mooeypoo

Hey guys, I was talking to a friend of mine and the subject of a slinky came up, specifically if and how the movement of a slinky can be represented with physical formula. I thought it could be an awesome challenge, but I'm not quite sure where to start. I figured this will probably be best by starting with Lagrangians - last semester we managed to represent relatively complex systems with them - But we did that with either rigid objects (which a slinky isn't) or with ropes and strings that had a relatively simplistic movement (either extended downwards or sideways). A slinky, well.. not sure how to start. Also, obviously it starts with some momentum at its top and continues taking advantage of its "falling" to gather momentum towards the next steps. We can decide on a simple set of rules where the stairs are all the same and the slinky is not affected by anything other than its movement (no air resistence) and that it's ONLY moving in a straight-line (no movement sideways). Any ideas?

Bombus, try to think of it this way -- Let's say you have a squeezeball (you know those that are used for relieving stress? you squash them in your hand..?) -- Now, if you put that sqeezeball between your alms and squeese both, you are applying pressure. Gravity, technically, applies on this squeezeball downwards - but the pressure you apply is "sideways" (inwards, horizontally). This is a good way of seeing how pressure is independant of gravity -- the fact that in the center of the Earth gravity cancels out doesn't mean that there can't be *pressure* applied, and that pressure, well, it's mighty uncomfy -- think of yourself being that squeezeball Does that help?

You didn't say it was harmless, you said it's not addictive (which isn't true, really.. I agree it's probably very SMALL of an effect, but it's an effect worth noting exists), and your presentation seemed to show it as harmless. I apologize if I read too much between your lines, though, it just sounded like you're presenting things in comparison - and therefore as extremes. Anyways, we're arguing different points here, as I've said. There's no doubt Marijuana isn't even close to the other drugs. But it is, according to research, addictive (in certain amounts), and it does have long term effects. Are these worth it to use Marijuana for medicinal purposes? I *personally* think they are, because of the comparison to the alternative pain killers, but I would still like the people who are going to use it to know of those side effects and addictive possibilities are.

I think we are arguing different things. I don't argue with you that Marijuana is not even CLOSE to the other drugs. I just argue that it does have some side effects. That is not excluding your point, you just seem to try and insist that since the side effects are so much lower than the other drugs, they're almost nonexistent -- that wasn't the original question. You're just mixing two different subjects here, so the discussion is on two different questions. The question asked if Marijuana has side effects. The answer is yes, and the answer was accompanied with a reference that stated which side effects those were. The question was not whether the side effects are equal or not to other drugs. That's irrelevant - people who choose to use marijuana or not (specifically for MEDICINAL use, which is what this thread is about) do not usually do the consideration of getting addicted to methadon or alcohol or tobbaco. The question is strictly about marijuana, and is related to the question of whether or not marijuana should be allowed to be used for medicinal purposes. And the piont is that just like anything else, Marijuana is not PERFECT. When considering the question of whether or not it should be used for medicinal purposes, then *BOTH* its pros and cons should be weighed and a decision should be made by seeing BOTH these sides, not just a dreamworld representation that Marijuana is absolutely harmless. It's not harmless. It might be worth the side effects for medicinal use -- thats a valid argument -- but it's NOT perfectly harmless, and the discussion of comparison to other drugs doesn't make it harmless. ~moo

I just posted REFERENCES that state that Marijuana *IS* addictive and *DOES* have long term side effects. The fact you claim otherwise is MEANINGLESS unless you counter my references with other references proving your claims. Marijuana is not the same as oxycontin or methadone. It is, however, addictive in certain amounts. I gave out a link, I suggest you read it. Well, personal experience is not scientific evidence, SPECIFICALLY not for addiction. There are too many variables that might've affected YOUR personal situation to make you an exception. That's why scientific RESEARCHES exist. Reference. This above paragraph is MEANINGLESS without references. Stop putting words in my mouth or in other people's mouths and straw-man the argument. I did NOT say Marijuana is terrible, and the argument in this thread was NOT about how terrible marijuana is. I just stated the facts that it is not completely without side effects or addictive properties, either. Further -- two wrongs do not make a right. If anyone else posted stuff with no references, they're as wrong as you are. I suggest you go over the rules of the forum, as well, and start reading the references posted to you as well as looking up references of your own. Personal opinion in the matter of actual fact is *not* valid. ~moo

Also, McGarr, some of what you are suggesting (specifically about the multiple universes and the implications of such) sounds similar to some aspects of String Theory. You should read about it. Wikipedia is a good starting point (though you should really go on to read better sources if you're interested in it).

There's no argument Marijuana is not as addictive or as damaging as alcohol or as Opiate based pain relievers, but saying it is completely without side effects, or that it is absolutely not addictive is plain wrong. Here's a good reference on this for starters: http://www.nida.nih.gov/MarijBroch/teenpg13-14.html Actual scientific research shows that regular use of Marijana DOES have long term effects, depending on the amount and time it is used. If you claim otherwise, moontanman, please show references. You make scientific claims without giving the proper reference, and it seems that the proper references are against you on this one. Again, don''t fall into the slippery slope fallacy -- the fact that Marijuana has long term effect and that it can be addictive does not mean it is AS ADDICTIVE or AS DAMAGING than other drugs or pills, and the other way around: The fact Marijuana isn't as bad as other pills does not mean it doesn't have any side effect or that it is entirely not addictive. In short, claims are worthless without proper references. ~moo

That wasn't the statement that came accross your first few posts, so if this is what you mean, then we can continue. That they did not "pop into existence" or that we do not relate to them as "outside" of the laws of physics. They are in the realm of physics. Who stated that it's probabilistic? Physicists. What made them state so? The laws of physics, along with observation, analysis and critical thinking done with the scientific method. "acausal" literally means without a cause, indeed. It's not that I don't understand what "acausal" mean, I just don't understand how it fits in your logic or how it proves anything you're trying to say. It is also something you cannot prove or disprove, hence it is not in the realm of science. Maybe philosophy. It seems to me you're jumping from one subject to another -- you're trying to use sound scientific phenomena to jump into philosophical conclusion that doesn't *quite* follow. Like the next sentence: What would be a "first cause"? A good physicist will always ask "what made that happen?" Sometimes we don't have an immediate answer, but that doesn't mean we give up on the question. The previous sentence does not lead to this sentence, McGarr. The logic does not follow. Even if you have "first cause", the laws of physics exist and make those "first whatevers" *react*. The sole reason you would not be able to predict something is because you don't *yet* know of ALL the rules that affect that phenomena. That does not mean that the phenomena is beyond science or that it is in the realm of supernatural. It means that we should ask more quesstions and devise more methods to finding out what we're missing.

Precisely why a lot of people in this thread are so appalled by this speech, Jake. The power that the pope has over peopel -- SPECIFICALLY people in Africa who are usually not technological/logically/scientifically savvy is overwhelming. It is affecting their daily lives, and will, most likely, lead to their untimely deaths if they listen without critical thinking, which, sadly, they probably will.

I agree that freedom of speech is important, but I disagree that it's absolute. Defamation is a problem, (if not an outright example of where freedom of speech ends). Also, cases where an influential leader calls his followers to conduct illigal acts is, in my opinion at least, also an example of where the freedom of speech ends (and even if you disagree with me, you have to admit it's at least a PROBLEM worth thinking about). For example, if a NeoNazi leader that has a lot of influence on people of his "community" goes out and yells that Obama is deserving of murder, I would say this is an outright example where freedom of speech does not hold. Freedom of speech is important, but not at all costs. As is with everything.

And what we're saying is that they can't exist otherwise. Unless you can prove otherwise, the definition of initial conditions and everything we know (from observation, experimentation and our own definition) of initial condition is that it relies on the laws of physics. Everything relies on the laws of physics. Time, too. "Before" makes no sense. Quantum collapse is also part of the laws of physics, and whatever follows it is ALSO part of the laws of physics. Whatever you "narrow it down to", that follows the laws of physics as well. ~moo

As far as I knew, to stop having side-effects from marijuana you just need to stop having marijuana, and they go away after a little while. Specifically in the amounts that we're talking about in this thread (for medicinal purposes). Can you give references for these?

What the heck are you on about? What does this have to do with marijuana? You're looking for a medicine for the long time effects of what, Marijuana? Can you please be a bit more clear in your trail of thought, it's very unclear what you mean in this post or what your question is. Or even if it was worth resurrecting a 4 year old thread.

This isn't a talk about God, it's a talk about a deadly disease.

What does ANY OF THIS have to do with the theory you posted in the original post, or my questions that followed?? Stop diverting attention away from the apparent fact you have no answers.

I'm hoping that after visiting SmartAxe it will no longer be so depressing to be over 17..

Only if you're over 17.

You should see my "Naughty Science" website... http://www.smartaxe.com

Peron, they're using the same type of "Evidence" you used by showing cute pictures and how they look like electric plasma and then jump to the conclusion that they are. I didn't find any peer reviewed articles that support anything they're saying. As I've said before, I, too, can nitpick specific types of pictures of the universe to lead towards a prefered point of view. That isn't science. If I (and they) were to look at *ALL THE AVAILABLE DATA*, and all the available observations, then this theory falls on its face (read back on this thread to see some of the reasons why). Nice pictures are not proof of anything. Well written, well designed website that lacks peer reviewed references (or any references at all, for that matter) is not evidence of anything either. ~moo

Well there are a few that started getting interested in those issues after the boob thing, so I was actually considering starting a YouTube series called "The Science Boobs"....

The last time I was involved in an attempt to combat YouTube censorship, a friend of mine got her own video (of herself talking, no music in the background, no profanities, just her talking about atheism) removed for terms-of-service violation. I made that " " video response that got #2 in YouTube for a few days and a bunch of vid responses; her video was reinstated, though I'm not sure I was the only (or major) cause. It was fun, though. Maybe I should repeat this with JREF style ...

Just making a point here -- YouTube closes accounts that get 3 or so reports about violation of [anything]. Violations of [anything] are reported by anyone, and are usually not investigated. YouTube has no patience to start investigating each violation - the thought is that if people reported, people are right, and it's your responsibility to prove otherwise. I have been a contributing member in the YT-Critical Thinking "Society" for quite a while, and I've seen people getting banned for their views. It's not a YouTube conspiracy, it's a member grouping together -- there was an incident where muslim users banded together to just mass-report a specific user's videos for the purpose of getting her banned. They succeeded. So, it's true that saying "conspiracy" is jumping to conclusions, *BUT* based on past experience and YouTube/Google's own admitted method of dealing with reports in this matter, it's not all *that* far fetched. James Randi pisses a lot of people off; religious, pseudo scientists, psychics, and many more. You don't need millions of reports to get a user banned. This scenario is NOT that far fetched. -- That said, a year ago Richard Dawkins' foundation was banned for the same reason (violation of copyright) for their own videos. They filed a complaint with YouTube, and after a while it was solved, but the reason they "went down" in the first place was the same malicious action by a group of users against their message.

Interesting, thanks for the reference insane_alien.. but reading through it, that doesn't strike me as what the popular-culture term is used for. Not that it means "free energy" always means the pseudoscience meaning of it, I'm just trying to explain the source of my confusion. I will definitely read about it, tho, thanks.

Yes, but then eventually those will mutate and appear with other "shapes" no? Isn't that the fate of all viruses/vaccines?

Right, thank you. And yet, the "Clockwordk Universe" is the least of your theory's "troubles".