mooeypoo

No riot would erupt, he would just receive a list of problems with that statement, or a list of bible verses that are .. well, wrong. But my point holds, jake - nothing is 100% in the world, which is why Condoms can be extremely effective and yet not perfect. That does not mean they should not be used, or that the pope - with such an overwhelming power position over people - should lecture against using them in countries that the risk of HIV infection is ridiculously high. Essentially, the people who will not use condoms in Africa have such a high risk of getting HIV*, that telling them not to keep themselves safe is akin to sending them to their deaths. ~moo * According to the statistics of the amount of people who have it and the amount of people who get it each year, look at the previous posts for the stats themselves.

You should ask him to give you an example of something that's 100% right all the time.

Free energy in terms of price or free energy in terms of unlimited source? Because most of the accounts of "free energy" I've heard spoke of the latter, which is against the laws of physics. Nothing is unlimited,and, on top of that, conservation of energy and the laws of thermodynamics mean we can't get more energy than what we put in.

The first condition is absolutely dependent on the laws, as *EVERYTHING IS*. The laws didn't just "pop" into existence, and they didn't come after something -- They were there during those initial conditions. What you're saying makes no sense, and what you're insisting on doing is just say it without explaining how you reach that initial conclusion. This conclusion is unscientific, illogical, and comes against any of the definitions of science, laws of physics, and initial conditions. You can't just make stuff up and expect people to agree with you. You are the one with the "new" theory, and the burden of proof is on you. For your theory to be valid, it needs, first and foremost, to be valid on its own regardless of others. THEN, it needs to be better than other theories in order to replace them. I didn't say validated, I said valid. As in logical. It's not, at the moment, as your logic does not follow. We call this type of paragraph a wordsalad, because it's reiterating your own definition without making any sort of logical sense. A Prediction is not compressing any data. To claim that a predictions brings stuff from one world to another you need to establish that there are more worlds than this. And then you need to establish the method by which such prediction "pops into" the current world. I believe you try to refer to "prophecy" as "prediction", if I have read your paragraph (and your message between-the-lines). Those two are absolutely not the same, they don't come from the same definition, or the same methodology, or the same output. I explained exactly what's wrong with your premises in my first post. I would expect a bit of a higher thresh-hold of intellectual honesty if we are to continue debating this. What is acausailty? What do you mean by new information? How do you expect anyone to agree or disagree with your claims if you do not define them properly? Have you ever read a proper scientific (or general popsci, even, a college essay for that matter) paper? Definitions are explained, sources are given to support them and the claims. That's meant to make sure everyone's "on the same page". It doesn't offend me at all, it's just either wrong choice or simply wrong. I am really not offended by any word you put in your paper, but the choice you make in your defniition will be the difference between your theory being bunk and your theory having the chance of being valid. There are dictionaries for a reason, and if you disagree with a definition, the least you could do for your readers is to explain why you think it's wrong and support it. Regardless, the laws of physics exist along with whatever initial conditions. If you think otherwise, you will have to answer the question of "where did these initial conditions come from", as well as "where did the laws come from" (seeing as your claim suggests they STARTED AFTER your initial condition..). Can you explain either of those ? It doesn't make things difficult, it makes your theory flawed and bunk. As I pointed out with my example about redefining religion, for example, definitions that are just made out of thin air are worthless. If those definitions are the basic premises for a theory, that makes the theory itself worthless. Yes. My bad. Still, you mentioned the rest of them and my point about references still stands. Nitpicking through my points and twisting them to fit your view of things (for example, ignoring my point about references so you can just claim i was wrong about Einstein specifically) is unfair, inconsistent, and does absolutely no justice to your claims. Please read the rules of conduct, my friend, and start taking responsibility on the claims *YOU* are posting in our site. We didn't come to you, you came to us. You hold the burden of proof on your own claims, not the other way around. Telegraph is not a scientific publication. It's hardly a pop-sci publication. It's DEFINITELY not a good way to show you understand what Quantum collapse is. Not until you actually answer mine and your theory makes a bit more sense.

That's a good idea, but being a sci-fi junky, I have to warn in advance and recommend we also have an "OFF" key on those organisms. (( read "NEXT" by Michael Crichton, as one of many examples why ))

That's not what science is, so your definition is simply flawed. Science has a clear definition; your attempt to redefine it so that you can "combat" the definition is worthless; science is not "data compressing reality". It's just not. If you want, you can invent your own definition of your own word that MEANS what you want it to mean, and then argue whatever you want about its meaning. Otherwise, it's just like anyone claiming they see religion as "information twister for the unsuspecting masses" and then goes on to say how all mass is unsuspecting. That's just not what religion means, and that's not what science means. Again you're creating your own defnitions. You're not even backing those definitions up by evidence or supporting claims, you just redefine an already-well-defined word and assumes that's just enough to change the entire language. That's not the way things work. Initial conditions are defined according to the laws of physics. They are not existing on their own, otherwise you have no way of knowing what they are. For example; a case where a car accelerates from rest at 2m/s^2 until it reaches 10 kph, and then goes down the road at this speed is your "system". Your initial conditions are defined by how things looked at t=0 That is, a car with velocity 0, acceleration 2m/s^2. The initial conditions come from your rules. The initial conditions along with the rules tell you what the status of your system is going to be like in t=whatever. These are NOT two distinct definitions, and they are not two distinct systems. Initial conditions RELY ON the laws. This isn't cutting edge physics at all, it's logical fallacies. First, you recreate a definition to make it suit your claim. Science is NOT how you define it. Second, you redefine initial conditions to fit your own theory. Initial conditions are NOT defined the way you define them. Then, you conclude that your own theory is valid, when, in fact, all its basic premises are just flawed. On top of everything else your claims about Spinoza/Newton/Einstein are not supported by valid evidence. Please show us where those famous scientists declared what you claim they declare, it's only fair you provide resources to your claims and makes sure you avoid plagiarism, as well. ~moo

Which is why religion and science should not be mixed. Specifically not in the classroom.

Okay, here's a better analogy to help you with this, I think - We, at the Earth, treat our OWN *moving* reference as the "still" reference. We are moving - around our own planet, around the sun, around the galaxy, etc etc. We are not, however, the absolute reference frame, because such a think does not exist. For that matter, an entity living in a "slower moving" reference frame than us would consider us the faster moving reference, and would philosophize on what we feel when time slows us for us. The fact is that we *don't* feel it. For us, this is the "correct" time frame and anything slower or faster is the different reference. There are no absolutes. Everything is relative. That's the point. Conceptually, there's no difference between the relationship of our reference to your moving reference and between an entity moving slower than us to us. There is no absolute reference.

Quoting from your essay: I am not sure what that means. Time is not a vector, it's a scalar, how can it be in an angle to anything? Do you have any references to this assertion? The laws of physics are describing reality. They don't "increase" on the expense of something else, they exist always. If you think that at some point the behaviour of the universe was different, then, by definition, the laws of physics were different. There is absolutely no evidence to support such assumption. On the contrary, the laws of physics do not change as time goes by, they are quite consistent regardless of any time passing. Physicists study the universe according ot physics. Anything "beyond" it is beyond the realm of reality and therefore is impossible to predict, observe and research. It is, essentially, nonexistent. Unless, of course, you care to give any evidence for such an "initial condition" that is "beyond the laws of physics" that scientists just dismiss offhand. That's not bias, it's the scientific method, that is not a belief, it's a methodology to make sure the process of research, observation, analysis and conclusion are done with as little bias as possible. Beyond that, you have absolutely no reference whatsoever to ANY of the claims you're making. Are we to just believe you blindly, or will you do the opposite of what you CLAIM science to do and be intellectually honest about your citations? Good luck. ~moo

This thread is closed due to Hazardous Material violation according to the forum rules. The original poster is encouraged to go over the rules and refrain from posting about such substances again.

Thanks iNow, I was about to do the search myself - I couldnt' remember where I've read this. BTW, I do acknowledge the fact that it was unfair of me to not post the reference -- I just remembered reading it and thought it was from the link you supplied (Mr Skeptic) but it wasn't. iNow's link is close enough, I've seen it elsewhere too.

It's not about giving up, it's about presenting correct data. Whoever was the professor who told you that was distorting scientific information. Quite frankly, if he lectures teenagers against using condoms, he should be fired. You shouldn't just believe anything your professor says. You shouldn't just believe anything anyone just says -- you should research things for yourself. Look at the scientific data, look at the numbers, it's very clear in this case: Condoms are very useful in reducing the chances of HIV infection. I didn't plan on being a vulture, but you can't really expect posting such a statement and not get opposition on it. This wasn't meant as a personal attack, it was meant as a clarification on what the data ACTUALLY says. ~moo

The pope says that Condoms are entirely unhelpful in preventing HIV, and that the virus can go through tiny holes in the latex. That's bull. What the CDC is saying is that while Condoms reduce the risk of HIV infection, they're not perfect. As is anything. Condoms, however, are *much much more efficient* in preventing HIV than unsafe-sex. Abstinence is "the best" solution to prevent any STD, that much is true, but Abstinence is not working. People have sex, even within the church. The attempt to educate kids to aboid having sex until after the wedding is a huge failure. So given the options between unsafe sex and use condoms, using condoms is - by far - a better option. The people in Africa do not abstain. They just don't, look at the numbers. Given that fact, they should *not* be discouraged from using condoms. They should not be lied to, either, by saying that condoms are inefficient. Condoms are efficient, they're just not PERFECT. Nothing is perfect. And about all those "Abstinence Only" education programs, read this: http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20041201102153-50247.pdf (specifically, go to page 17): ~moo

With the lack of better evidence, yes, a coincedence. "It looks pretty much teh same" is never a proof of anything other than it looks pretty much the same. If anything, it's an opening curiousity to start an investigation. You're most welcome to start one and post your findings, but you'll have to post *evidence*, not images that look the same. I can find images that DON'T look the same - the fact you are selectively picking images does not do well to your theory. "Plays" in the forming of galaxies is not the same as it being the MAJOR PLAYER in the forming of galaxies, surely you can see the flaw in that logic. If you think your idea is valid, you will need to supply valid evidence, and not just "ooh, that's pretty" images. Those are worthless to your cause and prove nothing.

Take a look at these, Cameron: http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/about/organization/dmid/PDF/condomReport.pdf http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr58e324a1.htm?s_cid=rr58e324a1_e (see "Preventing Exposure") http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/qa/condom.htm http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htm http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20040817143856-95300.pdf http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2001pres/20010720.html http://www.williams.edu/admin/health/ephnotes/notes074.html http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/std/std4.shtml http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/0/caa750bda8432f84cc25702000720012?OpenDocument http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8217474?ordinalpos=12&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum So what you are essentially saying is that all the scientific data we have -- all the research material, the statistics, the experimental durability data, the drop in HIV infections since using Condom and the rise in HIV infections in places where unsafe sex is customary, aaaallll this is false. Just because. Interesting form of logic, wouldn't you say? In other words, Cameron, you are in dire need of presenting evidence for your claim. Saying that your professor stated this is not evidence. ~moo

Actually, you would be surprised - the MAIN problem with sending anything biological (people, animals, whatever) to Mars is the accumulated radiation, and here we're talking about biological entities wrapped in the protective gear of a shuttle... I think it might be possible there are life forms we're not aware of that might survive such extreme conditions, but I am not sure how plausible it is that they'll survive with absolutely no protection whatsoever. The conditions shift from one extreme to the other (extreme hot, extreme cold) plus the accumulated radiation from a large range of the spectrum... I'm not sure it is all that plausible. I'm not entirely dismissing it, though.

Guys, go back on topic please. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedPosts related to google calculator were moved to their own thread in the computer science forum. Please stay on topic, people.

Yes, you should, so everyone avoids Thread Hijacking citation. Please stay on topic on the other thread.

Maybe maybe. Evidence. If you've read the rest of my post ("How did galaxies get that way?") you would see that we *know* what makes Galaxies of the other types and it is NOT what you suggest. If you insist on keeping your theory afloat, you are in dire need of providing evidence to your ideas. Right now they do not follow.

The main problem of open space is not pressure, and not the extreme changes in temperature from extreme cold to extreme heat - the MAIN problem is radiation. As far as I know, that's the major problem of any biological entities to survive space without any form of protection. It's killed off by the radiation. It might be possible for a bacteria to survive space if it is frozen and inside a meteor but that is no longer without any protection...

That doesn't mean they're the only (or the major) effect on Galaxy shape. Your logic does not follow, and it does not fit the other galaxy types that exist in the universe.

You answer was idiotic and not funny, not in this context and not in any other. We are talking about a serious disease with serious implications. It is also entirely out of subject. You did a whole lot more than that, and I recommend you go and do some serious research on HIV and AIDS, specially seeing your next gem - Stop assuming and start reading. Your assumptions lead you nowhere, and they lead this thread away from the original topic it was talking about. Stick to the topic, please, and avoid giving opinions on things that can result in people's death. ~moo

No, it's not, it's [math]0.99^{10000000}[/math] the speed of light. But fine, it's close enough - still my point holds: Time does not STOP. It's still "running", just very slowly. You are again ignoring the main point in my post and relating only to points that you think will support your own premise. Maybe because it is a necessary detail to answer your question. The entire point is that time is *RELATIVE*. You must state relative to WHAT, otherwise the question is moot.

Theoretically, if you have a camera inside the *moving* rocket and you're looking at the feed on the ground, then, THEORETICALLY, you will see everything moving very slowly, but it *will* react. Just very. very. slowly. You cannot move in the speed of light, because you are made of matter, and the only thing that can move in the speed of light is energy. Time, therefore, does not STOP. It moves. Just very slowly. If you look at a monitor in your moving rocket which is feeding you the images of the outside *stationary* world, then you will probably - theoretically - see that feed moving very quickly. You, however, as the moving object, will think that *you* are normal and everything else is just insanely fast. We, the static object, will think that we are normal and you are insanely slow. You won't notice it. We won't notice it. We will just notice the time dilation relative to one another. An hour relative to who?

Are you for real? Those men are not homosexual. The thought that only homosexual men are subject to HIV infection has gone off this world 20 years ago. Did you look at the statistics I posted? You nitpick through answers to relate only to what is comfortable for you to answer - that is NOT part of a decent debate, and is against the rules. Also, dismissing points you don't want to be real offhand is fallacious, to say the least, and is not helping your points at all. For that matter, you stated that women recieve the virus -- recieve from who? From men? How did those men get it in the first place? And if they "give it" to women, they are not homosexuals. This is the lowest form of intellectual dishonesty I've seen in a while, and when it's done in a talk about such a hazardous disease as HIV, I am not sure that what you're claiming is any better than what the pope claimed with his ridiculous "it goes through the holes" nontheory.