mooeypoo

I am not sure what claim it is you're making..? So far this is a discussion on what is or isn't possibly maybe was before perhaps the Big Bang. What's the claim?

It's not about fear, it's about your claims not being proven, and the discussion speaks of speculations. This forum (Speculations) is not about a punishment limbo. It's the right place for speculating about things that are not proven. Which is exactly what your claim is. There's nothing wrong with that, and these sometimes lead to valid theories that science may one day accept. But not yet. ~moo

The definition of the word "Empirical" will be very helpful here: I bolded the words to emphasize the point here. A thought experiment is very useful in physics, it is the "excercise" that is done out of curiousity, and it often sparks great ideas that turn out to be very good scientific theories, after some work. But it can't - by definition - be empirical. A thought experiment is not an experiment and it's not an observation, and therefore it *cannot* be empirical. Empirical must be something that is completely unbiased and non objective; and that is the absolute opposite of a thought. That's not to say that thoughts are useless. Of course they're not. As ParanoiA (and others) pointed out, they are the 'first step' -- scientists continune that step and run experiments to verify the "IF" in that "what if" thought. ~moo

http://science.howstuffworks.com/question232.htm The above link has a fairly simple explanation on what gravity is. It will be a bit hard to have this discussion as if you are a 5th grader, since your question (and suggestio/claim) goes to areas within physics that are a bit more complicated than a 5th grader would normally understand. A lot of these relationships (between time, gravity, acceleration, velocity, etc) are expressed by derivatives and second derivatives. I don't want to confuse you, though, so tell me if I should get into this mathematics or if we should stick to the theoretical level and try (hard) to work from there. In *any* case, your suggestion is not one that is accepted in the scientific community. You might add a "yet" to that sentence, which is perfectly fine - science changes. But it won't change, or accept your idea, if you can't show unequivocally that (1) it fits our current observations, (2) it is supported by math, (3) it can predict phenomena *better* than the current theories. At least the above three concepts should be shown for anyone to support your idea scientifically. We can debate this "theoretically" forever, but then we just leave things in the philosophical range and never go to physics. ~moo

References? Math? How is this theory better than the current theory? Predictions? Moving objects "warp" space/time not gravity. Gravity is the *result*. ~moo

I apologize, my previous reply was meant for Abdul-Aziz.. I pressed "post" too fast. I was trying to make the point that no matter how "personally appealing" a claim is, it's moot if it's not supported by actual evidence. The books that are supplied in the thread are mostly opinionated and not scientific, which just emphasizes my point. For example, Sarah Jessica Parker obviously has some problems with men in her show. Quoting her, or her fans, to make the point that men are only interested in money and shallow statements, is completely irrelevant. All it means is that a group of women believes that. When a claim is made that "Some women" or, in this case, "large percentage of women" (which is something that needs to be QUANTIFIED!) are attracted/think/whatever -- actual research on this matter must be provided, instead of references that discuss the opinions or interpretations of personal experiences by the prospective writers. ~moo

Oh, there is, and you're in it ("Pseudoscience and Speculation") but this is still a science forums. Your speculation needs to be scientifically based. You need to be able to put a logical explanation based on references and prove that your speculation has any bearing on reality, rather than an empty thought exercise. Specifically since your thought - interesting as it may be - gives way to a claim that doesn't quite fit what we know (mathematically and physically) about.. well, reality. If you want us to discuss the validity of your theory, you have to give us something to discuss.

Personal experience != scientific evidence.

Yes, I got that. My point was that it's irrelevant. The media is not a credentialed source for *interpretations* either.. On the contrary, they are usually the example of MISINTERPRETING science. Thank you. Now we can move on. Please try to be consistent when you make your claims to phrase yourself with this specific claim, and not any other generalized, unclear one. Please. Well, uh, this isn't the way the DSM and the scientific community seems to mean when the term "Psychopath" is used, which might also contribute to the confusion as to what you're claiming. look here: http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/users/peterson/psy430s2001/Hare%20RD%20Psychopathy%20JAP%201991.pdf Beyond that, my previous points stand (and I haven't seen a direct response from you to these), that you need to *compare* your claim to other similar-positioned hunky men that are NOT psychopaths. You should answer at the very least the following questions: 1. Do non psychopaths in the equivalent positions and social stance of those alleged psychopaths get significantly fewer women? 2. What percentage are you refering to when you say "substantial percentage". 50%? 80%? 2%?

It's great that you visualize physical phenomena, but that's hardly a way to discover or prove scientific theories. In this case, you require a more practical and mathematical proof. Otherwise, it's quite meaningless scientifically.

Wikipedia and ABC News are not the best sources to cite as good representatives of "Scientific Interpretations". To say the LEAST. You are again moving the goal post. Insisting we give peer-review refutations but giving an example of a news outlet and a collaborative internet database. Please be consistent. Moreover, the burden of proof is on YOU as the one making the claim. Your claim needs refining. Then you need to answer our refutations. Because you're the one making this claim. On top of that, You *AGAIN* ignored the request to refine your claim. Please, Abdul-Aziz, help me out here: What, exactly, is it that you're claiming? We can't handle any opinions, peer reviewed evidence or gaussian distributions until we know what EXACTLY it is we're examining. ~moo

Consider this claim: Men are bastards. It is a known fact that women date more than one man in their lifetime before committing to a long-term relationships. Also, this explains the high rate of divorces in the world, as well as the common belief among recently-hurt women that my initial premise in this paragraph is true. I attach many books by whoever. so. A few obvious problems arise here, no matter how many books I give: (1) I made a huge generalization. The main problem with that is that it's impossible to check the validity of the sources (and see if they support my premise) because the premise is so generalized. The way it is written, it is enough to bring 1 non-bastard man, and my premise is out the window. (2) My claim is a non sequitor. So what, about divorces? So what, about 'recently-hurt' women? Nothing in my claims shows or proves that they are directly related to my premise, other than my own assumption that they are. Abdul-Aziz, you keep moving the goal post (and I suspect it is because you REFUSE to refine your phrasing). You started at the OP with a huge generalization, that women are attracted to bad boys. That, the way it is written, says *all women*, *or* it says that women (as a gender) *inherently* are attracted to bad boys. Those two claims were shown to be false. You then stated that some women are attracted to bad boys. That might be true, but some women are also attracted to hairy bold guys. So what. Then you phrased yourself AGAIN with the same generalization and you keep reverting back and forth - using a generalized quote of yourself to show your point, but claiming that's not what you meant when confronted by contrary refutations. Please phrase yourself clearly, or we can't judge the validity of your theory. The way it is phrased now, it was *shown* to be false. If it's not what you mean, then please devise a *SINGLE CLAIM* that summarizes your *actual* claim. "All women are.." "Most women are.." "Some women are.." "Biologically, women are.." "Sociologically, women are.." Choose one, stick to it. You're being very confusing. ~moo

Bascule, come on.. Where is this proven? I see your points and they're very appealing, but when you make something like this one, please support it, otherwise it's quite an emotional and unfair point to make. We can probably find many emotionally-driven horrific reasons to support both sides. That doesn't get the discussion any further, specifically when they're not supported. Okay, a few things. I see your point here, but I think you missed mine. First off, the air strikes *were* surgical strikes (otherwise you would have 10 times the amount of casualties considering the terrain/population density), but 'surgical strikes' are not perfect. Unfortunately. If Israel (or any country for that matter) had the technology to truly hit a *single person* wherever he is in 100% percision, we would, most likely, have fewer wars. I would like to believe we would have a *LOT FEWER* civilian casualties in the wars around the world in general. But that technology doesn't exist. And war, unfortunately, is ugly. Please consider this scenario, bascule: Hamas is targetting Israeli cities, specifically meant to harm citizens, for 8 years. During those years, surgical, percise responses were done with very little (but existing) civilian casualties. Israel begins calling the house of top-Hamas terrorists, people who are actively planning these missile strikes or smuggling weapons into the strip (and is doing it during the operation, as well, see here a few examples), and warns them that their house/warehouse/room - filled with ammunition and weaponary - is about to be blown to bits. You would *expect* a reasonable person to get their stuff and run the hell away. Hamas people not only do the opposite, but develop a method where they actually call up *NEIGHBORS* to *join them* inside the apartment, so the Israeli forces will be forced to hold their fire. (Here are a few videos of Hamas militants using children, hidinng behind children, or calling children over while they're either shooting at the IDF or preparing to: , and a confession from Hamas that they do exactly that, on purpose: ). Note this video here: from 2006 rocket attack. In the middle of a village. RIGHT NEXT to a civilian house.) This tactics sometimes succeeds, and sometimes doesn't; sometimes the civilians are being killed. Mind you, those warnings are not 24 hours before the strike (giving hamas enough time to move the weapons). It's a 10-15 minute warning. When you get it, if you love your family, you ask them to run, not to call their friends over. So the above definitely doesn't work, as Hamas is taking the time to get more weapons from Iran and other islamist organizations and arm themselves for a future (wanted) conflict with Israeli forces. All the while, Hamas continues to fire rockets into Israeli cities, sending individuals to sneak out and perform shooting-attacks in abandoned roads and plan suicide bombing attacks. Israel attempts, all this time, to perform talks. It's leaders do talk with Abu Mazen - The palestinian Authority President (previously another title, but same role). Hamas is part of the Palestinian parliament at this point, but it's not 100% of it ("democracy"). While Hamas keeps making statements that it demands the destruction of the state of Israel, and refuses to conduct any form of talks with anyone in Israel, Abu Mazen (affiliated more with Fatah and Arafat's factions) is continuing the bit-more-worldwide-approach and maintains some form of relation (though when Hamas came to have a large body in the parliament, that slowed down too). Hamas takes arms and decides to forcefully get rid of its opposition: The Fatah. A bloody conflict arised, and many civilians were killed during it (surprisingly, that wasn't too much heard of in the news. Perhaps it was because the "arabs kills their own"? Media seems to not be interested when that happens, and I mean no disrespect to Arab nations here [or anyone, really]). Hamas completely won, took over the parliament and threw off Abu Mazen and any of the parliament. Hamas was now the SOLE authority in Gaza. Bye bye democracy. Attacks on Israeli towns *INCREASE* in number, increase in accuracy. People in southern Israel are forced to live their lives in bomb shelters. NOTE: Though after Hamas was elected US, Israel and other countries declared they 'stop the aid' to Gaza, the CONSTANT movement of Humanitarian Aid trucks *into the gaza strip* did NOT stop. Look at these shipments by months here, here and here (for specifically Jan8, after the ground assault) as examples. All claims that Israel stopped the flow of supplies are utter lies. Those trucks went in *under fire from Hamas* militants, by the way. Finally, a state of calm is declared. Israel stops its operation for almost three months (let me explain the 'almost' in a minute). Hamas *DECREASES* the rockets, and doesn't stop. Under any definition this wasn't a cease fire: Mortars: Rockets: Look at the so-called "Lull". There is constant fire on civilian cities even while the lull is declared. For three months Israel tries diplomacy to stop this. Then, at the end of the Lull, Israel has direct, accurate intelligence (that turned out to be true, btw) about Hamas militants smuggling weapons through specific tunnels. Israel force goes in to stop them, and stop the constant rocket fire on Israeli cities. They find Hamas gunmen in the tunnel; in a firefight, 1 is killed. Teh same day, 5 more Hamas militants die in direct confrontation with Israeli forces. Hamas declares the "cease fire" over (as if it wasn't when *they* were constantly throwin rockets on Israeli cities) and dramatically increases the rocket attack on Israeli forces. Bascule - I not only understand your point (well, I hope, correct me if I'm wrong) but I also agree with some of it. Don't forget that for me a war is *painful*. I have friends who actively fight inside Gaza, who are otherwise working in HighTech companies in Israel. Unlike many other countries, the Israeli military is comprised of its civilians. Everyone served the military, has a family member in the military, knows how dangerous and unpleasant this is. But the rockets attacks on southern Israel - after 8 years! - did not stop despite a cease fire, despite attemps for talks. What "broke the Israeli Camel's Back" was the *RANGE* of those missiles. For eight years Hamas shot missiles on a range of *RELATIVELY* nearby cities. In the past 2-3 months, it ALMOST DOUBLED the range, and started using more "Grad" missiles as opposed to the "Qassam" of before. This meant that over a million people were now being targetted. Daily. Now, bascule, I understand you are opposing the ground assault, but I have 2 questions: When I asked "what is the alternative" I meant generally; correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be opposing a military response against Gaza in general. My question is -- in light of all the above, what do you think would be a better response (that would SOLVE the situation, of course). My second question comes with a little 'intro' - The airstrike was meant to supply the initial pinpointed attacks; Large installations of ammunition and rockets were targetted (again, the civilians were *WARNED IN ADVANCE!*), some of those installations were inside mosques and schools (you can see videos of the strike, with proofs of the above, here). You can't get rid of such an activity, however, specifically one that is done INSIDE civilian installations and AMONG civilians, without going on a ground assault, unless you carpet-bomb the entire region. That would solve the situation within 24 hours, if not less, with the result being that there would be nothing left of Gaza. That would also be completely disregarding human life. Israel decided to risk its soldiers and send them in to try and react to terrorists specifically, gain control on the area to flush out militant terrorists, and try to avoid harming civilians. Neither of us are trained in military tactics or strategy, so I think a criticism of the exact actions is difficult (specifically since I am not sure how much of the intelligence we have). But the point is that this ground assault was intended to AVOID continuing a *less accurate* Air strike. Hamas personnel are shooting at IDF people from within (and near) civilian installations INTENTIONALLY. So my second question is -- What do you think should be done *right now*, after there are already troops in there, to solve this situation? In other words, my 2 questions are -- how would you think Israel should've reacted (or not?) *BEFORE* this operation, to stop mortar/missile/rocket fire on a million of its civilians, and what would you recommend be done now, after a ground assault is already in place. ~moo Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedSorry, I seem to have forgotten to reference the graphs. Shame on me. They come from the official MFA site (unfortunately in hebrew) but were translated by the Embassy of Israel in Washington DC. Source: http://www.israelpolitik.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/gaza_fact_sheet.pdf (PDF file) You can also read an official response by the Consulate General of Israel in New York in this post: http://www.israelpolitik.org/2009/01/07/how-did-the-cease-fire-end/ (their official blog).

Well, the solar system's motion doesn't quite give out energy, which is kinda the point in your usual perpetuam "machines" (unlike perpetual movements, or something like that).

Abdul-Aziz, please stop phrasing yourself the way you don't want people to understand you. When you say "All available evidence suggests that women love "bad boys"", then the claim is that women love bad boys. All women (or the *absolute majority*). You said it's not your claim, and we've continously asked you to stop using that phrasing, then. This isn't a petty request - you are, to be honest, confusing me compeltely. I don't get what you're suggesting. Are you claiming that you can explain the specific group of women who seem to be attracted to "rough" men? Or are you claiming the majority of women prefer rough men? Or are you claiming ALL WOMEN, INHERENTLY, prefer rough men? Those above claims are extremely different. Please be clearer.

Hizbulla looked for an excuse to throw missiles into Israel and spark up a second crisis. Israel was assaulted for eight years continuously from Gaza, having a million citizens running to shelters every day. I still don't quite get your point, bascule - you say that Israel shouldn't have responded or do you say Israel shouldn't have responded in this specific way? But there is truth in saying the incidents are related. Iran operates Hizbullah, and has a vested interest in cooperating and strengthening the attacks from Hamas against Israel. But bascule -- you keep saying that Israel shouldn't-have [attacked/invaded/etc]. I am curious to know what you think should've been the alternative..?

Sorry, jumping in again with my promised refs (though I have very little time, so I am posting wiki-stuff, but they should be enuff to start you off on other references). Anyhoo - the Bombing of the US Embassy in Beirut was in 1983 (not 82), and at the same year car-bombed the barracks of US Marines in Lebanon. They went by a front-name "Islamic Jihad", which tehy used to take responsiblity on multiple terrorist acts and were (and are) acting in close connection with the Islamic Republic of Iran. The line is blurred a lot when such an organization (that doesn't renounce his "past deeds" either..) is in a government, but I am not sure how much that affects things at the moment. If Hizbulla was willing to talk, I am pretty sure Israel would commence talks regardless of it being a terrorist organization or not (Israel has spoke to the PLO while it was still considered a terror organizations). The problem is that they aren't willing and aren't interested to have any talks. And the bigger problem arises when they take the citizens of the Lebanon (and Gaza) hostage and start targetting Israeli civilians with missiles. They don't leave much choice for an Israeli response, which is, I suspect, exactly what they want.

Actually, this is more complicated than that... Hizbullah is not the Lebanese government. Not officially. But they do control the entire southern region. And they are not quite "just" a guerilla anymore; they have advanced technology (relatively) from Iran, and VERY advanced military-like structure. It's a known (and Iran partially admitted this, though not completely) fact that Iran trains the soldiers and delivers arms. Saying they hijacked the southern part of the country is an understatement. They are not quite, though, the government, which makes this *VERY* hard politically and practically... their missiles, however, are very real, and much more advanced than Hamas'. Bad situation. Hizbulla DEFINITELY wants to escalate the situation. Last time they went *inside Israel and kidnapped soldiers*. From Inside the border, on Israel's side. You don't do that to "retaliate". Not a military organization like Hizbulla. Besides, give me a bit to wake up properly (and get to work;) ) and I'll find a few vids for you from Nassralla himself (HIzbulla leader) that states unequivocally that their entire goal is the distruction of Israel. No talks are possible. None are accepted by Hizbullah. They follow Iran's "Israel should be wiped off the map" mantra. Sorry, "PS" again -- Hizbulla is the organization in charge of blowing up the US Embassy in 1982 (details to follow, I need to check again the fine dets) and a US installation in Lebanon (need to verify year) -- so they are considered terrorists. They're just VERY well organized and QUITE well trained and Lebanese government is powerless to do anything with it (I am not even sure Lebanon's army is properly organized.. Lebanon has a lot of trouble, specifically since their civil war(s) ) - that makes the situation a lot more complicated, since the distinction between "terrrorist" as being a "small group" or an "unorganized group" is.. well.. nonexistant in Hizbullah's case. They do blow things up and are involved with *global* actions against civilians. And I do believe the US itself refers to them as Terrorist Organization too. Just a very well organized one.

WOW. First off, the majority of women are not battered women, so your claim about that is simply flawed. Second, your phrasing made it sound as if you claim women as a whole are attracted to violent men which is either a gross generalization or a misrepresentation. Try to be aware of that. I also noted that people commented on that and you seem to keep phrasing yourself the same. Where is the "large amount" of scientific evidence? 2 sources (or 4) is not large amount. As for their credence (or relevance) I will have to delay that judgement for when I am less tired and can actually read through them. It sounds a bit fishy on the surface though, and your claims (beyond the peer review articles you offer) are entirely subjective and logically flawed. For example, even *IF* most women were battered women (hugely untrue and you would need to supply such numbers to prove this), that doesn't mean your theory is necessarily the reason. It means it *MIGHT* be one of the reasons. And about your last claim - (1) you need to show us that the same amt of women were attracted to them before and after they were rich (can you?) and (2) you need to look at gentle men in equivalent positions and see how many women they have after them compared to the violent men. Seeing as Patrick Dempsey, Simon Baker (yum) and the likes both got "Sexiest Man" title in some articles and have QUIIIIITE a lot of women bowing to their feet (who am I kiddin, even me) I'd say those results might not be what you'd expect in your theory.

I hope you're wrong. I have a feeling you're right, but I hope you're wrong. Lebanon is not like Gaza. Hizbulla is not like Hamas. Just look at what happened 2 years ago.. it was the same reasoning - Israel had over a million people "hostage" inside bomb shelters in the entire northern region. There was no other choice but to do something about it.. and yet, Lebanon is not Gaza. I seriously hope you're wrong.

Okay, fair enough about the "considerable amount of scientific evidence which suggests that women are very attracted to violent, aggressive men" (though you should still supply some peer-review evidence on that and get rid of the whole-inclusive statement I am fairly sure is not part of those peer-reviewed studies), but I propose a provoking thought: I am *not* attracted to violent aggressive men. I'm tellin' you. It's probably one of my biggest turnoffs (actually, it's probably a "2-in-1" in my case). If your theory is including ALL WOMEN (as it seems to by your phrasing) then there are three possible options: 1. I'm not a woman. 2. Your theory is not all-inclusive. 3. Your theory is false. Which is it? Yeah, they also all had s***loads of money.

...Which you will not specify. Nice tactic.

Which, the HUGE bibliography, or the fact there's "JEW-something" in the link? Have you *READ* them?

Oookay then. I think that says it all.

Again you're picking and choosing what you're comfortable answering. How comfortable for you, bombus. But perhaps I should not be so surprised from someone who seems to pick and choose (and create) his history, too. Here, in the spirit of a decent science forums, here are some historical REFERENCES (shriek!) for you to look at (even though you probably won't): Bibliography http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/bibhist.html “The Jews have no claim to the land they call Israel.” http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf1.html#a