mooeypoo

That depends how good she is, I suppose.

First of, people already answered you -- if you "shrink" the Earth, the continents will fit one another to form a single continent (just like plate tectonics, that is actually proven by other facts). The continents will *NOT* cover the entire earth. Second, those videos by Neal Adams are *NOT* based on actual data, they're based on his own imaginative hypothesis that has absolutely NO support in reality. So, to summarize, we have a "mechanism" that doesn't disprove the current theory. However, the current theory is proven by countless evidence (just read the entire thread, you'll see some, plus look up the forum for similar threads, unfortunately we had a few). Not only that, but "earth expansion" raises more problems than it's worth (what's the MECHANISM FOR EXPANSION? did the Earth eat beans? -- is merely a silly representation of only one of them). So one theory is utter ridiculous antiscientific crap by a cartoonist that doesn't want to actually relate to factual data, and one theory has evidence from multiple fields, predictability and support. Yeah.. some problem we have. Yes. So do magic tricks. So does anti vaccine deadly bullshit. The fact he's a charismatic cartoonist with access to high tech animation technology doesn't make him right, or any less wrong. There are a few theories we can say are waiting for more informtion about, and might be susceptible to change. Gravity, for example, *was* "tweaked" by Einstein after Newton. Those cases do happen with certain theories, and we certainly don't know everything just yet. Plate tectonics, however, is one of those theories that have so much support to them, so much overwhelming evidence, so much repeated support by outside fields, that it will take *QUITE* a competing theory to replace it. This one Neal Adams proposes is not it. ~moo

How 'bout a girlfriend? Those are exceptionally good in replacing masturbation (most of the time).

Hey guys, I saw a question about that on twitter and I was wondering if anyone knows any organizations/sites that do this. Where can I report a special sighting? Either a fireball or a unique event, or even just sighting something unique when observing the sky either with a telescope or with the naked eye.. Is there a place that collects such sightings? Uhm, please note: this is a serious question. Please don't put anything about UFO Abductions (or similar), since those are not only unproven, but sites that promote them are usually totally uncritical of the data they collect. I'm looking for something that promotes science and amateur astronomer collaboration. ~moo

You're asking 4 COMPLETELY different questions, each of them with a very complicated answer. Can you pick one to concentrate on? otherwise it's very difficult to even start. Besides -- what does anything have to do with the "God Particle", other than my assumption that you probably just watched "Angels and Demons" ?

I must say, I find "more or less exactly" amusing, but we've all used it and I just noticed it .. just pointing it out You make a good point in saying that the continents fit if you "shrink" the Earth. Sure.. that's true --- if you ignore everything else we know and only relate to their shape. [btw, let me be clear: they *do not* fit into a perfect sphere. You can say, though, that they fit together if you shrink the Earth just like Pangea fit together in plate tectonics. I'll accept that] The continents "fit" to one another if you move them backwards to form Pangea (in the currently acceptable, proven model), just like they would've "fit" together if you shrank the earth -- but there's a very big difference here in terms of the process that throws the 'shrinking/expanding' theory out of the water (along with a lot more of the evidence counter-it, like it being against EVERYTHING we know about planets, etc): If the distance between the continents grew because the world expanded, you would expect to see addition of crust in the "connecting" areas, indicating that a very long time ago there was less crust == less surface area == smaller planet. But you don't see that. Instead, you see one connecting "crack" producing material, and the other side of that same plate there's the other "crack" that "swallows" the crust. We see it.. that's what happens in the Asian-African rift, and in other locations. We can also measure it. That observation *only* works if the plates are moving. It doesn't work for an expanding Earth. Also, please take into account that the continents only *SEEM* to fit together on the outside. What's up with all those ridges and mountains that are underwater? they don't count? If you have no way of explaining their existence and where they fit in the "expansion" theory, but the plate tectonics explains them *perfectly*, then you have another point on why plate tectonics is substantiated as opposed to so-called "expansion". So, you start with a common fact -- that the continents "fit" together, but the surroundings show the process, and that shows that one of those options is simply illogical. After that, you go on to the other facts that keep supporting plates tectonics, and the fact that there's no methodology to *explain* an expanding Earth, and there's not much validity to that theory, really. ~moo

<read this extremely fast with a radio announcer's voice>Disclaimer: The above post and everything I am saying in my capacity as a moderator does not pertain strictly to chemist himself, rather to the entire forum, its participants, or whoever decides to participate in this debate. In other words: who was first is irrelevant. The rules act on everyone, and we should ALL be respectful. No infractions were issued (yet?) on this matter and so, no "harm" was done. The point was to remind everyone of the rules and of the concept of a polite debate. Everyone's encouraged to reflect on those terms, take a deep breath, and come back to talk chemistry. Now please resume chemistry debate, which is what this thread is for. Thank you.

My bet is on cocroaches and bacteria... Sheer numbers.

chemist, this is a debate forum where we share our knowledge respectfully. You are, respectfully, urged to read our rules, perhaps go over some of the common netiquette forms as well, and re-evaluate the tone of your future replies. I am sure you can find a way to share your knowledge with us without resorting to ridicule and be a helpful and thoughtful participant of this forum.

It's very nice you tell us you did the math, but unfortunately, we can't just trust your word for it. Nothing against you personally, zhengshengming, you just need to show it. Also, please stop coloring your text and underlying citations - there's a very comfortable way to cite someone's posts by clicking the "QUOTE" button on their post.. this will help us understand what you are refering to and get the context much easier. Other than that, you're in dire need to transform your long thought-experiment-with-nice-pictures to an actual scientific endeavor, by supplying the math first. Also, please take into account that pretty images do not count as "proof" or as "evidence" against a properly substantiated theory such as the GR and SR are. In other words, "look at my picture" is not a good enough explanation for your theory to be true. But.. how 'bout you start with the mathematical concepts? we can go from there.

It is! TAM7 is at July 9th, in Las Vegas. You should come.

Hey guys! Thought you would enjoy the recent Skeptic Zone podcast (it's a great podcast, i recommend subscribing!), where the awesome Richard Saunders interviewed me about SmarterThanThat, SmartAxe and TAM! The interview is the recent episode on the website, or available on iTunes. btw, If any of you plan on going to TAM7 this year, do tell Hope you enjoy! ~moo

This is a science forum, not a religious preaching stage. The thread started out semi-scientifically-based and became religious, and it is now closed pending moderation. truedeity, you came to us, we did not come to you. When you signed up to this forum, you agreed to its rules. There is a speculation policy, which you should read, and there is a reason why we do not allow religious "discussions" in this forum. If you want to talk about religion, go elsewhere. Further, if your sole meaning of this thread was to lead us to a religious "ha!" moment, you clearly failed. The right thing to do is answer the questions put forth to you, not run away and tell people to talk to you "one on one". I recommend you read the rules of the forum, the internet etiquette, and the entire wikipedia entry about logical fallacies. This thread is closed pending moderation for religious discussion.

Actually, that makes a lot of sense, just like cleaning your pennies with tomato sauce (or lemon juice, vinegar, etc). It's the acid in it that acts on the corroded particles and separates them from the metal itself, as far as I could recall. Someone with better chem skills could probably explain it much better.

I'm sorry, elas, I might be missing something here, but who said these quotes? swansont? can you cite, please? I am completely lost on context here. ~moo

Actually, there is some evidence that they had crude chemical batteries, but the voltage was extremely low, so I wouldn't precisely say they had electricity.. they could probably use it for ceremonial purposes.

No, no no, light has no mass, it doesn't "experience" anything. As far as I know, we don't treat the photon as having its own inertial frame. Part of the reason is because it's there is no "inertial frame" for light, it's always the same velocity in all inertial frames. So.. talking about the time dilation that light experiences makes no sense.

Peron, from what you wrote in the beginning, you seem to be the one who misunderstands. If you want to put forth some evidence of why you're right, a science fiction author is probably one of the least convincing. On top of that, there are some people here with some years of training and education in Physics, which by itself may not mean they're right (that would be 'appeal to authority') but it might hint as to the fact they are not completely clueless, and that what they say does have a basis in physics. If you don't understand something, ask. Don't make a definite claim on something that you can't prove with anything other than a random cite of a popsci (barely) book. Peer review, yes? ~moo Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedPeron, from what you wrote in the beginning, you seem to be the one who misunderstands. If you want to put forth some evidence of why you're right, a science fiction author is probably one of the least convincing. On top of that, there are some people here with some years of training and education in Physics, which by itself may not mean they're right (that would be 'appeal to authority') but it might hint as to the fact they are not completely clueless, and that what they say does have a basis in physics. If you don't understand something, ask. Don't make a definite claim on something that you can't prove with anything other than a random cite of a popsci (barely) book. Peer review, yes? ~moo

What do atheists have to do with any of this, anyways? If you have an experiment, I'd love to see it, and I'd love to know the methodology and equipment you've used, as well as your results. Then we can carry on with duplicating your results... I don't see how any of this has to do with religious beliefs. It's how science works. You need to give us the method first, though, and stop evading for 30+ posts.

Well, we're going to have to start somewhere. The viability of AI systems is a known fact... we all know it's coming, it's just not here at the moment. We're not there yet, but we're VERY VERY LIKELY to get there. Those are things we should consider morally, imho.

about.com is not a peer reviewed source, antiaging.. if you say that they have peer reviewed evidence, you need to show a publication in a truly peer reviewed source. about.com is a pop-sci site. For example, they have a section about astrology. Considering the fact astrology is one of the most falsified quackiories (quack-theories) existing, I wouldn't trust about.com's.. anything. Peer reviewed is peer reviewed. That would tell us if the methodology really WAS reviewed, if it was tested, if it was valid. ~moo

ORIFIEL was automatically suspended for 3 days after excessively trolling the forum, ignoring the rules and posting multiple threads on the same subject.

Threads on the same subjects were merged. Seriously, ORIFIEL, are you even reading others' questions or remarks? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Will you give it to us finally? Let me just warn you, though, that if it involves posting the same junk pictures with no math and no science in them, save yourself (and us) the trouble. If you have something valid for us to analyze, you better just post it instead of beating around the bush while ignoring this forum's rules.

Yeah, it's always about definitions with these things, that's the point. What is life? What is consciousness? How do we figure out if something is conscious or if it is alive? Or if it's conscious enough to be close-enough to a human being to "earn" rights? All about definitions. I suspect we'll ahve to deal with a whole lot of it in the upcoming years as our AI systems get closer and closer to the real deal. We're not there yet, but we probably will at some point.

Sure. Feeling is a reaction, too. There are comatose patients who respond to pain. They "feel", they're not conscious.