mooeypoo

I find that the merriam-webster dictionary definition work quite well: Exit: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exist Object depends on your context (and whether it's a noun, verb or adjective). Again here Merriam Webster dictionary, imho, does a pretty good job http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Object Space depends on the context. I tried to see which definition I identify with most, but truth is - it depends entirely on when and how I use that word. You need to be more specific, Sovereign. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/space%5B1%5D In general dictionary is a good place to go when thinking of definitions, but in this case I think you need to be a whole lot more specific as to the context you're referring to with those words, otherwise whatever we say is .. well, irrelevant.

Where? Name one. No, not at all. If you can *PROVE* someone is receiving telepathic messages, he's - by definition - a telepath. So far, however, the only claimed cases were debunked, so for now, no telepaths were found. No, no, nono. By WHAT definition? Voodoo praises it. If I did a search, I'd probably find more. If you accept *any* claim without proof you're driving blind. Not because of the claim itself, but because of the fact it has no proof. ?? Wordsalad. This does not follow at all from your claims. What does anything have to do with planck's constant?? (what is planck's constant function?). The rest is just word babble. What's the point, again?

When we say "introduce something new" we don't necessarily mean just new information, it can also be new approaches to current theories. That is PART of introducing something new. Einstein, for example, didn't really introduce any "new information", per say, in his General Relativity theory, but rather an entirely new way of approaching the current (his current) theories. He then continued to prove his hypothesis, support it in facts and observations and math, and discover NEW things. 'Presenting new approaches', depending wht type of new approaches are presented, are also considered an introduction of 'something new'.

You weren't "might be" wrong, you were flat out wrong, and the problem is that you were wrong in your details, details that you should've double checked before posting (easily done in a google search). This is not a discussion post (where guessing or hypothesizing is more lenient), it's a homework question. There's a difference. And for the second time you're giving answers instead of giving methods. The formulas are available online. The idea on how to do them is the problem. If you can't answer homework questions, there's no shame in just NOT answering. ~moo

I didn't think I was rude. On the other hand, this isn't the first time I'm asking.

Other than the fact this is a forum RULE (to quote your sources), it actually IS plagiarism if you quote a source without saying where it came from. It might not be passing something as your own (although that's debateable.. who are you quoting? yourself? someone else? maybe your own work from previous years? who knows), it IS 'stealing' the thunder, stealing the credit, and its absolutely something that will get your paper trashed in most respectable colleges if you attempt to hand it this way. Also, we are a science forum, the entire point is that this forum holds curious people who don't take things for granted. I saw the answer to the short question and I want to check more about it, as is a custom with self-respecting curious people. Add a link, it's less than a second's work, it's following common courtesy and the rules of this forum, and it will help you get ready to submit REAL work where this can get you in deep trouble.

Please cite your references. It is impolite to expect us to "just believe" you (and deny us the privilege of going and reading more about it), and it's quite against the rules (of the forum and of writing in general) to plagiarize. Please cite, especially when you quote directly from the text!

... proof? substantiation? how 'bout results of experimentation? Shouldn't be hard to test this out at ALL, actually. Have you? results would be very interesting. So will some information about what you mean with your 'certain conditions' and some substantiations about your claim that the optic nerve can intercept any sort of non-optical input. And if the optic nerve can intercept these, why can't any of our other instruments? Or can they - if so, which, how, when, and why. This is a science forum, we require substantiation. If your theory is right (and it might be, sure, why not), you need to have proof. Or at the very least, a reason (SUBSTANTIATED reason, not just arbitrary subjective reason) for us to look into this any further. Remember the burden of proof is on you as the person who suggests this new theory, not on us. There should be no problem for you to explain my questions (and supply substantiations and references) if your theory is true and tested. ~moo

btw, Capn, not to rain down on the parade, but are you sure this wasn't a prank or something? Someone pulling your leg? Just.. getting rid of options here

In Dr Plait's book he speaks of Apophis returning in 7 years too, and I remember seeing it in a few more places (though he says that the odds of hitting us are incredibly slim). Specifically he explains that there's a narrow path within the margin of error (of calculating the path) where if Apophis passes there, it will miss the Earth the first time around but will hit the Earth on its next approach in 7 years (and that, too, the odds are slim). I'll have to try and find the resources either way after my dual-exam today, but if you could post any, D H, that would be very helpful

.... I don't quite get your point.

You guys should really read "Death from the Skies" by Dr. Phil Plait. He goes over the main ways the universe can kill us, but he does it realistically (no 'scare tactics' crap) and with information about possible solutions (if there are any) and odds of any of those things happening. It's a fun book

As someone who actually aws present in the original IRC Chan discussion, I have to say that the purpose of opening this thread (initially, according to what we discussed) was to review the *substantiation* to the OP's claim that the risk of getting an STD is *higher* through anal sex. The context of homosexuality is irrelevant to the answer. If you start combining the two, you need to add a whole bunch of other phenomena and actions which don't benefit this argument/discussion at all, scientifically speaking. Stick to the subject matter, and don't mix it with homosexuality. If you're against it (which it seems you are, judging from what you say in this post [not just the STDs] and what you said in the channel last time, and regardless of your 'many gay friends which you love') it has *NOTHING* to do with whether or not STDs are transfered more through anal sex or not. It's a COMPLETELY different argument. (for that matter, if you claim that anal sex should be avoided because it holds higher risk for STD, then we should avoid going to med school, or training paramedics - specifically in 'danger' zones and in africa, and killing off any person with HIV so we won't have to put doctors to take blood tests, since the risk of infection is higher. Are you really suggesting this is what we need to do? And.. is it really relevant to whether or not STDs are higher-risk in anal sex or not..?) Stick to the subject matter, and substantiate. Science isn't about opinion. So if homosexuality exists in other species in nature (which it does), evolving without the "external" effects *we* pose on natural selection, but rather evolving in nature (with a variety of species, some of which developed in non human populated areas of the world - hence, we [humans] didn't affect them), doesn't that prove it is natural? Not that it's relevant to whether or not homosexuality is 'valid' or not, or to the OP specific question.. ~moo

Excuse me, but the bible version states that the world went "POOF" into existence. You can't explain that with either theory. If you are refering to explaining the universe (however you believe it was created) by Newtonian physics alone, the answer is absolutely not. Relativity is more than necessary, it is inevitable. We have holes in our understanding of the universe without it. As I wrote in another thread, if you want a relatively simple example for this, you can read up on Mercury and "The missing planet" - Vulcan. The story in a nutshell: Before Einstein (way before), we began calculating the orbits of the planets using Newtonian principles. We managed quite well - impressively well, even, but there was one major problem: Mercury just didn't fit. In other words, the orbit we observed was about 43 seconds longer than the calculations predicted. The calculations that DID work for other planets. They didn't work for Mercury. So scientists began thinking - perhaps there's another planet in a closer orbit to the sun. Its gravitation would 'shift' Mercury off its 'predicted' orbit and it would explain the missing 43 seconds. They called this planet "Vulcan". And they looked for it. A while. A long while, even. But it was nowhere to be found. Today we know there's no such planet. But we don't need it anymore. Newtonian physics explains many things, but it came short on this one. Until Einstein came along. General Relativity doesn't just explain the behaviour of Mercury better than Newtonian physics, it accurately predicts its motion, and best of all - calculations based on General Relativity yield *precisely* the missing 43 seconds. Brilliant. In one awesome theory we managed to explain the missing time and "weird" behaviour of Mercury. If you are not comfortable with all the other subjects that Relativity is crucial to, I think this is one story that shows why it's so critically important, and one of the simpler ways of seeing that we can't really manage without it. ~moo

Not without feeding the troll, which I will not do. To anyone else who cares, go read traveler's other bazillion posts. My only interest in answering to begin with was to try and make sure that this already-complicated subject is not used to convey nonphysical theories to people who are interested, and might be convinced by charismatic wordsalads.

Time is not motion. An object can stand still and time is still goin'. We know there are more effects than just the simplistic 'mass/distance/time'. We have proof for them, observations, mathematical equations, and extremely accurate predictions. "Distance is inevitable" is a meaningless statement. "Mass is inevitable" too. "Black holes are inevitable" (specifically in our universe). If you are considering taking this super simplistic "time/distance/mass" explanation for our universe, I would recommend reading a bit about Mercury and the "Vulcan story" (the "missing planet"). Other than being really interesting, and shows how proper predictions/failure-of-prediction/solution-to-failure-of-prediction/new-theory process is done in proper use of the scientific method, it also shows how impossible it is to explain the universe using Newtonian physics alone. Mercury's orbit was observed; we managed to explain the orbits of the other planets using mathematical computations and we tried doing the same with Mercury - but it failed. There was a "missing" time factor (I believe 43 seconds). Scientists postulated there might be another planet, closer to the sun, called "Vulcan", that can explain this discrepency. Such planet was proven to not exist. Then came Einstein. His theory not only explains Mercury's orbit perfectly, the mathematical computations result in PRECISELY the missing time that resulted by Newtonian physics alone. Yay for Einstein, and yay for us. The universe is proven to have much much more than just 'matter'/distance/time. I suggest we don't listen to random people and, instead, listen to the evidence. ~moo

Thanks, iNow, I tried, specifically since this -- -- bothered me deeply. gcol, reading your question, you seem to have a bit better general understanding of mass and energy than pioneer (your attempt to rephrase his ideas to better fit physics is quite commendable), please don't let his misunderstanding confuse you. ~moo

This is the weirdest wordsalad I've ever seen. Your idea initially might have some potential in it, if it was a bit more elaborated (what does it mean other than a nice presentation?), and then your second post is.. just.. a mixture of comparisons between incomparable extremes. Uh, you said in your first post that 0 dimentions is a point with no direction. Not only does a photon have direction, it's moving very quickly. According to your own definitions, that's supposed to be either 1 or 2 dimentions. Definitely not 0. Okay, hang on here. A photon does not have infinite mass. It has zero mass. Bsides, time seems to *slow down* as you approach the speed of light, but it still exists. Uh, so now you need to prove that a photon is created one way (in "zero" dimensions) and changes 'states'/'existences'/dimensions. What makes it change? As far as we can tell, the universe is *against* change. Things keep doing what they're doing until SOMETHING changes them. Light keeps going in a straight line forever until *something* moves it - like a large massive object. Things in the universe tend to stay as they are; if they're moving with a certain speed, their tendency is to KEEP that speed, unless something (some force) makes them change it. If an object is standing still, its tendency is to keep standing still until something (a force) makes it move. What caused your photon - first created with no direction or speed - to suddenly change its behaviour against everything we know in the universe? Again, lacking proof and basic explanations. First, speed is not frequency. If you claim otherwise, you need to be more specific. Second, if your photon acts against what we know everything ELSE acts (hence, it acts against the *known* rules of physics), you need to do quite a bit more than just a claim. You need to prove it. And explain why it is that photons are different than everything else. huh? Which is it? Zero or infinity? Or are you saying that there are two points, zero and infinity where this is happening? is that why you are using 'wave functions'? You need to explain this. And prove it. Wave function is mathematical. You need to supply mathematical proofs that support observations and evidence. Why? Err, that conclusion doesn't follow if you can't prove everything above and show it to be consistent with our observations of the Universe. ~moo

Eh, okay, there are a few inaccuracies in this explanation, and i'm not sure if you misunderstand physics or if you just didn't explain yourself correctly, but those inaccuracies are quite important. I'm assuming that by 'moves' you mean "changes state", but in any case that's completely inaccurate. Energy is conserved in a system, that's one of the laws of thermodynamics. That means that an object will not lose energy unless it has somewhere to transfer that energy to. For example: An object moving in circular motion, lacking any friction, would theoretically move like that forever, losing or gaining no energy. If there *is* friction (which is usually the case), then the kinetic energy is transferred out of the object and into the floor (or whatever it's moving in/on) in the form of, usually, heat. Energy doesn't *have* to change. In fact, it HAS to be conserved. If we have a "movement" of that energy (again, I think 'change of state' is more accurate, but that's not too bad), then it now exists in some other form. For sure. From kinetic it may have changed to heat, or from potential to kinetic, etc etc. But it doesn't just changes states on its own, and it does not do that all the time. That only happens because the object transforms its energy to the environment. For that matter, if you put that object inside a box that 'refuses' to accept the heat energy on itself, then the object will NOT cool down. That's the purpose of a thermos; to put the hot water in a place where the container 'refuses' to take the heat, therefore the heat stays in the water and the water's still hot after a long time. The only reason the water lose heat eventually is because the thermos is not perfect, it 'accepts' *some* of the excess energy (not a whole lot, and muuuuch much less than, say, air) and eventually the water cools. Absolutely not. Maybe you mean a black hole, "eating" other massive objects is gaining mass (which is true) but mass does not go away with movement, or gravity. Hit a pingpong ball in space and it will continue on forever (theoretically, if it doesn't 'encounter' other objects), with the same mass. The only way it will gain or lose mass is if particles actively hit it (or 'join' it). No. There's a RELATIONSHIP between mass and energy and the speed of light, but they are FAR from being equivalent. Think of the equation F=ma, for example. That equation "simply" defines the *relationship* between mass, acceleration and force applied. It means that when force is applied on a body, it will gain acceleration proportional to its mass. That above equation does NOT mean that force and mass are equivalent. It just defines a relationship between them. Same with E=mc^2. That equation defines the relationship between energy, mass and the speed of light. It basically states that the energy produced by whatever-reaction on the mass would be propotional with the speed of light. Think of a Nuclear bomb; tiny amount of matter creates HUGGGE explosion (lots of energy). But something needs to HAPPEN to that mass so it will explode and produce such energy, it doesn't "just happen" and it doesn't mean that they're both the same. In fact, the equation *shows* they're not the same. E=mc^2. If they were equivalent, it would've been E=m. ... ? What? Where? Energy has no direction, it's a scalar. "Interconvert"? That's the same as saying radius and energy can interconvert because I can represent them both in the same equation. It's not untrue, it's just not quite leading to the conclusion you have next: (ahem, photons are massless, hence they can move in the speed of light.) You will need to do a better job explaining this, along with some substantiation. I have no idea what you're trying to say, and it makes very little sense to me. Explain? (mass is not energy) Meh, wordsalad up to here. Mass is not energy, they're both different definnitions of DIFFERENT physical phenomena. Of course they have a relationship between them, we discovered this relationship and can explain things with it, but they are *NOT* the same, they are NOT equivalent. Everything you say seems to stem from mass being energy, and since that's not accurate, I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here. Are you saying mass has potential energy? that mass can be 'converted' to energy? maybe, but then that doesn't quite lead to what you're saying above... I am not sure if you just explained in a way that I didn't understand you, or if you just misrepresent mass and energy definitions. Either way, you need to explain yourself again and, I would recommend, use some substantiations this time. If you claim mass is equivalent to energy, for example, you need to supply the proof for it, since it's not quite as obvious as you seem to think it is. ~moo

I'm not sure I understand what you mean..?

well, same with the balloon in that aspect - the balloon itself "grows".. if you put it in a sealed box, the drawn dots won't move either, just like the raisin dough. It's not REALLY what's going on in the Universe, it's an analogy, YT. It's not very easy to think about the expansion of the universe, we're just trying to pick up the *closest* analogies so it will be easier. The point is that the "particles" themselves don't move. The space between them expands. It's not easy to think about space expanding (rather than particles moving), so we try to pick up analogies from things we do know to make it easier. Either think of it as a balloon or as a raisin dough, they're both similarly inaccurate, and yet similarly analogous enough to help us imagine it.

You could also think about it as a raisin bread. When you finish preparing the dough with all the raisins inside, you let it rise in the fridge. As you do, the dough itself rises and the raisins "move away" from one another, but they don't actually move -- the space between them expands.

We define life as we go along, we can't define life as something we haven't met,seen or heard of yet, that would be quite impossible, if not completely besides the point. If one day we see a lifeform that isn't made of matter - let's say, it's a perfectly spherical "something" (ahem, Crichton, ahem) - we might change our definition. So far, all lifeforms we know of and seen and can think of in terms of our reality are made of matter. We have no reason to think otherwise, so far. The "non matter" life forms are, currently, immaterial. It's pointless to change the definition to include them. Think about it this way: Why did Pluto stop being a planet? Because it changed? No. It hasn't. We defined a planet a certain way and that definition included pluto. But then we found other celestial bodies that are, by that definition, planets. They are as big, as massive (some bigger even), they have the same orbit, the same behavior, they are almost indistinguishable from Pluto. Not just one, dozens. Hundreds, even. So the additional information *forced us* to change our definition; we either accept the fact that we have dozens (or hundreds) of planets in our solar system, and treat them as planets (eeek) *or* we change the definition of a Planet, and invent a new definition - planetoid. and another: Plutoid. Our definitions are OUR definitions. We don't create nature or change nature by our definitions, we just use them to describe nature. The more we discover, the more elaborate they are, and sometimes there's enough reason to change them. Going - from the beginning - with an overly generalized definition, just for the chance of, perhaps, one day, discovering something completely and utterly unlike our current definition - makes that definition USELESS, because you no longer have a name for something specific, but rather something so vague and generalized there's no point in using it anymore to describe the things we do know.

That's not logic... All life is made of matter and all matter is made of atoms. BUT - what makes life life? if it's the GENERAL SYSTEM -- hence, the reactions between the atoms and their sub particles that is responsible for the EXISTENCE of life, it's what CAUSES the effect of "life" then your logic fails. For that matter, if all computers are made of matter and matter is made of atoms and atoms have electrons, could I one day play Donkey Kong with an electron? The fact that big systems are made of small particles doesn't mean that the small particles exhibit the same properties of the big systems they compose. ~moo

Okay we got the exams back, so I'm going over them AND what you wrote here (I tried reading about this more and doing some preparation excercises to get the hang of it). Just a bit of news (I started laughing in class, seriously) - I got 22 out of 30. One of the higher grades in class. The average was close to 13... I should stop getting ready for exams Thanks for the help btw, it really did help, I just had no time responding yet. THANKS!