mooeypoo

north, You're repeating your statements regardless of questions asked. You're ignoring responses. You're confusing the argument and then ignore more answers. You repeat again the same points you made that people pointed out were fallacious. Not only does it show your theory as bollocks, it is also close to trolling. Take responsibility on your own thread and start explaining and supporting your claims on facts, or just admit defeat, stop arguing circular logic, and instead spend your time tweaking your theory for later review. ~moo

Absolutely, but when you're fighting such a large organization with something that is so deeply rooted in social consciousness, you have, basically, two generalized options: Use tactics that are bound to raise more opposition against you and make your fight harder, or take the higher road and fight for equal rights while avoiding as many bumps as you can along the way. The bottom line is this: Take the "principal" road with less odds of winning, or the generalized road (specifically, fight for "equal rights for everyone", as opposed to "marriage for gays") and increase your odds.

Okay, I'll bite. agentchange, what you state above is an opinion - whether one agrees with it or not is irrelevant - it's personal, quite emotionally-driven opinion. There are a lot of opposing opinions in a society. In fact, I am quite sure there are quite a lot of opinions in a society that would state something you strongly disagree with. If a government decided the fate of *PART* of its citizens according to personal, emotional opinions, we will get ourselves into quite a dangerous situation. Think, for example, what would happen if the (quite large) group of evangelicals would claim that the cinema is shameful, sinful, and encourages twisted ideals and horribly crooked morals. Would you support a law that would ban everyone from watching movies? What if the white majority in some southern states (and it's not all that implausible that this is what a lot of them still thing) decide that it's disgusting to see a black person in police uniforms. Would you support a rule that bans all blacks from police jobs? Really? I don't quite see how gay marriage would personally affect your life, specifically since gay couples do live together and act married (and have children, and adopt children, with less divorce rate and less abandoned children rate) already. What is missing is the rights that other people in the same situations and differently-distributed body-parts do have. It's the desire to get oneself into everyone else's minds, beds and homes that is the difference between a democracy and tyranny of the majority. You might feel compelled to argue for tyranny of the majority at the moment, when the case in point is something you disagree with (and seem to have majority on your side, or at least the vocal majority on your side) but it is not entirely implausible to encounter situations where the wheel turns and you are on the side of the minority. Would you really support laws that are based on extreme personal opinion of a group of people, whether you're in it or not?

To be honest, I don't think the it's the government that should drop this term, but rather the Gay Rights movement. The Gay Rights movement(s) want equal right, and instead of fighting for the rights they seem to drudge in the mud while arguing against religious fanatics for the definition of "marriage". Who the hell cares what it's called - as long as all citizens receive the same rights without regard for gender, religious beliefs, skin color, ethnicity, economic status or sexual orientation, it really doesn't matter. The problem is that when the religious fanatics claim "marriage" is religious in origin, they are right. It is religious in origin, that's the point -- but the government decided to take a cultural/religious practice and support it with rights and benefits. If one argues about marriage, then the argument is *bound* to go into religion and get dirty. If one switches a definition and argues for the equality of all citizens under the laws without regard of skin color, gender, religious views or sexual preference, then the religious claims become much less relevant. It's about time the Gay Rights movement take a bit of the responsibility on themselves and stop banging their heads in the wall or fighting windmills. It's very easy blaming the extremist opposition, but that doesn't help the cause at all.

I watched it live in NASA TV online and updated through twitter.. it was very exciting, and the pictures were amazing.

Peron, stop trying to flame and rephrase things. We did not tell you to rewrite everything. Posting a bit of an introduction to a link you post is common courtesy, as well as part of the rules. We've deleted such "link-and-run" posts before. We've given you the benefit of the doubt on this one, accept it gracefully and stop being a child. And the entire beauty of the scientific method is that *EVERYONE'S* words hold no merit if they are not based on proof. You're just refusing to cooperate on the matter and insisting on presenting it as if you're the only one to be held to these standards. A brief search through the forum, or, alternatively, a brief reading of the Pseudoscience/Speculation section should prove you (and anyone else that thinks they're being held to higher standards than the rest of the members here) absolutely wrong. You came to this forum, we didn't come to you. If you want to stay here and keep debating, you should follow our rules of conduct. Quite simple.

It's not about being threatened, it's about you not having a shred of evidence to what you're claiming. We are not a fantasy forum, we are a science forum, and we're following the scientific method. You're the one making the claims, you are the one who hold the burden of proof. So far you're not fairing very well.

I'm sorry but where is this free poster? I can't find it... is it still relevant?

Aren't radio waves electromagnetic waves, like light waves are, only different frequencies? So basically, shouldn't we be able to just have a laser that transmits in lower frequencies and we get "directional" radio waves. No?

The worst for me is at school and work -- I work with Europeans (who expect DD/MM/YY) and write essays for american teachers (who expect MM/DD/YY). I usually just try to remember those or just write the month out in words, like 26 Feb 2009. But September 11th is different, I think - the term 9-11 has become a term, at least here in New York. You hear it in conversations or in the News and TV.. I didn't think about how others say it, tbh, since it's such a commonly used term here, as far as I was concerned (I hear it everywhere). Politicians seem to refer to it like that, too, as far as I heard so far.

The full episode is available on hulu, for all ye american fans. Indeed, she's yummy. But.. really.. 6... pff no words.

I'm sure there are other cool science projects for your age group look 'em up online!

Because it's the rules. It's also common courtesy. We're not waiting all day biting our nails just to click on a video link you post. Specifically not under the circumstances of your usual claims and the usual "evidence" you put forth; be courtious, explain what the link is about, and stop arguing with people just for the sake of argument. Really. People asked you to put a short synopsis, the nice thing to do is put one. ~moo

I see what you're saying, but isn't that a bit of nitpicking? We don't directly see gravity either. We don't directly see electromagnetic waves, either... There are more things we *don't* directly see than things we do.. If an experiment predicts the results correctly and continously, isn't that as close as there is, in physics, to "proven true", considering that otherwise (and as we all know, in the back of our minds, or at least as we should) nothing really is absolutely true. I see what you're saying, but I think that in this context, we are doing this theory injustice. The existence of Neutrinos is pretty much proven. Seeing as the counter claims in this thread are stating that the Neutrino doesn't exist (and base the assumption on that notion), I think we should all remember that for all intended purposes the Neutrino is as proven as gravity. Which means that for all intended purposes, it exists, unless someone can explain what these experiments and detectors detected (and how come it fit all the theories and predictions). Same as what would happen if someone rejects gravity, the Big Bang theory or evolution. Or am I wrong here?

Taken from this page: http://www.youngscientistchallenge.com/about/about.html Looks like a cool project, go for it

Swansont, isn't there a neutrino detector up in Canada ( http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/ )? I believe I've read somewhere that it proved neutrinos exist quite unequivocally, after the Super Kamiokande detector worked for the same purpose too ( http://www.ps.uci.edu/~superk/ ) ? Or.. did I get this wrong?

You need to upload them to an external site and link them here, otherwise they won't work.

Well that makes it unproven, doesn't it? I am very doubtful it's a true statement, to be honest.. and if it's not, then the question in the OP is a bit meaningless, tht's why I'm wondering if there's any sort of substantiation to it.

Well, you can't really state the Big Bang theory being wrong without showing us any sort of proof and expect us to accept it. The "big bang" theory has implications that are observable, it has made predictions that came true (and keep coming true), it fits with other phenomena and theories we observe in the universe and has very sound math that explains phenoemena and helps us predict quite accurately events and phenomena that happen in space. What does your theory have?

Wait, so there is an effect ? I'm sorry, I'm confused. On one hand there's no difference, on the other ... they're responsible for hangover severity.. ..should I mix or shouldn't I, when going out, or does it not matter?

Just a thought, but can it be that mixing certain "types" of alcohols (like one that originates from yiest as opposed to one that originates in starch?) creates a chemical reaction that strengthens the effect?

Hey guys, I'm hoping this is in the right section, not sure if it fits here or in chemistry.. In any case, I recently visited the site "checkyourself.com". It's a site that's supposed to give teens information about alcohol and substance abuse. They posted this "myth" in their list: (source [sorry, might aswell add the specific page and not just the general site]: http://www.checkyourself.com/AlcoholMyths.aspx) Which got me thinking... I was always told that mixing types of alcohol will get you drunk faster than drinking the same amount of the same type of alcohol. I must point out -- the site is fairly good in giving information, but I had a distinct feeling of distrust in it.. it struck me as very "propagandish" (for a good cause, granted) to convince teens against drinking. Good cause or bad, I'm not sure I take what they say without checking. I don't think the order of drinking matters much, but I always tjhought the 'mixing' itself does. For that matter, if I drink a beer and then something with vodka in it, I'll get more drunk than if I had drank more of just the vodka. Anecdotally, I always saw it true, but it's purely anecdotal and my own personal experience. I'm also not THAT much of a heavy drinker to actually compare.. I just know that drinking 3 beers, or, alternatively, drinking 3 vodka juice drinks (like "vodka cranberry" or something) will not get me as trashed as drinking a beer and a vodka. Is this just a myth, or did the site write this mainly to convince teens not to drink ? ~moo

You're making quite a lot of definitive claims in here, Stephen, do you have any validation on them? Seeing as the current theory is supported by observation *and* math, do you have an alternative substantiated explanation? Blank statements don't quite help..

Yes, great, funny Count on YDOAPS to get things *out of context*, damnit! I was quoting this site. I was. I swear. Seriously. Really. FML

Hm, thanks for the clarification, that's interesting, I thought that there's still some contribution from the womb, so it's interesting to know otherwise.