mooeypoo

Link, alan.

I don't understand what invention you're talking about -- the site has a lot of high-in-the-sky "save energy" stuff. What precisely did people refer to as scam? Please tell the entire story here for the people (like me) that have no clue what you're talking about.

If it's undetectable, how do you measure a gram of it? I can do the same by using the miraculously invisible pink unicorn, whose existence is undetectable too, as well as unfalsifiable (he just doesn't *want* to be detected, see?) Without proof and a way to measure the particle itself *or* it's effects on its environment, and without falsifiability, your theory is not a theory. And without the above, it's far from logical. You have no way of detecting it and yet you claim it must exist... how is that any form of logic? Well, good luck with that. You can't seriously expect anyone to put any time and money into this without convincing us that there's a reason for this particle to exist. So far, its existence is as supported as that of my miraculously invisible pink unicorn. Would you go out to gather evidence for my unicorn? It's not hostility, it's stating the facts. You have nothing, and supplied no evidence. There's no reason why anyone would take this seriously as it stands right now. We're not missing anything - the current theories explain the situation quite well, and they are supported by evidence, observation and mathematics. Why would we want to replace a WORKING theory with one that has no corroboration, no evidence, no way of validation, no falsifiability, and no math? Science is supposed to be *improving* its theories, not take 100 steps backwards while standing on its head. ~moo

... where is this from??

That may be, but there ARE conclusions you can safely reach without looking at the bottom, too. For example, if your pond is smoking hot and bubbling, stinking of sulfur and yellowish, you could safely conclude it wasn't designed for growing salmon. Or, at least, that if it was, the designer was very bad at what he's doing.

I thought the fact I have a question with clairvoyante and a skeptic, regardless of the physics at the moment, is cool by itself. Besides, remember this is a beginner's course on relativity, so obviously the problem ITSELF is going to be easy and the situation simplified... I just started laughing when I saw the clairvoyante thing and thought you'd share a laugh... ~moo

You didn't answer the question, though. If you consider life to begin the moment the cell is fertilized, then you should stop taking antibiotics (because those kill bacteria, which fits your definition of life that should not be terminated), and you should not eat meat, of course, nor should you eat vegetables (how do you think they're developing?) and you should avoid disinfecting anything, and quite a lot of other things we normally do that normally kill quite a lot of cells that are splitting or are after the process of splitting, or are in a more advanced stage of life than your definition. So. Either you agree with the above, and, well, good luck, or you're being inconsistent. Which is it? At the very LEAST, this issue needs to be addressed by you. Also, I'll be very happy if you could answer my question about the three exceptions (abbridged: rape, deadly pregnancy, malformed baby) and whether or not you would agree these are exceptions to the rule of denying abortion. Please try to take this debate seriously. As you may or may not see (are you even reading?) we all have differing opinions, and yet we manage to debate with one another by listening and participating in a MUTUAL debate, not just one-sided "HAAA!" posts. ~moo

Thank you.

K, I think I've solved it and I'll have to wait for class to ask all the rest of the questions I have on the subject and on the other questions I have in my hw, otherwise i'd be pretty much spamming this forum. However, I thought you guys would get a doozy out of this one (I dont have time to solve it atm I just thought the question itself is awesome): Gotta love physics.

Right, well, I guess this works, then. As you could see (I hope) I was comparing the zygote and INITIAL stages of the fetus to a cyst/tumor, which - as I understand from you - is "alive" (I can accept that) but is far from being sentient. The biggest problem in these issues is the definition of life and alive and what life we should and shouldn't terminate. Cap'n made a good piont I was trying to lead to in my argument (he put it much better). Rationally, I can't see how anyone would claim a fetus should not be terminated without claiming that flowers should not be crushed or picked, or without claiming that (as Cap'n pointed out) we should not use antibiotics. These are the same type of "life", and they're non santient. So, being brutally honest to state my position in this: I don't see a difference between saying you are "killing a baby" when you abort a fetus in its early stages and saying you are "killing an animal" when you disinfect your toilet. And when the price is a woman's right over her own body, I see a moral obligation to allow her to make that choice. ~moo P.S: Please be aware of the *time frame* I'm talking about. I'm not talking about killing an embryo that is 8 months in development. I'm talking about the early stages, which is where legal abortion is an option. Later time the abortion isn't even supported by medicine for various reasons other than the sentient existence of the potential baby, which is why I consider it - at the moment - irrelevant for this discussion.

<yoda> Short memory you have. </yoda> RESOURCE. Please! I couldn't find anything about this.

That's an excellent way of putting it. Maybe what I was missing is "Sentient" (I've used 'conscious' at some of my points, but I think sentient probably is closer to what I mean.. is there a difference, by the way?) Good job, Mr Skeptic, thank you. ~moo

Mr Skeptic, I see your point and I must reiterate that the definition of "Life" is, as it is, controversial. I do see what you're saying, though, and I accept - but since that's not quite what I meant, my points still stand, I am just no longer sure on how to phrase it. I'll have to think this through. In any case, I'm also running a search on my sources -- I used to have a chart with fetal development from Zygote, to Embryo/Fetus (or is it fetus-embryo? i had it in Hebrew, so I'm not sure, I'll have to re-find this in english). Give me a bit of time to find it again. Good point, though, Mr Skeptic, I do recognize them. I still have trouble defining a fetus as a life that should not be terminated (within the first trimester) under my previously stated terms. I am not sure which word to use for it, though, seeing as the words "Life" and "Alive" are (apparently) different, and yet not adequate enough to show what I want to say. It might also be my personal problem with.. well... english. I'll try to come up with a better definition. ~moo

Fair enough. See, now we can go on to debate the "finer points" of this very complicated argument. First, I want to clarify that don't consider a fetus as a life in its INITIAL STAGES.. at some point it is considered alive, and I am not waiting for it to be born... the discussion of percisely when is going to be tricky, I am not sure, but that's for later. Regardless, I think that's a flawed question. If I don't consider a fetus a life, then no matter how many fetuses, they're ALL not a life. It's like asking how many baseballs make a life. If one is non living, then no matter how many you combine, all of them are still non living. The problem I have with the question of abortion is about choice and morality. In general, I think these discussions often go on to the extremes, and I don't quite support the extremes. For that matter, I don't support abortion under all circumstances and always. A woman, in my view, should have a right to choose, but her choice should also be regulated by medical decisions and morality. As we limit everything in an ordered society, it would probably have to be some sort of set of laws, which I would support, to limit that choice, but the choice in itself should exist. I noticed that often these discussions talk about the extremes - that means that people are either "pro life" or "pro choice" and that they're either for killing potential life or they're for saving potential children. That's a really big generalization that I don't see myself fitting into. In *general* I am pro choice, but, again, not under all circumstances. You anticipated semi-correctly, I guess. Read up Okay, fair enough, let me rephrase myself, then: I don't consider a fetus a viable life. Is that better? As I mentioned before, it all depends how you define life. The fetus is obviously not conscious in its initial stages (which are the stages I am talking about, by the way.. my argument changes COMPLETELY once the fetus is conscious). It's also not breathing, it has no metabolism (it relies on the metabolism of its mother), so even under the regular definitions of life this is problematic. Inserting the argument of ALIEN life here is unfair, because that's an argument all on its own without a clear cut answer. If NASA would find such a life, we will have to redefine life, probably. That said, and as I said before, my thought about abortion are not precisely about the definition of life or potential life of the fetus, but about the fact that in its early stages, a fetus is non distinguishable from a cyst, and as such it ISN'T alive, and there's nothing to kill. Saying that aborting such "cyst" as a potential child is like saying that when you jerk off you kill potential children. Where does the line go? If the reasons for abortion are moral (and here will be an interesting debate of which such decisions are considered moral and which aren't), then I don't see a problem with abortion. If the child is going to be born malformed, I think the MORAL thing to do is abort (if it can't be fixed). If any of my three cases happens, the moral choice is to abort. If a woman got pregnant by accident and believes she cannot support a child, cannot bear the child right now, or the child will bring more problems than good (and will be born to a harmful situation psychologically, too), then I see no MORAL HARM by stopping the pregnancy -- as long as the fetus is not yet conscious. In the beginning stages, it's no different than a cyst. Personally, I see no way of rationally claiming against aborting such cyst *unless* I treat it as a potential child, and then there's no way out of opposing auto-ejaculation, either. ~moo

Only if you consider a fetus life. I only consider a fetus life at relatively advanced stages of the pregnancy, where abortion isn't really much of an option anyways because it's usually harmful to the mother as well. In the initial stages, specifically the first month, I don't see a difference between a cyst and a fetus. If that's the case, then the fetus isn't life, and terminating it would not be considered termination of life.

Yes, I think it's fair that we'll start this argument on general grounds and then see where the different opinions lead us to go further into more specific arguments.

I personally think that there SHOULD be certain restrictions on abortion, but that abortion should be considered an option and is the right of the parents to choose (in the first trimester, at least). This argument, however, speaks of the generalized notion of abortions as a whole - IE, should it be allowed at any time, under any circumstances, and in that aspect, potential restrictions on it are the next step of the discussion. First, we need to establish whether or not there are certain circumstances where abortion is allowed. In certain parts of Europe where abortion is legal, it's not "first come first serve" chaotic choice people on the opposite side tend to sometimes present it as. On the contrary. First, there are medical considerations - After a certain point the fetus *is* considered life, and also, at a certain point, abortion can be very harmful. That's why a lot of these countries allow abortions to be had only before the second trimester or so. Second, there are psychological issues - some places require a short interview by a committee to make sure that the woman knows the potential hazards of abortion and is making her choice knowingly, etc. Third, this is all useless without proper education. Abortion should not be used as a contraception - accidental pregnancy should be PREVENTED, not dealt with by abortion on a regular basis. This, however, is achieved by education and encouraging youth (and hence, adults, when they grow up) to use proper contraception, to guard themselves, to have safe sex and to NOT consider abortion as a potential solution to their problems. However, if a woman becomes pregnant (and imho, specifically under the circumstances of the three examples I wrote up) it is *her right* to decide if she is continuing the pregnancy or not, in my opinion. I also think that the biggest question is whether or not the fetus is human life or not (and until what time), because if it isn't, there's no reason (other than medical considerations the doctors should think of) to deny such procedure. That said, Here's my take: 1. Rape: It's the choice of the woman, as long as it is still safe to abort the pregnancy. Rape itself is an extreme act of stripping away a woman's control and her ownership over her own body. I would never support a claim to force her *AGAIN* to lose control over her body for 9 months and more, specifically due to this act. 2. Deadly pregnancy: No doubt here. If the pregnancy is potentially deadly to the woman, and this fact is discovered early in the pregnancy, there should be an abortion for medical reasons, saving the woman's life. She could get pregnant again, if she wishes to. She will lose both her own life and her potential child if she doesn't. This, however, needs to be addressed only in cases where there is a real danger to the mother medically. 3. We have quite good tools these days to recognize future flaws in the fetus. If those flaws are deadly or otherwise we know the baby will be born to suffer through a very short life, I believe the humane thing to do is abort. Again, in all three cases, I'm talking about EARLY discovery where this procedure is not harmful to the mother and involves a fetus not yet considered human life. Those are my two cents. The fair thing from the opposing side, would be to give us theirs. ~moo

For the record, and I did state this, I did not mean this to be a "Gotcha" question at all. I do think, however, that if someone states they're against abortion under ANY and ALL circumstances, then we should consider some of the extreme circumstances (and these *do* happen, it's not like I brought up something that's entirely implausible) and see how we handle them. Otherwise, the discussion turns to be head-to-head instead of a logical, rational discussion about morality. We need to be able to look at these statements and make a valid judgment. I think it's only fair. ~moo

That's a good point, but that depends on your definition of "alive". I agree with you that I should've put this better, and in this context, it's probably fitting to use not yet "a human being", but I am not entirely sure I would agree with you that it's alive, either, until later in the pregnancy (though, granted, probably earlier than what I would define as 'human being'). For that matter, through the very early stages of conception, the fetus is indistinguishable from a cyst. In fact, there are some false pregnancies (and some go on FARILY long) that are initiated due to a cyst in the woman's womb. There's not much difference between the development of a fetus and a development of a cyst throughout the very first stages. At these stages, I'm not sure I'd define either a fetus or a cyst as "alive". It's a good point, though. Despite that, however, my questions to Syntho-sis (and everyone else, of course) still stand: Would anyone make an exception for these three circumstances I posted, or is it that if you support the view that abortion is aboslutely wrong under all circumstances, these three are included, and the pregnancies must be carried out regardless of the circumstance or potentially deadly outcome. I'd like an answer

I must interject here and state something I believe was left unsaid in this thread: Physicists and Scientists do a lot of research in the realm of so-called UFOs and claims of the supernatural. The main problem is that when these researches a shown to produce a false outcome, physicists and scientists move on. Hardcore believers do not. It's not like the subjects are being completely ignored by science; There are quite a lot of groups of scientists who take it on themselves to research supernatural claims and do proper case studies. Hardcore believers often disregard those studies (as was done in this thread) and claim that these cases (that were proven false) were never investigated (which is a false claim). Scientists, to be quite frank, are sometimes fed up with the fact that they need to repeat their results over and over and over again despite the Hardcore Believer's attempts to claim they did no research (FALSE), and just move on. Anyone who has any doubts about scientists researching these allegations should look up the Skeptical society, whose ranks are filled with scientists and science-oriented folk, and who are - quite often - tackling these phenomena. The other problem that usually comes up wth these issues is how broad the claims are. When a claim is put forth about "A UFO that no one can prove exists because its pilots are so intelligent they stole the government and brainwashed everyone into not seeing it ever" it's a ridiculously unfalsifiable, immeasurable claim that NO ONE can either verify or falsify, and it is, therefore, irrelevant. When someone makes a claim that "The lights over texas freeway were a UFO!" it is a bit more relevant claim, since it is a claim people can actually check. For more about these type of claims, you can check out the *awesome* short podcast "Skeptoid", it has quite a few episodes about UFO sightings that will explain what I mean. If you think UFOs are real, show evidence - every time an evidence was shown, it was researched and proven wrong. As a physicist I am flat-out tellling any Hardcore Believer: I am open minded for the possibility of ghosts, UFOs and god(s), I just need evidence, and when I get it, I'll check it, and if it's true, I'll believe it, and if it's false, I'll do what the scientific method is all about, and what my predecessor scientists did so far: I'll move on. I suggest everyone will do their own *FULL* research into these claims, see how many times each of them was proven false, and move on too. ~moo

I have to ask a general question here -- Syntho-sis, you seem to be opposing abortion under any and all circumstances, so abandoning the "when does life start" issue for a moment, I'd like to know what you think of abortions in the following circumstances: A woman discovering she is pregnant 2 weeks after she was brutally raped. A woman having a very dangerous and potentially deadly pregnancy either for her or for the child, or for both. The fetus' development clearly shows he will be born malformed or with a terminal condition or with a condition that will make him or her suffer throughout their short lives and die in pain. Are you opposing the idea of abortion for the above as well, or do you consider them exceptions? I am not trying to make a hidden point or lead you anywhere, I'm trying to understand what your position on the matter is, when things are not as simple as "merely" a moral argument about whether or not a fetus is life. In other words: I admit that if I was convinced a fetus is alive, I would be fighting against abortion. I, too, believe that a life should not be terminated. However, according to all available data and most logical questions about what life is and isn't, a fetus is not yet alive until relatively late in the pregnancy (approximately the second trimester, I believe, but I need to double check that). In any case, even if I would be fighting against abortion because of the above, I would still allow the option of abortion for the above three cases, for the sake of the mother and child. My question to you is: Would you allow it, or is your feeling against abortion go all the way regardless of the wellbeing of the child or the mother or medical considerations? ~moo

You're allowed to disagree, you're not allowed to ignore an entire thread of debate just so you can claim there's no debate.

Did you really just post an argument in a LONG thread and claimed there is no discussion about evidence? did you even bother reading the thread you chose to post in, or did you just assume we talk out of orifices that are not usually meant for verbal communication? We have quite a few threads in this forum (past and current) that speak of the various aspects of abortion and about what is and isn't considered life. You're not the first to claim abortion to be wrong, and there ARE (surprise?) "skeptics" who "believe" abortion to be wrong, whether the evidence point to life after or before the third trimester. The people in this thread were decent enough to post their opinions as well as detailed explanations. They did not post an of-the-cuff pow-wow conclusion just for the hell of it. People put the time to debate, as you should have. Instead, you chose to reopen an existing thread without reading it first, and then have the audacity to claim no evidence or scientific arguments were posted. Seriously? Did you go over the evidence before jumping in and claiming there are none? I would say that we, here, in SFN, have earned the the benefit of the doubt that we're not talking out of thin air in a thread that is almost 60 posts long. If you want to debate, post an argument and stand behind it. Don't go around blaming us for being one-sided when you don't even bother reading our initial claims. You're not "getting flak" over your opinion, you're "getting flak" over your attitude. ~moo

Of course people think how geometry works, people invented geometry. Your statement is pretty much like saying you don't understand why hotdogs taste like meat and being surprised they just do. We invented geometry as a way to explain things around us. We made it up so it works out. Obviously, they work. As with the rest of your thread here - and as I repeatedly asked before, I don't get what is your proposed problem with it. The universe is *NOT* 3D, the universe is, at the very least, 4D, and probably a lot more (String theory proposes 11 dimentions, and other theories propose either a larger or smaller number). Human beings percieve their space in 3 dimentions. We cannot explain things easily with 10 dimensions or 11, so we simplify things into 3 dimensions. That's not to say the universe is 3D. Not at all. If it was, we'd be intercepting a lot more than we actually do. We'd be able to manipulate time as we do volume. We cannot, because we only grasp 3 dimensions, and we explain our universe in terms we can understand. Those are philosophical questions, not scientific questions. What is the ROLE of time in our universe, might be a scientifically valid question, but why did it come to exist in the first place, well, as far as we could postulate there might be other universes with other laws of physics in which time acts different or is nonexistent (that might be.. hard to believe, though, seeing as without time there's no movement). Our universe does have time, and we quantified it to (again) make sense of it. Asking why things are the way they are is meaningless. Asking what it *MEANS* that things are the way they are is the role of physics, mathematics, biology, cosmology, chemistry and other sciences. It doesn't sound incredible, throng, it just makes no sense. This is the weirdest generalized qualifications I've seen. Mathematicians demand math, and it is only "extraordinarily complex" if you don't know what you're looking at. Some things in mathematics -- specifically the basic geometry, which this thread is about -- is incredible simple. Not all spiritual folk hate logic. Philosopher do not debunk. Seriously. WTF. I think it was said well, it just made no sense. If you think yuo didn't explain yourself properly, please feel free to revise your statements or explanations, but from what I got from your ideas, I think you're trying to impose philosophical thinking into mainstream scientific methodology, and those two just do not fit together. "Why this exists" is philosophy. "What this does" is science. Try to separate between purely natural phenomena (black holes, planets, stars, time, etc) and concepts human beings invented for the sake of clearing up their own questions (like geometry). Geometry was CREATED by man to explain nature. It was purposefully fitted to nature. How can you be so surprised it fits nature....? ~moo