mooeypoo

You mean to the mainstream media they didn't take responsibility. There are other ways of knowing who *exactly* fired those weapons; and Israel didn't declare an all out war against neither the Palestinian people nor Hamas for *any* of those mortars. All Israel did was attempt a surgical strike against the group who launched the rockets. Hamas's problem in that case was that the group launching those missiles and digging those tunnels had less fortune than the Israeli soldiers, and they were killed during the exchange of fire. Your presentation, however, seems to suggest that Israel just "blew it" with the cease fire, when the reality was that Israel responded to whoever-was-shooting-the-rockets, killing the terrorists *who shot the rockets* and Hamas just threw off the gloves and declared an all out end to the cease fire. I don't need to claim Hamas was responsible, Israel didn't attack Hamas, it attacked *specifically* the perpetrators, who turned out to be Hamas. (Sorry, you mean IDF? Israel Defense Force? I am not sure what IDS is?) Hang on one moment. Israel did not attack Hamas after three months of supposed cease fire. Israel attacked the people who shot the rockets after three months of supposed cease fire. Those people turned out to be Hamas militants. Armed Hamas militants who also tried to smuggle more (and better) rockets into the Gaza strip. After the exchange of fires, 6 of those Hamas militants - who actively shot rockets and actively smuggled weapons - were killed, it was HAMAS who "declared war" by increasing the rocket attacks. That was in November. The current operation began the end of December. That means Israel *continuned to do nothing* while it was AGAIN bombarded. What broke the "Israeli Camel's Back" was that suddenly Hamas' rockets stopped being relatively SHORT range, and started threatening about 3 times the amount of peopel it used to. Israel could no longer STAND THIS QUIETLY, and then began the operation. You are completely misrepresenting the situation bascule. You are talking about the cease fire, but the end of the cease fire was not this current operation. The current operation came 2 months after Hamas bombarded Israel continously, again. How long do you expect a country to try speaking while being beaten? How long do you expect a country to have its citizens in bomb shelters? Seriously. Israel is surrounded by Arab countries that are its enemies. For the past 60 years of its existence, it has seen wars in more than one front, for the simple reason that these countries wish to completely obliterate it. The relative "better" aspect, in our current times, is that Hizbullah is not the Lebanese government. Which is probably why Israel did not go on a much more massive attack to prevent more missiles (that are STILL being fired, mind you) from the northern border. But Hamas didn't accept a cease fire where Hamas is obligated to STOP smuggling weapons and STOP firing rockets. That's not a ceasefire, and that would mean that Israeli citizens will KEEP being bombarded. If the suggestion was realistic, and accepted by Hamas *fairly* (I'm sorry, but a one-sided withdrawal with no promise of cease-of-fire and no promise of continuous talks and no promise of stopping armament for future conflicts is NOT a solution Israel will accept) then a cease fire would be signed. I bet with you that when an offers come that Hamas *and* Israel agree to, a cease fire *WILL BE* signed. This isn't about the destruction of Gaza. If it was, Israel wouldn't have had to risk soldiers. It would carpet bomb the strip. Like America did in parts of Afghanistan.. So your suggestion is unrealistic. It's very comfortable to criticize Israel for everything it's doing while you are not the one being constantly threatened and shot at in your own home. ~moo

Observation is not the only empirical method to obtain proof. That said, there are many phenomena that affect our reality while being either hard to observe or just impossible to directly observe. If you ignore them, you lose the ability to explain how the universe works. General Relativity and Special Relativity are great examples. You can't observe them, and yet without them you can't explain many phenomena we DO observe, and otherwise would have remained unexplained. Like the pertrubations in the orbit of Mercury (as I keep giving as an example, it seems, since it's such a damn good one for how wonderfully predictive Relativity is). So what you seem to be suggesting, grandpa, is that we should build a system according to what you want to have in the universe, and not necessarily according to how the universe actually operates. Nothing wrong with that, of course. Just any conclusion you draw from such a system is absolutely irrelevant to our own *TRUE* reality. ~moo

Then how can you be sure that whatever action taken is good or bad? It's one thing to criticize a solution you disagree with. But it seems to me that you admittedly have no solution, and yet seem to claim Israel is wrong no matter which decision is taken.... In the case of Gaza, Israel was attacked and responded.. In the case of Lebanon, Israel was attacked and did not respond.. (of course there are many more differences between the above cases, but it still works for the point) Is there ever a chance for Israel to do something you would, theoretically, approve of?

Right.. I agree... and yet, what should be done to stop it? As you can see, Israel does not respond. Do you know of many other countries that wouldn't respond? So.. when Israel is being fired upon (not the first time) and does not respond, it's bad. But when it is being fired upon, and responds, it's bad. What's the solution?

I don't understand what you mean to claim with this ..?

How does that answer my question? I asked you how you can simulate a system without fully understanding what affects it. How does the above answer is any form of reply to this? Are you really saying that you could create a reliable simulation of a system - one that you could then derive conclusions from - without fully understanding how that system works and what the affecting factors are? And please, please, be a bit more respectful and quote my name correctly. I'm choosing to assume you made a typo in my nickname. Please try to avoid doing that. My nickname is very well stated in every post I make.

Did the thought that my question was sincere, asked to get input, ever cross your mind? The question I asked was valid, whether you like it or not, and I expected an answer as part of a debate, not a lecture on why my question was a bad one... That's right, I agree, but you said in the previous post: And I was wondering that if you shouldn't be asking what the fundamental nature of reality "really" is, how can you program the computer to act realistically? Whatever conclusions are drawn can be physical or philosophical, and can relate to the "why" or the "how many". But if you want the simulation to show reality, you need to first understand reality fully.. If you want to simulate a car, you need to know how *everything in it* works. You don't have to know why and you don't have to know who made it, but if you want the simulation to be realistic (and hence,your conclusion to have any merit on reality) then of course -- you have to take into account all that affects your car. Your computer simulation will have to know how everything inside works, and how the interaction between the parts affects the car. Otherwise, the simulation is meaningless. I am not sure I understand what fields interaction you're refering to, but if the interaction is affected by whether or not ether exists, then yes, you should first know it, otherwise you are simulating fields wrong. You shuold know how the universe - and all that "affects it" - acts and how it operates (you don't have to know the why, I agree, but you do have to know the how) - to make your simulation of the universe as realistic as possible. ~moo Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Which just emphasize my point -- the reason we have problems predicting the weather (with or without computers) is because the system is so complex, we don't know everything that affects it. One day, perhaps, when we *do know all the reality of weather systems*, predictions will come with that knowledge. You have to know the entire parts of the system to be able to simulate it, and predict how it will react to different situations.

Hey, This week the skeptical podcast "Skepticality" had an AWESOME interview with the producers of the show "Numb3rs" (you can find it here, as episode #092) well worth a listen. If you don't know what this show is about, go to its official page or wikipedia, both have a fairly good description. I really recommend watching it, though, it's AWESOME and depicts math and sciences and general skepticism in a very good light. I never thought math could be this interesting and fun (and I'm a physics student! ) Anyways, what I found most interesting is that a question was raised about the educational system and this show. Specifically,the producers were asked about allowing this show to be featured in the classroom as an educational aid -- which is pretty smart in my opinion, given as it usually has relatively advanced mathematical concepts portrayed through a suspense/thriller show. But they remarked that getting it into schools is hard because of the companies that are currently in the market, and because mostly, the educators prefer not to "pitch" watching TV. But the producers then said (and I agree) that kids watch TV anyways, so allowing this into the classroom as a tool is giving the educator the opportunity to guide the students into thinking afterwards, or giving them specific excercizes about whatevr was discussed int eh show, etc. In short, making them like math! So I was wondering what you guys think about such shows entering the classroom.. do you think it's a good idea, and that the educational system is holding on to an archaic notion, or do you think we're opening pandora's box here, perhaps allowing for not-so-good TV to get in as well..? Another point I was thiking, btw, is that bad-education and bad-influence already exists, sadly, in classes anyways. I am having a hard time seeing any negative to putting this in the classroom at all. Any thoughts?

How can you simulate anything in a computer without knowing, in advance, what you're simulating? A computer requires input and programming in logical, methodological manner. If you don't have basic rules of what and how your simulation behaves -- the basic rules of your universe -- how would it be simulated?

bascule, how is it that one incident by Israel (the attempt to destroy the tunnel that resulted in the death of 6 *armed* militants) a "declared end" of the cease fire, but repeated rockets during the so-called "lull" isn't? Your own graphs (and mine, same ones, it appears), show that Hamas still fired through the "cease fire". Continously. For four months. So.. their continuous disregard of the cease fire -- true, a "lighter" one that "usual", but still a multiple-incident disregard -- is not as bad as a single incident that "incited" the end of the cease fire? Don't you think that's a bit of a double-standard on your part?

The burden of proof is on the person making the claims. That would be you. Stop being lazy, CHAOS, we've been over this many times before on lengthy discussions (I posted a few). If you think you have *compelling* evidence, supply them. Otherwise, perhaps you should look into this forum for better reception of unproven ideas. ~moo

You're making no sense. The mathematical formula represents the phenomena physically. While time *EXISTS*, it is not AFFECTING. And you are, again, being lazy and ignoring our references, nitpicking through our answers. If you insist on claiming we're wrong and you're right, then be intellectually honest enough to prove what you're saying. You can "think" I don't understand gravity, but since you admitted you haven't read almost anyhting about it (from your own admission and your own lacking representations of it), I would be quite bit more careful in such remarks if I were you. Do you want us to take you seriously or not? We are not here to listen to fairy tails. you are in a science forum, use scientific tools. You came to us, remember? ~moo

False. Universal Law of Gravitation: [math]F = G\frac{mM}{r^2}[/math] Time is a unit of measurement. There's no time influence in the above mathematical representation of the law of gravitation. The two are absolutely distinguishable. Do you really claim here that "reading a bit" gives you the ability to unequivocally state the quote as incorrect? None of the above are peer reviewed articles. You might think that's petty, but it's not. Those are either philosophical ideas by the author (that were not reviewed by other professionals) or popular-science articles, which are not science. Math, man. You can't avoid it, specifically with what you're claiming, and since you seem to be terrified of it, I suggest you - at the very least - drop your "I know better than all" attitude, and be more humble to those who actually follow up on the mathematical applications of what the theories suggest. Proof? proof proof proof. "I believe" doesn't count. As I've shown above (and as you could see if you will keep reading about actual Relativity - general and special) time and gravity are not equivalent. Other than that, what you say in your pt 2 makes absolutely no sense. This would mean that light would change its movement while going in our galaxy (effect of gravity is higher) and out of our galaxy. That's not happening, other than slight effects of bending, which is consistent with gravity originated from *MASS*, and not time. How would one prove/disprove this? okay, I don't even know what to say to that. You need to be more specific. And supply a bit more convincing explanation on why this.. should be accepted rather than the current theory. Hang on a second. You said they're equivalent. Now you say they're proportional. Turns out, the math shows they're neither, but nevertheless, you should be consistent. Meaningless statement. Prove and explain this, otherwise it's a meaningless philosophical mambo jumbo, and belongs in a philosophy forum rather than a science forum. Don't forget, czimborbryan, you came to us. We are a science forum, and as such, we require scientific evidence and rigor, specifically when one of the current theories is claimed to be false. The current theory, as we repeatedly said in this and your other thread, is proven by math and observations, it is supplying proper ways to falsify it and provides ways on predicting phenomena in our universe. Your theory needs to do *at least* the above (hence, be better than the current one) for anyone to replace it. ~moo

You might not be surprised, but you're not the first one to raise the question of UFOs and general rumors-are-true ideas in this forum. Please refer to the following: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=35806&highlight=UFO http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=32290&highlight=UFO (this is also about evidence and how to analyze them, specifically YT videos and the likes:) http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=30482&highlight=UFO http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=32930&highlight=UFO http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=31986&highlight=UFO http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=31133&highlight=UFO I will watch taht video with an open mind, though, I promise. You should consider, however, that when we (a *science* forum) request for evidence, we generally mean *scientific* evidence. Peer reviewed, proven, observations and math. Do read the rules. ~moo

I guess that depends what you call evidence, Chaos. In the other thread I've asked you how you would differentiate between equally "weird" (unplausible?) statements if your definition of "proof" is so broad. You've brought no references, no actual sightings, no pictures, no links, NOTHING for us to even *analyze*. What evidence are you talking about?

There's a HUGE difference between believing there's life out there (which I do) and believing it came to our planet (which I am skeptical of) and believing its technology is good enough to come here but bad enough in hiding properly (which is slightly odd), and believing that their interest is in scaring occasional farmers and mutilating poor cows (which is quite .. silly). The trouble with the UFOers, is that they go from a relatively believable premise ("there is life out there") to an outrageous conclusion ("whatever we don't recognize, and flies, is an alient craft conspiracy!") that involves conspiracy theories much bigger than a single country, a single aircraft, and a pack of cows. As the sayin goes: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

To make any type of declaration about the validity of a tenet of a theory, you need to understand it. You admittedly don't. We have posted here a few attempts to get you on the right direction towards understanding why your idea is just not working in relativity, but you seem to refuse to follow them, and then accuse us of lack of communication. There is no lack of communication here, there's only lack of trying, and it's on your part. I suggest you step down from the high branch you put yourself on and go read the theory you insist on trying to change. The definitions of time, mass, energy and the relations between them are very well defined within Relativity. These relationships are expressed through mathematics. Mathematics are the language of physics, whether you like it or not. I allows us the incredible strength of predicting what would happen if and when something's done. Newton's laws state, in laymen terms, that an action results in equal and opposite reaction between 2 bodies. The math defines the relationship between their masses, the time, and how these would react. Accurately. Same goes with relativity. The tenets are mathematical. The tenets are defining the relationships of mass and time just FINE, and those relationships are not what you propose. You have two options: Get off your high horse and actually do some reading, or keep putting your hands on your ears and stomp your feet on the ground, insisting that you are correct, but refusing the see the maths and "bit-more-complicated" aspects of the theory that prove you wrong. Choose. ~moo

People who? Not me. I would expect not you, either. Two wrongs don't make a right. If it's unproven, it shouldn't be used as a claim. Specifically since this claim seems to play more on the emotional side rather than the practical side. That's quite unfair. I can do it too, btw, telling horror stories of dead friends with heads chopped off while holding their baby brother on their way to school. It will doubtfully contribute anything to the discussion. Other than that, bascule, you're bieng a bit unfair. You're putting out claims out there and when being confronted (like my post + questions to you, which I put a bit of time on) you seem to either ignore or post a single-line-link rebuttal. Come on. I give you the benefit of the doubt and I want to hear your opinion. Give me the same and read what I have to say. War involves 2 sides, not just one, no matter how much the mainstream media tries to claim otherwise. ~moo

You are being very unfair. You are asking about theories that sometime take a while to learn and study, and definitely take longer than a single post to explain. Your request for "a bulleted list" for the theory of Relativity (or others) is insulting, quite frankly. There are people who study physics for a long time - including the maths and concepts - and take quite a few semesters to learn the relative basics of that theory. Then, when others try to explain in general terms, you insist on holes that the only reason exist, is because there's no way we can explain the entire theory without getting into the *WELL PROVEN* math (which is the most powerful aspect of the theory, since it provides accurate predictions!). Be fair, and at the very least be open minded enough to read about the theories you think are so false. The fact you don't understand them (which is fine, some theories make my brain hurt too), doesn't mean they're false. This is why fifth graders DON'T get into Relativity. For that matter, most of our education system (around the world) wait until quite an advanced stage in college (after you have the mathematical tenets required, and the physical concepts of the basics) to teach Relativity. Expecting us to explain this perfectly in layman's terms without getting into math, and then having you rip apart our *analogies* (how else can we explain this without math?) is quite unfair. This is a science forum, not a myth and not a philosophy forum. If you want science, be a bit more open minded to the fact that you might not have all the information required to make a valid judgment on a theory you admittedly don't understand. ~moo

CHAOS, "said" is not the same as "proven". Big foot is "said" to exist, Loch ness monster is "said" to exist, The manchurians are "said" to exist, The CIA is "said" to have killed Kennedy, The moon used to be "said" to be made of cheese. You have to have some sort of basic set of rules to differentiate between statements that are said by some people but are false, and statement that are said to be people and are true. The only way to actually differentiate between reality and rumor (or fear mongering) is through actual proofs. If you follow rumors, then I can probably convince you of pretty much anything from a cheesy moon to a conscious sun. Where do you draw the line? Planet X is "said" to exist by a small group of people who can't ever prove it exists. In fact, they can't even state what we should see, where, and how. Our information about the skies is quite good - we can see the effects of celestial objects on our own planet and other planets very accurately. For that matter, this is how some planets were found - scientists expected the Earth or other planets to move a certain way, but saw a discrepency between the actual movement and the expected movement. The conclusion was that there needs to be another object or phenomenon to cause this discrepency. In the case of Neptune, the math showed there needs to be another object at exactly that distance and size. The math was then corroborated by observation. In the case of "Vulcan" (a planet that was presumed to exist inside the orbit or Mercury), the observation never showed such planet - the discrepency in the pertrubations of Mercury was finally explained by Einstein's relativity theory. In both cases we've seen an effect on celestial objects and investigated it. In the case of "Planet X" there's nothing. The proponents can't even say where exactly (or roughly) it is proposed to be. Some groups that enjoy scaring the crap out of people use the fact most of the population don't know enough of the mathematical tenets of how to find those "planetary pertrubations" or mathematical discrepencies or even observational discprepencies, and use it as a scare tactics. Don't let this work on you. Moreover, with due respect, suggesting we don't do the research is showing a bit of laziness on your part, CHAOS. As I've said, we had a lot of discussions on Aliens and UFOs in this forum where we examined a lot of evidence. If you have any new evidence to produce, please do, we will examine it critically and might be convinced. So far, though, the purposed evidence were shown to be false. Be fair, and do a search on UFOs and Aliens on this forum before you claim that we are the ones who didn't do the research. ~moo

right.. well, that's philosophy, czimborbryan, not physics. Proof? Reference? Even a mere explanation on your logic on this one, would upgrade this to a slightly elevated status. Nice philosophy, but.. far from being anything substantial. I guess it all depends on what you want to achieve; a nice story or an actual grasp on reality.

Actually, there are a lot more myths about 2012, just like there are about some other arbitrary years. This isn't the first random year that's picked as the end of the world doom scenario. And yet we're still here. Hm. Okay, what planet? There is no planet that comes close to our solar system, that's just not happening. We are quite able to predict these things *way beyond a 3 year period*, in advance, using current math and observations.No such planet exists. No star exists either, that is coming close to our solar system or is capable of doing anything like what you're describing in the near future. It is true, however, that we are being merged with the Andromeda galaxy, and that this merge will, most likely, cause "stray" stars to get close to our solar system. That, however, will take billions of years, not three. "Center of our universe" is an unclear statement. There is no center to the universe. At least, not that we can pinpoint. Do you mean, perhaps, the center of our galaxy? Our galaxy has a black hole in its middle, most likely, but we are not going to be sucked into it. Specially not within 3 years. That's quite absurd. Okay noooo nonono. LHC has nothing to do with doomsday scenarios. It's replicating a phenomenon that *already happens in space*, continously, all the time, for millions of years. We just can't predict *exactly where* it will happen next, so we built a machine to replicate the phenomenon under controlled conditions. Saying the LHC can destroy the world, is pretty much like saying that a bath tub is dangerous because of tzunamis. Uh.. where? You need to prove this one, because I haven't seen any *ACTUAL* data to suggest this is true. Just claims from doomsayers. First, you need to supply statistics for that too. Second, until you examine each and every one of these claims and find them all to have a *REAL* common cause, this "information" is irrelevant.As it stands right now, all UFO sightings were explained by *real* phenomena. If you think that UFOs have any other reason for them, you need to prove that one too. (search the forum, btw, we've been over this subject quite extensively). Yeah, well, I'm not sure, but even if they do, that "aligning" happens quite often and happened quite a lot during history with no effect on our environment, CERTAINLY not an extinction. You're bunching up a lot of unrelated claims, most of them unproven. First off, the Mayans had a few "important"/"doomy" dates, and they have no *ACTUAL* mention of 2012, just a mention of general something that people take and INFER they meant 2012. They also thought the world would end in 2000. Whoops. The fact global warming is increasing has nothing to do with 2012. You also need to prove any relations, since despite the fact global warming can be dangerous to the environment, it's very unlikely we will be extinct by it in three years. They who? What do youmean "polar shift"? The Earth has been wobbling for a loooong long time before humanity existed and will, probably, for a long time after. This so called "polar shift" is not something that happens instantenously, or through a few-year-period. It takes hundreds of thousands, of not millions, of years. I can't really comment on random stuff that are unproven and have no reference. Where did you hear this? Who said? What information was usedc to conclude such results? I also once heard that a terrible computer bug will make all the nukes in the former soviet union go ballistic and destroy the world at 2000. Sooo..? No, no no. Everything, sorry to say, that you've stated, is utter rumors, unsupported facts, and pure science fiction. Nothing is supported by facts or statistical data, it's all one big collection of selectively-picked data to support an "end of the world" scenario. There are a whole bunch of POSITIVE things that happened in the past 100, 50, 10 and 5 years, and 10 months, and 2 days. But in order to promote a "doomsday" scenario that looks scary, the perpetrators of this incredibly silly and unsupported scheme *IGNORE* all the *positives* and only bunch up whatever negatives they can find (most are completely unrelated and some are unsupported, hence not even true) so they sound scary. Don't fall into that trap. It's nothing more than science fiction. It's not even original, either; every few years some woohoo group pops up and claims the end of the world is at X. And yet, here we are. ~moo P.S: I VERY MUCH recommend Dr Phil Plait's book "Death from the Skies!" (available at book stores and Amazon online, etc) to see what are the more realistic (though unlikly to happen anytime soon) scenarios in which the world will end. With actual proof. And very light read, depite the subject WELL worth the read.

you rule.

Thanks babe, but it's a 7 by now. All these holiday pastries..

Well that's what you need to prove. At the very least, you need to provide some basic substantiation for this claim. That's why it's in speculations. Go ahead and prove this is mainstream science, and your post will go back to the mainstream forum.