mooeypoo

Seeing as errors were found and demonstrated with this idea, you're either incredibly stubborn or you didn't read the responses you recieved. Either way, your idea is clearly not working, and you should revise it, at the very least. Stop ignoring responses. We ALL looked at the problem, and we ALL showed you EXACTLY why your idea is not working. Ignoring us won't make us wrong. It definitely won't make you right. Stop beating around the bush. Side A: 12 cm. Side B: 10 cm. Solve for side C definitively. Show the above is definitive and that ONLY YOUR SOLUTION is the right one, and you will convince us. Otherwise, your idea is bunk, and if you continue ignoring responses, there won't be any more use in continuing the discussion. ~moo

I'm not quite sure what those videos even show, and it seems to be just a few people playing around. It's even posted under "Comedy". That said, this doesn't give anyone the right to be mean or obtuse to others. Watch your attitude, guys; if you have criticism, state it in a civil manner, as fitting to SFN Etiquette and rules of conduct. ~moo

When I asked everyone to stop with the bickering, I meant everyone. Please don't make the moderators take a more permanent action for the sake of attitude of the posters in this thread. If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. Keep your insults to yourselves. All of you. ~moo

Okay that's quite enough. Drop the attitude, all of you! You have a report button on top of posts, use it! No one here is stupid. Stop being so defensive, and stop leading one another towards personal insults. You are all adults, you are all perfectly aware of what you're doing: STOP IT. ~moo

The two threads about solid state water are now merged to one. Please don't open any more threads on the same topic.

It doesn't sound impossible, it is impossible. Solve this: Triangle Side A: 10cm Triangle Side B: 42cm Triangle Side C: ? So, here's my solution: C=20cm. Draw it out, see I'm right. Now wait.. I change my mind. I want C to equal 1cm. Draw it out. See it's right. So.. hang on, I am changing my mind again. I actually want the third side to be 4.33cm. Draw it out, see it's right. These above triangles are ALL possible triangles. Your method cannot differentiate these triangles, therefore it is, by necessity, false. And, to be fair, it's the third time anyone makes this (and other) type of claim in the thread. Ignoring this won't make your theory true.. ~moo

Moved to its own thread in Engineering.

"This theory is silly" is one thing. "You are silly" is quite another. The first encourages debate, the latter encourages a fight. In any case, we're not going to debate the rules with you. If this thread is "killed", it will be for nothing other than your attitude. Arguing with me (or any other staff member) won't change that. In that aspect, GF, the future of this thread is in your hands. Argue the claims, avoid being personal, be nice. Seriously, it's not rocket science, and it's not some new demand this forum alone makes. It's not that hard. ~moo

GF, your arguments aside, this attitude needs to change. For one, you will be much more effective conveying your ideas without being obnoxious towards others. And, of course, there's the issue of following our rules and etiquette. When swansont wrote to you in his blue font, he spoke to you in his capacity as a moderator. It was his (and the staff's) way of giving you a chance to get rid of that attitude. If you don't stop ridiculing and putting down others, then you will be out of this forum, and it won't have anything to do with the content of what you're saying. Please take that into advisement. ~moo

Walsh, we do not discuss the creation or meddling or tweaking of explosives or any other Hazardous Materials. Please refer to our rules for more information, particularly the rules specified in teh Chemistry forum. To everyone else: These are HIGHLY dangerous endeavors. You are all encouraged to avoid dealing with them at home or outside a proper lab. Thread closed.

GF, the pseudoscience/speculation forum holds BOTH speculations and pseudoscience, as both are non mainstream science. It's not a badge of dishonor, it's just the rightful place to debate this type of speculation.

I did read your PDF, trurl, but I have a very specific problem with what you're suggesting. Look at this picture: All three triangles have the same 2 sides (black sides), and yet in all three, the remaining side (the blue one) is different length. According to your method, you will not be able to differentiate between those three triangles. That's a problem. Knowing the two sides of the triangle is only going to work if you have the angle in between them, or the angle anywhere else, perhaps. But knowing only two sides does not give you a finite answer for the third side. It cannot, because as you can see from the 3 examples in the picture, there are INFINITE amount of distinct triangles you can make with those 2 static sides. ~moo

If you know 2 sides you need to know the angle to figure out the third side. It doesn't have to be a 90 degree triangle, either, but you need these pieces of information. It's called the "Law of Cosines": [math]c^2=a^2+b^2+2ab \cos(\theta)[/math] You cannot get the third side without having the angle, because there's an infinite amount of triangles that can be created by those two sides. ~moo

From a recent private message session (posted with permission of both nerds):

This isn't your personal blog or a soundstage, coberst, it's a discussion forum. A scientific discussion forum. Do you have anything to discuss regarding this matter? If not, there's no use to keep this thread open. ~moo

Link deleted and file removed. This is a discussion forum, not a file sharing site. Either start a discussion or don't post at all.

Also, this is a discussion forum and not a file sharing site. Link deleted.

Or what difference does it make? Other than discussing Einstein's personal thoughts about this for the sake of history, I don't quite see how this should (or does) affect anything regarding either his theories or our view of him..? Einstein's contribution to science is supported because of its scientific evidence, not because of his persona. For that matter, it's a well known fact he was a lousy husband and father; but so what? We can discuss whether or not he was a good person or what sort of personal beliefs he had, but I don't quite see how it has anything to do with how we should perceive him as a scientist or his contributions to science.

My my, people. Read the rules, and stop resorting to personal attacks or we will need to take a more permanent action than a closed thread. Okay, I took the liberty of giving everyone on this thread a second chance; the senseless, useless bickering was deleted, so the thread can - hopefully - go back on the right track of actually discussing SCIENCE rather than blaming one another of bad debate. Please get back on track, people.

Ad hominem and ridicule attacks have absolutely no room in this forum. Be civil, and follow the rules. ~moo

I am reminding everyone on the thread that we got rid of the Religion forum for a reason. Religious arguments are not allowed in here. Please avoid them. Be civil. If you think someone is trolling or doing anything wrong, you should report it. There is a little triangular button at the top of every post. Use it. Blaming others is achieving nothing more than to degrade the thread into personal attacks, and that will not be tolerated. ~moo

Imagine how much grief you'd have spared yourself if you supplied the link along with the quote. Rules exist for a reason, dr.syntax. We don't ask you for citation just to be annoying, we are asking you for citation to make sure these type of incidents don't happen. ~moo

This has nothing to do with laughing at you, dr.syntax. You seem to refuse to read and follow our rules and then get childishly defensive when we call you up on it. You're right, though, you weren't plagiarising per say; you didn't claim Einstein's quote is your own, you just didn't supply its source. It appears that isn't precisely plagiarism, it's just not supplying sources -- which is against the rules as well. If this was the first time, I'd have been more linient and less insistent about it, dr.syntax. But you refuse to supply sources to most of your posts and this needs to stop. In college, the "failure to supply sources" and the "pretending someone else is your words" is almost the same offense. It gets you kicked out. We are giving you another chance, so stop making things personal as if us telling you that you're behavior is unacceptable is "laughable" or that we're "belittling you". Geesh, man, stop blaming everyone for belittling you. You did not read our rules, and you refuse to follow them. When we point it out, we're not belittling you, we're empowering you to make the right decision. ~moo

When you provide a quote, you need to supply the link where that quote is from. We should not be resorting to asking you for it. This isn't the first time I ask you to provide the source for a citation or a claim; quoting without supplying the source is plagiarism, it's against the law and it's against our rules. Please make this the last time, dr.syntax. It's getting quite annoying.