MetaFrizzics

But the problem with this treatment is that the original criminal is taught to (can choose to) view the crime as a business transaction, and may well calculate that the 'cost of doing business' is more than compensated by the 'gains'. In fact, not only is there no guarantee of equality in the transaction, the criminal may value both experiences and consider it a 'win-win' circumstance. This is not an ethical reasoning process, and so there is no reform, repentance, or hope of deterance. This does not seem that unreasonable. It might be part of a process for weeding out nonsensical and unimportant cases that are not cost-effective to pursue. And indeed this is probably what happens in the D.A.'s office.

Except most real fathers or step-fathers don't act like that, warts and all.

Banning drinking would put an end to 95% of all child and other abuse.

Do you have children playing in your neighbourhood? I sense an accident about to happen. (hoping not).

The best explanation of Bell's Theorem for ordinary people is found in Quantum Reality, by Herbert. I'll post a paraphrase if you can't find the book. For a more detailed philosophical treatment from a 'state of the art' point of view try the Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory.

particle creation is currently 'explained' in terms of symmetry. In this case, the symmetry of simultaneous creation of two complimentary particles which leave the local point in space-time and move outward in opposite directions (and spins) in order to attempt preservation of the 3rd law of equal and opposite action (and conservation of momentum/energy). Of course the theory is nonsense.

More patriarchical sexist (=racist) shiite.Why not just say "No girls allowed"? If 'TWATS' is okee dokee, why not just say 'C*NTS'. Where's a hall monitor when you need one?

To address the original post (?): How can you have reliable consequential justice without scientific procedural justice? (e.g., how do you avoid convicting the innocent? ) How do you set up a reliable 'feedback' system to allow outcomes to moderate procedures for a more accurate result? (e.g., who polices the police? ) What basis do you use to build a 'justice' system? In order for the word 'justice' to have real lexical content, the system has to be successful. If you only catch and punish 10% of serial killers for instance, or only charge economically or mentally disadvantaged criminals with crimes, there is no 'justice' in the philosophical sense that most people take for granted.

As long as you don't eat them. (Numbers 6:1-31)

The first thing you do when you want to make home-made weapons, is NOT create a traceable thread on the internet. Go to used bookstores and buy hardcopy old out-of-print stuff that nobody will notice. Or infiltrate a Neo-Nazi organization and go to the swap meetings. Otherwise people will just think you are a cop trolling for loons, or a loon trolling for cops.

Very important when living alone in room with hot-plate to eat alot of fresh vegetables and fruits seriously. Okay you can't cook. You're like every other bachelor on the planet. This doesn't mean you have to die of malnutrition: (1) How to Boil Water: Take pot of boiling water. Add tablespoon of salt to raise boiling temperature: This will let you cook the pasta faster! You will notice that you can bring the pot to a boil faster with the lid on, but it will boil over again and again. So stick a wooden spoon between the lid and the pot, so some steam can easily escape. Adjust to prevent boiling over while speeding up boil. Now add a tablespoon or two of Olive Oil. Why? This will coat the pasta and prevent it from sticking, making for easy clean up, which you will appreciate later! Also, You will get some essential oils into your diet so be generous with the (cold-pressed) Extra Virgin Olive Oil. (2) Boil The Pasta: Now your are ready to boil the pasta. Unlike the way everyone else does it, (because if you are a typical male slob like most of us you will need to do this: ) BREAK the spagetti in thirds. This way, it will fit in the pot easily, cook evenly, and you can actually eat it without splashing spagetti sauce all over you face and white T-shirt. (3) Now Steam Your Vegetables: If you are clever, you will have gone out and bought a 'steamer'. That is, a special second pot that fits above the first, and has holes in the bottom. Now you can chop up lots of green vegetables like green pepper, onions, tomatoes, cucumber, bits of potatoe etc. and dump them in this upper pot. You put the upper pot on top of the lower pot with the spagetti cooking. Now the steam from below quickly cooks the vegetables at the same time! You get good nutrition too, because instead of boiling the vegetables, which drains half the nutrition out, you have crispy delicious flavourful steamed vegetables soft enough to chew even after you have lost most of your teeth from scurvy after living alone for 20 years. (4) Check the Pasta: Remember to frequently check the pasta. Do NOT leave the kitchen when cooking. Next to falling asleep drunk with a cigarette in your hand on the couch, the most common fires are caused by leaving the cooking area with the STOVE ON. Please remember that you should never leave an unattended pot of boiling water around for children to spill on themselves, or other drunks in your flophouse to bump into and burn their balls. (5) The Pasta is Done When: The rule of thumb is: Put twice as much water in as pasta, so you don't boil off the water, and burn the pasta. You will know when the pasta is cooked, because whatever shape it is, it will swell to twice its size when it is cooked all the way through. You will of course be impatient. So keep stirring the pasta so it doesn't stick to the bottom of the pot and get burned on there. Otherwise you will spend an hour cleaning the burnt pot, and your pasta will taste like crap. Remember not to throw the pasta on the wall to see if it sticks. This is just TV Bullcrap. And you landlord will throw you out for destroying the wallpaper and plaster. (6) Buy Canned or Bottled Sauce: But avoid the 'hot/zesty' sauces. These will open up your sleuces at both ends. Now you know you are too lazy and inexperienced to make your own sauce, but you have gotten around this by steaming fresh vegetables. Now you can dump the pasta into the steamer and drain the water off. From here put it all in a big bowl, and add the sauce. Add salt and pepper, and NOT too much garlic or other spices. You are now ready to impress all the other hoboes on your floor in the rooming house with a delicious and nutritious meal. (7) Only Hand Out Forks and Spoons to Outpatients: Remember, nothing ruins a good meal like a knife-fight over who has the most nipples. So don't provoke your guests by issuing them personal weapons. Just give them the spoons, and make sure everyone is taking their meds with the meal. Key points: Turn down heat on stove/hotplate. Add salt/olive oil to boiling water. Steam some fresh vegetables with the pasta. Hide concealable weapons. Now you will be able to live twice as long as the other residents in your government housing project, as long as you aren't clubbed with a bat from behind on the way to the store with your welfare check.

Well, I wonder what a palm reader would say about my avatar. This post is already too self-centered. I like changing my avatar because seeing the same thing over and over is boring for me, so I assume it is for others too. MetaFrizzics? I don't know how that happened. I was going to use my usual name, but after being unfairly banned from a physics board, I thought a new name would be just as good, so I sat and thought:.... Physics Boy? ...no. Science Man? ... no, too pretentious. Mass-ter? ...no ring. Gyrotron? ...too 80s SciFi.... SideshowBob? ...no, too close to my real-life persona. hmmm.. Orb-it? No. No one will remember the Adams Family TV show. I desperately need a lovable character that will soften people's hearts and endear me to them.... Laser-dude? The Masked 2-Slit Avenger? too long. What about a kind of sci-fi name only darker? like Ray Bradbury rather than Heinlein. Bee-Gun boy? Martian Wraith? No... Roamin' Cathode? ...Tesla-Tom? too forced. Damn its hard coming up with a name. Solder-King? Mr. Enlightenment? Renaisance Ricky? no, no. Too dated. Cripes, ...can't think: I have to go to the bathroom....Metaphysical...Metafrizzy... MetaFrizzics! go with it. before you pee your pants fool. Done. Never was more energy spent to achieve so little...

Sorry, just how did you create some plasma inside your microwave? Did you place a metal antenna inside it?

InfraRed is a name used to describe a small band of frequencies near the visible red spectrum. We perceive infra-red waves as heat, because when they are absorbed by objects (like food or skin) the energy from these Electromagnetic (EM) waves is usually converted for the most part into 'heat'. That is, the temperature of the absorbing material is raised. What is 'temperature'? Well, it's the average speed of a group of atoms or molecules, and it shows up as a distributed Bell curve. That is, if you had a box full of gas molecules, they would all be travelling through space at different speeds and directions in a more or less random distribution or pattern, with most of the speeds in the middle (average) and hence the Bell curve. Some of the motion of these molecules will also be contained or exchanged as rotational motion, and vibrational motion. (How can you have vibrational motion in free space? Easy: Imagine a diatomic molecule, e.g. H2, that is a molecule made up of two atoms. If the bond holding them together is 'springy', then the two atoms can stretch apart and bounce together like balls on the end of a slinky, and this means some energy can be stored in this bond as a kind of accordian-like motion, even in free space.) When the average speed of the molecules in a box is raised, those molecules hit the side of the box harder, and if we touch the side it feels hotter. So energy, temperature, and average random motions (translational, rotational, vibrational) are all related but slightly different concepts and ideas or ways of looking at the same thing. In answer to your question, you might as well consider the infra-red rays coming from a 'heat-lamp' as heat, since most of the energy will be converted to heat in the form of raised temperature of an object under the lamp.

A handy book on vector/tensor analysis might help. Did you have any luck locating any of the other books I recommended?

A clever synchronized EM field would galvanize the water into a temporary solid. This could be done via a belt-pack to enable Jesus to walk on water, and also direct a beam to allow Peter to leave the boat to walk to him. However, it appears in the actual event that Peter stepped in the wrong place and began to sink, forcing Jesus to wave his hands like a magician for purposes of distraction while he re-directed his beam. Hmmm....could this technology also be used instead of Viagra?

Interestingly, this statement is too vague to be precise: There in fact is always an outward component in the velocity, regardless of reference frame, and the water/bucket will always increase its distance from the centre of rotation. The motion will only be tangent (in a straight line) to the circle in one unique reference frame (or set of connected frames), which is under key constraints: First it must not be moving relative to the centre of rotation, unless the motion is actually along the tangent (defined in a moment). Second, it cannot be rotating around this point either, relative to the rest frame that gives the true absolute velocity of the swinging bucket. Looked at differently, we must find a frame of reference that is not changing its displacement relative to the centre of rotation, unless it is along a line parallel to the 'tangent' line at the point of departure. The point of departure is defined as the point in space and time at which the radial displacement (distance from bucket to centre of rotation) changes (increases when the rope breaks). This frame of reference cannot be rotating relative to absolute space around the centre of rotation in the plane of rotation either. (Strictly speaking, we could choose a reference frame that is moving with constant velocity relative to absolute rest, but this requires establishing absolute rest first, and adding a needless layer of complication.) But its a gimmicky process: Since we can choose a frame of reference, we can always choose one that makes the bucket of water flying off appear to be moving in a straight line. We do this by first placing our frame of reference that stays a fixed distance from the point of rotation (for convenience we pick the centre of rotation!). Then we simply have it rotate backward at just the right velocity to straighten the trajectory of escaping bucket when measured, and this will also appear to be at a tangent to the orbit of rotation. This we declare by fiat as an inertial frame for the rotation, since now the First Law (translational motion of constant velocity) appears to hold. The point in all this is that 'centripetal' force is no more an explanation of rotational motion than 'centrifugal' force is. We only prefer the 'centripetal' viewpoint because it allows us to treat rotational motion with the same Newtonian Law(s) we use for translational motion (or at least in an analogical manner). There actually is no real explanation for the force, other than in certain reference frames it can be seen as an outcome of the First Law (Translational Motion of Constant Velocity in the absence of forces). The genius and coherence of the viewpoint of 'centripetal' force is its simplification of the treatment of rotational motion, due to Newton's definition of momentum as the product of mass and velocity. As an 'explanation' of either centripetal or centrifugal forces (which appear and disappear with frame of reference) it is a glorious failure. One of the reasons why the physical scenario is underdetermined, and allows for the appearance and disappearance of various 'forces' depending upon reference frame, is that it is simply not possible to properly define a velocity vector in space from the centre of rotation (CR) alone. With just an observer at the CR, all that can be measured is the distance of the receding bucket and its movement away. The observer can always add rotation to himself so that the bucket stays in view, but there is no way to determine the absolute rotation of the observer at the CR, and hence the actual velocity or straightness of the bucket's trajectory. That requires at least one more viewpoint, or measurement point out in 'space'. In fact, as far as absolute distances and time go, the bucket will always appear to be accelerating away from the centre of rotation, since its line of motion changes angle from it with distance. Thus more and more of the motion of the bucket is being applied directly to increasing the distance. The bucket will appear to be accelerating at a decreasing rate, approaching the absolute velocity as a limit. To keep the bucket in view, the observer will have to rotate with it, but gradually brake his rotation to almost nothing. Without constantly adjusting his motion via a force, the bucket will appear to recede backward in the direction opposite of its 'true' (inertial) motion!

I knew someone with six nipples (3 pairs) and extra vertebrae. He was also unusually tall. I knew a guy who had elephantiasis of the testicles:The doctors had to admit he was half nuts.

Short answer: Walking on water has apparently never been observed, other than in the incident with Jesus in the synoptic gospels, although I wouldn't be surprised to find mythologies in other cultures suggesting such scenarios. And miracle stories in the New Testament are perplexing at best from a scientific viewpoint. Walking through walls has never been observed either, except as recorded in ghost stories, other than again the single reference to Jesus after the resurrection in the story of Doubting Thomas in the gospel of John. Scientifically, walking on water is quite plausible through all kinds of possible mechanisms, such as freak organization of water-molecules or EM fields etc. Walking through walls in my opinion is impossible, because it is not the same kind of macro-effect that could be explained quantum mechanically. I think large massive objects like people have strong EM fields which absolutely prevent significant penetration at the macro-level, in spite of the idea that there is lots of space between atoms and molecules. To sum up, walking on water is rare and difficult, but no miracle, while walking through a wall would be a true miracle, in the sense of improbable to the point of impossible.

A word of caution here: The evidence in the second photo is disputed. At least one archaeologist has proposed that it rather represents strong evidence of a pre-Legosian military culture resembling Roman and Eastern male societies. Note the pose, which was commonly carved in underground ritual caves used by early Zoroastrian religious groups, representing the 'Bull Slayer'.

My mother's a what? !?

Of course, the OP was really interested in human cases. While Jesus' abilities are well known, Fred Astair was also able to walk on water, although he was actually better known as a water dancer.

(1) The spin will not be perfectly vertical. Therefore, depending upon the tilt, there will be a pull or curve caused as the ball 'rolls' on the spinning end. Think of how spinning tops wander on a table-top. (2) There is also drag and build-up of air in front of the ball from the direction of the spin as it moves along the horizontal trajectory. As with a golf-ball, there are some aerodynamic effects that depend upon the friction coefficient of the surface-to-air contact and the velocity of the ball. (3) Some of the spin of the first ball will be imparted to the second ball through the friction of contact. Again a difficult effect to measure without laser measurements, and stop-action film. (4) Small variations in friction between the balls and the felted top, effecting direction and transfer of forces/energy. (5) A large part of the effect imparted to the second ball is based upon the 'spin' or 'English' on the first ball, controlled by the angle of strike, the amount of chalk, and the condition of the leather pad on the cue. Consult a billiards expert on this effect. It is controllable and in fact the main tool for controlling the behaviour of the second ball. I hope this helps you understand the complex behaviour of billiard balls in real life.

Essentially a neutrino is an Italian flavoured quark cell. They are members of the Gambino family of Fermioni.

Oopsy. My bad.It seemed the thread was drifting into Creationism, or worse: Jehovah's Witness Science. Sorry again. If you can't make out this post, its because I am talking with my foot in my mouth.