, and this time deal with the problems we're raising. As a very general summary (you should really read the points, we took the time to raise them for a reason): insane_alien made a few points about your choice of terminology. You need to make sure you're using scientific terminology correctly, otherwise the claim is moot. There's no proof emotion or belief affects the double-slit experiment or the behavior of electrons. In fact, there's quite a lot of data showing the opposite is true. This means either your claim is false, or your claim is severely lacking a mechanism. Start with the above. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I wasn't off guard, I was responding to your post. If you're not ready for others to respond, don't post.. if you think you're going to update your words then wait until you're done to post your response, otherwise it's confusing.

I am. Are you going to comply, or are you going to keep posting single-sentences and ignore the points that are made in this debate? I'm sorry, I just realized I misspelled your nickname. This was unintentional, really. I realized now that it may look like it was intentional, but it really wasn't. I apologize. That said, you need to start cooperating with us here. The debate is going nowhere.

walkntrude, you're not answering points. It's the fourth page already that people ask you questions that you can't answer, and your solution is to ignore the question. We can't continue debating this way, regardless of whether or not your point is discovered to be true. You need to start taking this debate seriously and give us a bit more respect. And as for the last remark, iNow's momentary lapse of attitude aside, you need to stop claiming a philosophical argument is scientific and vise versa. Philosophy is philosophy, and science is science. They may interact in some aspects, but they are not the same. You claim A is science and you explain it using philosophy. That's not good enough to continue to show A is science. If oyu want to discuss science, you must follow the scientific method. If you want to discuss philosophy, we will need to shift the discussion in that direction, in which case it will no longer speak of reality, but rather of philosophical aspects of existence. Choose. ~moo

You seem to be conviniently picking parts of my post which you care to answer and ignoring all the rest. That doesn't do much to show your point, walkntune. We can explain the experiment without the need (or effect) of thoughts, beliefs or any of that sort. In fact, regardless of the belief system of the experimenter the result was the same, which shows that belief has no effect. However, you're welcome to show us different. The only way to do that, though, is to prove the correlation. Just claiming there is one is moot. It's not just for scientific minded, it's also for those who have enough intellectual integrity to fully participate in the debate at hand, walkntrude. The discussion is moving in circles, partly because you seem to avoid answering some of my points. Do read my previous post (specifically my examples) and try to include them, as well, in your next reply. Ignoring what you don't like to answer doesn't help your claims at all. ~moo

Where's the reality in which the ball doesn't fall? Show it to us. Every time someone dropped a ball, it fell. Regardless of location, regardless of the circumstances of the person's emotional state, regardless of the person's beliefs. In every instance, the ball fell. That suggests that this "alternative reality" either doesn't exist or is inconsequential. Either way, it's irrelevant for the purpose of science, which describes the reality we live in, not the reality we imagine might exist somewhere. We're not discussing a situation in which a ball is picked up, we're discussing a situation in which a ball is dropped. In all instances where a ball drops, it will fall. What you speak of is a decision made by the experimenter. That's not a different reality, and it DEFINITELY doesn't describe the behavior of nature. Nor does it have any bearing on anything. The purpose of science is to describe the behavior of nature. Gravity is part of nature, and it is described by science. Whether or not you choose to use this knowledge is up to you. By not using it you're not creating an alternative reality, you're just creating an alternative situation. You're still in the same reality. If you chose not to pick the ball up, it doesn't mean the ball is no longer affected by gravity. This part of reality is absolutely objective. No matter what you think, do or believe, it will not change. That's not science, it's philosophy, and we've already established here (and in many other threads) that even if there's a claim that some reality is subjective, there's definitely some part of reality that is absolutely objective. Otherwise, you'd be flying while I'd be affected by gravity. You're not, and we are all affected by the exact same natural laws, which is a definite proof of the objective reality we describe by science. Then you were shown multiple times to be wrong. Either you're being irrationally pigheaded, or you didn't spend the time reading what people wrote. You are mixing concepts. You affected your neighbor's situation, but you didn't change reality. The fact that air will rush out of high-pressure environment to low-pressure environment is a physical principle that is described by science, which you are using to destroy your neighbor's day. This concept of creating a new reality that you speak of has nothing to do with science. With science you describe the behavior of nature. What you decide to do with it is up to you. Stop mixing up the subjects. Also, this is a science forum, not a philosophy forum. Please try to distinguish the two. Human beings are proven to be affected by others' emotions. If I see you cry, I will react. It's a proven fact, has to do with psychology and sociology, etc etc. Not only there is no proof that electrons are affected by emotions, there are multiple evidence that show they are not affected by emotions, thoughts or beliefs. Your theory, therefore, is proven to be wrong. If you want to change the above fact, you need to take the extra steps and prove that electrons are affected by thoughts, beliefs and emotions. Only then will a resulting conclusion make any sense. Think of it this way: I am stating that since electrons are happy when they're blue, the sky is happy. What's the problem with this assertion? First, I need to make the case that electrons are able to be "happy". Second, I need to prove the case that electrons are able to be blue. Third, I need to prove the case that electron-happiness and electron-blueness are directly related. Then, I need to show the sky is consisted of electrons, and only *THEN* can I conclude anything of that sort. You stated a flat out disproved assertion and decided to make a conclusion out of it. The assertion is wrong, and the conclusion is moot. ~moo

... What? There is no "weather or not". The ball will always fall to the ground. The only case where it will not fall is if it has another force negating the force of gravity, in which case we're completely switching the initial conditions. You're making no sense. The fact that the ball is subjected to gravitational acceleration - always - has nothing to do with subjectivity or personal perception of reality. It will always fall, and always at the same acceleration. That's science. That's not science, that's philosophy, and a bad one at that. There might be some metaphysical philosophical realms of existence within our own thoughts (er), but the reality science deals with is the objective reality. No matter who you are, what you believe in, what you think of, what mental condition you're under, what thought process your mind operates under, how old you are, how young you are, how many personal experiences you've had -- the force of gravity will always apply on you just like it will apply on a falling bowling ball from the Empire State building, the top of a cliff or the edge of your chair. Objective reality such as science is dealing with is not affected by emotions, thoughts or beliefs. If you think otherwise, I urge you to believe a bowling ball can fly, and then show us reality obeys. ~moo

Attitude, people. Please remember this is a debate, and there's no need to go into personal insults or emotional appeals. That said, walkntune, the entire principle of scientific endeavor is to describe reality, and you can't do that by any other means than a rational, logical analysis of the observation. That, however, is not to say that there's no room for emotions, imagination and passion. Those don't have to come in opposition of actual reality. There are objective measures to reality, we know that for a fact. A bowling ball will fall at the same accelerated speed no matter how many times you drop it from the Empire State building or any other height. That's an objective fact, and it doesn't change with emotion or faith. Describing it with emotions or non-factual data is irrelevant and not quite helpful. You may, however, interpret the personal meaning this fact bears on *your* emotions (awe at nature? confusion at physics? whichever it may be). Whatever you pick, though, will not change the fact that falling objects are subjected to gravitational acceleration. When discussion science, then, one must start with objective data. There's no going around it. And when discussing science, we must use the same set of definitions (just like in any discussion, mind you) otherwise we will not understand one another and the discussion is moot. Science has a very clear set of definitions. If you intend on debating scientific phenomena, you can't go around attaching random definitions to terms just to make the meaning fit your intended result. A force is a force, and has clear relationship to acceleration and mass (F=ma, yes) regardless of a belief system. If you want to describe other phenomena, you need to use other definition. ~moo

I prefer to concentrate on the "best ones" part.

It was time to expose the underlying truth of my plan for world domination.

This forum does not endorse the creation or manipulation of hazardous materials. You know that, Justonium, it's not the first time. Presetting an incredibly dangerous chemical reaction with "bombs are dangerous" and then continuing to demonstrate a method that will likely get others severely hurt or killed is not good enough. The readers are encouraged to avoid dealing or meddling with chemical reaction that may result in physical harm, like the one above. These type of chemical experiments should be done carefully, in a proper lab, under the proper safety measures and should never be attempted at home.

Well, there's no real accepted way of rounding all numbers in science, it all depends how accurate you want your result to be. I guess the most common method is to use 2 decimal digits, but when you deal with really small stuff (like nm, ps, etc) that usually are presented by multiplication of 10 to the negative number, then you need much higher accuracy in the decimals. You need to understand that rounding results will result in margin of error. In order to decrease that error you should avoid rounding. But that's not always possible. For instance, take pi. Pi has infinite decimal numbers, so at some point you will have to round it in order to use it. Your decision where to round it (are you going to use 2 decimals? 3? maybe 10?) is up to you, as long as you are consistent. That is, if you chose to use 5 decimal numbers, you should make sure that your entire calculation always uses 5 decimal numbers, and is consistent. ~moo

For the same reason that "g" of gravity is usually states as 9.8m/s^2 when it's closer to 9.78 in sea-level, and a year is defined as 365 days when it's actually more like 365.25 days. When you don't do complex or accurate mathematical calculations on these values, there's not much need to over complicate things by remembering the exact number. Kids, for instance, will treat gravity as if it's 10m/s^2 which is even further away from its accurate value; it's all about finding a compromise between having it easy to remember and calculate and accuracy. We round numbers so it's easier to handle them in day-to-day basis. We look up and use the actual value when we do mathematical calculations.

The modulators agree.

Depending on your question.. Infinite is infinite. "as many as you like" is finite, just not declared. For instance, if I tell you "take as many dollars as you like!" you can claim that 'as many as you like' is infinite (though it's still a problem; make it very very large and finite), but if I tell you "you can dunk your back side in that lava-well as many times as you like" your answer will probably be zero, which is finite.

It's about time swansont's goodies will receive their worthy place in history:

People, watch your attitude. Personal attacks and name calling are not acceptable under any circumstances. Make your points in a civil matter, or don't make them at all.

Can you repaste that link, Zolar V? It's broken.

When they're supported enough to be full fledged theories (that explain, predicts, etc) then yes, they mature from hypothesis to theory. There's a bit more to go on that level, though. Speculation that the pink unicorn drinks vodka isn't scientific because it has aboslutely no hold in reality; it's unfalsifiable and untestable. A scientific speculation needs to have some bearing in reality - which means it needs to be supported by some sort of initial scientific logic.

Speculations and theories need to be supported by scientific method, though.

Ivan Gorelik has been permanently banned after refusing to adhere to our rules and insisting on posting threats against others repeatedly on forum posts.

It was closed once, it was closed twice, and you were warned against making threats. If it wasn't clear before, maybe this is a better way to make the point: STOP POSTING THREATS AND REOPENING CLOSED THREADS. Thread closed.