mooeypoo

Good point. But I think he said it worked with XP..? Good thing to check though... ~moo

Proof? as far as I'm concerned, thoughts are the product of electrical currents through our brains. That means that their 'objectiveness' isn't as much physical (hence, the 'observer effect') but rather objective in the interpretational sense - hence, your brain interprets the signals objectively. The current science supports my hypothesis (you see these differences in a plain CT, through different "stimuli") Thoughts seem to be a physical-biological response. How does it support yours? Your hypothesis seems to require that thoughts are external to the brain, hence that something exists EXTERNAL to our physiology. So to speak. I don't see that being proven in observation or any other way, specifically not in this thread. So. Proof?

Excuse me. Didn't we talk about this before? The same theory, the same problems with math, the same logical errors... Did you start a new thread because you couldn't handle the questions in the other thread, or because you forgot about the answers and questions in the other thread? How many times, I wonder, should I remind you to read the rules? It is getting quite tedious, though somewhat adventurous at the same time. Like hitting the buzzer on jeopardy. At this point, I might just win the jackpot. ... and yet I am not sure if that's a good thing, or just extremely disturbing. Opening many threads on the same (or, relatively the same-, or continuing the same-, or pretending to start a new and yet the same-) theory/idea/math-based-blabber was, is (and will still be when you do it next) - against the rules. Bzzzzzz. Read the rules. ~moo

.... what? I'm sorry, I don't understand your question. Space is spacetime. When speaking of "fabric", it is a simplification of the idea that space is "space-time". You can't speak of mass and speed without its relation to time. That's the way it works in space. As for 'independent' of energy matter.. I don't quite understand what you are asking. If you speak of "Physical form", it *is* energy/matter... or.. what, exactly, are you referring to ? Wrong. You warp space itself. If space "stretches" (extreme speeds, etc), it's not the matter that stretches, it's the SPACE-TIME that stretches. That's why you have all those funky phenomena with dilation of time and the likes. No, time is a word we invented to describe the phenomena we are affected by. When we describe space we use the dimension of time, not the other way around. Hence, we don't describe time by space, but rather define space by time. .... first, do some reading. There's absolutely no problems defining that "behaviour" physically. It's observed, it's explained quite well with the EXISTING theories. Second, I don't quite understand what you mean by explaining without any mathematical references. That's like asking that you explain what a fruit is without using food references. It makes no sense. Physics and math are interlaced. They are related. And for your theory to be valid, it should first be explained properly (it makes no sense now), and then supported by evidence and observation, and then supported by math. That's the way it works. Explaining the behavior of a planet without referring to math is possible, but it's lacking. I would, for example, tell my 4 year old niece that mercury is pulled by the sun like a rock that's tied to a string and rotated above your head. I wouldn't get into the more accurate information, or to math, but that doesn't mean they dont' exist, or that my (quite shallow) explanation is, by any means, sufficient to anyone over 12 years old. You have a long way to go before that happens. Theories become mainstream because they are supported by facts, explain new data and make predictions. Yours.. well... you have a long way to go. How can we take this seriously if it's not? I didn't say that, don't strawman my position to make it easier to answer me. I said they're RELATED. Where does such element/matter/"thing" exist? As far as I am aware of, such thing doesn't exist. Please give an example of anything like this is you know otherwise. On top of that, even if such a matter exists, it doesn't change the fact that time is related to space. Movement is defined by time AND space combined. So is speed. So is rotation. Etc etc. The fact something doesn't move doesn't mean time doesn't exist, or affect it. It means it doesn't move in relation to time. That's how we define movement. Movement = changing of position in relation to time. Non Movement = *not* changing the position in relation to time. .. time's still there. Time doesn't provoke movement. time is a dimension that is (at least to us) uncontrolled. (for now? maybe. but even if it will be, it's not YET controlled). It's like saying that you have a flat circle, and you introduce the third dimension to provoke a sphere. It makes no sense. It's not time alone. Stop making strawmen on this. It's NOT what I said. Yea, I am not online 24/7. Stop degrading this into a personal "I win!" bash. This isn't about whose ego is bigger or who is faster to type. It's about whether or not your theory is valid. Far .. far far... faaaaaaaaaar from it. If you want to have your theory join science, you need to use scientific language (and MEANS) to prove it. Proving it does not mean absolute truth to the theory. It can, simply, means showing us that it is supported enough to be plausible, explains more than the current theories, and makes valid predictions. And also, you need to give something that will disprove it if happening, otherwise it's not scientific either. Up until now, you seem to just repeat a non-physical mantra that depends on your idea of physics rather than what physics truly says. In some circles that is called a strawman. In others, bad science. Either way, it's unacceptable for a valid theory. ~moo

I think part of the problem is that you ignore the idea that space is not JUST space, it's Space-Time (linked, combined, working-together, however you want to put it). The geometry you give seem to be a very VERY simplified idea of geometry, so no wonder the current theories don't fit it. If you read a bit further into it, though, you will see that there is absolutely no problems "fitting" Einstein's theories to a working (proven!) model - geometric or "just" physical. The reason we state this as speculative is because it's not (perhaps 'yet', but still isn't) proven, or based on factual data, or is mainstream science. When it is, then we will discuss it in the physics forum, or whatever other science-forum it belongs to. Your idea is interesting, but it has absolutely no factual basis, or observational structure at all. It isn't even a theory, it's a statement. Putting it in the speculation forum isn't necessarily meant to "demote" the subject, it's meant to show that it isn't yet a full fledged theory, and is the best place to try and make it into one. But you have to start with the basics: Proof. ~moo

Yeah the new HardyHarHar Ubutu version (i love you ecoli!) is REALLY simple, you don't even have to mess with the partitions, you just tell it if you want the entire computer or a dual boot and it does everything for you. I think it took me about an hour to set it all up including messing around with the terminal a bit to understand how apt-install works. It's VERY simple. Of course... I can't guarantee that weird errors won't appear.. that can happen in any OS, though. ~moo

Hey guys, I'm usually against supplements. From what i could check through (limited) research, most of what I checked were either unnecessary or actually bad for you. However, I've been having slight digestion problems (..err) lately, and a friend of mine suggested I use a natural Fiber Supplement. It's called: Benefiber. I tried to research it online (I don't just 'take stuff' without check, or medical advice, and some of those supplements, i've heard, need doctor's review, so I am skeptical) -- but i couldnt' find anything BAD with it. Only neutral or good reviews. So... does anyone know anything about it? Is it okay to take a Fiber supplement, considering the fact my diet isn't very good on that aspect (I'm a full-time employee while studying a degree in college... i'm trying, but I have very bad eating times that i am having troubles changing). Anyone? Thankyouuu ~moo no help? anyone? I don't want to take something that's bad for me... and yet, if this can help, it's good.. <sobs> help!

I can't help you with the old laptop problem, sadly, BUT If you're worried about compatibility issues (there are issues, indeed, though not all that many) - do like me: A Dual-boot computer. I have both Ubuntu and Windows XP on my machine, and when I reboot, I can choose which to load. I usually work with ubuntu, and only when i need something I turn to windows XP. That's relatively safe There is a slight issue -- XP doesn't read the ubuntu file system very well (I think there is a fix to that, but not sure) -- in any case, I just save all files either on the XP-based partition, or on my external drive. Had no problems with internet after installing from the LiveCD btw.. the livecd is not fully custom to your own pc, so having problems with drivers isn't surprising. Anyhoo, good luck ~moo

Based on the evidence of you not having any evidence. based, also, on the fact that this is *NOT* mainstream science. Perhaps it will be in the future, but if you think it should, you should first supply evidence of the validity of your theory. And lots of it, judging from the claims you're making. ~moo

Hm, funny.. at my barbicues it's usually the other way around.

For anyone who has any interest in science and may be reading this: Without citations, scientific wording, or even english for that matter, a theory is invalid. Just in case someone considers discarding planck's constant for real: Don't. Read about it, at least, first. Reported, btw. Duh. ~moo

Is that even English? DavyJonesLoquet, let me give you a piece of advice: We don't quite accept know-it-alls-with-no-proof-and-bad-science theories, not in this forum, or the biology forum, or the speculations forum for that matter. Cite your words, and do speak English. And.. read the rules. ~moo

The fact you can type an answer does not necessarily means you should. In other words: Stop hijacking threads, and stick to the speculation forums. ~moo

I wouldn't take that as much of an 'excuse' though, Phi.. there are many things no other animal is eating other than us, that are not bad (and even good) for us. Cooked meat is one example. I'm sure there's many. And there are enough countries that don't have the same capitalistic-forces that exist in America to may cause this extra-commercial-despite-health craze that do endorse milk. I don't think milk is BAD for us, I am just not sure how good it is... I'm going to continue drinking it (of course in moderation, as anything) but also going to still look for scientific evidence either way.

Yeah, that's why I'm trying my luck here.. I couldn't find anything substantial enough to base a conclusion on. And I love milk too much to give it up on the base of some paranoid groups of people with an addition of 'healthnoia'.

Hi I'm not sure I'm in the right forum for this (perhaps the biology forum would've been better?) but it seems like there are a few discussions here about what is and isn't good for our health, so, here goes: I've been drinking milk regularly since I was a little girl. I Loooooove milk, I used to drink about 2-3 glasses (more or less) a day, sometimes more. Lately, I drink less (specifically since I don't quite like the milk in America, it tastes a bit 'plasticky' to me, but it's a matter of preference I guess). Recently, I poured myself a glass of milk at work and a friend of mine looked at me and exclaimed that milk is NOT actually healthy for us humans, that the 'fact' that it has nutrients is no longer true because of the processing it goes through, and whatever calcium is in it is not absorbed by our bodies because there is something in the milk that stops it from being absored correctly. Which leaves only the fat, and milk is very fatty, so it's not very good for us. I am not sure how it goes in America (if the claims about too-much-processing are exaggerations or not) but I do know that in Israel, because we are MUCH smaller, and have less need for preservatives, and have one of the best dairy technology and we do not use hormones or pesticides or anything like that in our cow-food, etc, the milk is relatively natural. It's watered-down, of course, and is pasturized, but nothing too bad after that. So I have two questions: (1) Ignoring whatever other stuff might be put into the milk in the massive commercial production it undergoes before reaching the store shelves: Is milk good for the human body? (2) Now, considering the commercial production, and whatever is inserted into it (I doubt it's poisonous, but i don't know enough to state anything about this..) -- is it *still* healthy? So, in short: Should I still be drinking milk, and if so, how much is too much, and if not, how can I kill myself right now? p.s: I am assuming there is a difference between Cow milk and other types of milk (like goat,etc) -- for this discussion, I'm assuming "milk" is the commercially-available, socially-acceptable "normal" milk, which is cow milk. ~moo

Actually, the commandment states that you shouldn't do any WORK. I can see how they consider that work... but that's also why I said that the discussion of who is and who isn't a jew is done by philosophers in the SECULAR community. I don't quite care (or, shall I say, I care LESS) about people who read the bible as they please. The problem I have with the religious jews is that they seem to monopolize judaism, and here it becomes MY problem. I consider myself jewish by culture. The monopoly over who is and isn't jewish is NOT theirs. It is also why I have no trouble at ALL reading and analyzing the bible. For me, it's a cultural archaic manuscript. Not to be taken literally, but interesting just like any other mythological book, and more so for me because of my culture. Religious folk claim I don't know what I'm talking about. I claim they don't own Judaism. I am not the only one. That's my point I don't argue whether they are or aren't jewish, I argue that their opinion is not necessarily the one that COUNTS. Not for the culture, and not for the laws of the state. that's where, in my opinion, the battle lies. And it's also why this question isn't as simple as a lot claim (or think) it is. I personally think that the mere discussion is a good thing.. philosophy was always a nurtured side of judaism, and the fact there is a growing movement in the culture that tries to redefine and refine the meaning of cultural jews according to modern times is beautiful imho. I am not religious, and yet I am jewish. The monopoly over judaism has LOOONNNGGGG passed from the hands of the orthodox, no matter which "denomination" they belong to. Now we just need to convince those who change the laws of the STATE of Israel to follow suit. I think the battle, so far, is taking encouraging turns (like the gay rights rules and supreme court decisions about marriages), but it's far from over. ~moo Edit: We're not arguing, we're discussing, I actually find it very interesting. But now I need to sleep laila tov.

Again, this is a RELIGION problem. Setting aside the controversial (and, in my opinion, sad) fact that some of the rules in Israel are still following *one* of the denominations (and are religious. Mark: NOT ALL LAWS.. it's not a religious state per se..), if you don't care about what they accept as a denomination, then it doesn't quite matter what they think. The argument over the israeli laws is a legal problem that the civilians in israel are fighting against. The fact that Gay Marriage is now accepted legally is a step forward (huge!). The fact you can bypass those religiously-supported dumb rules by state-solutions (like getting married beyond the border and coming back to a whatever-religious-ceremony-you-choose) is another step. It's not a lost battle, it's just not over yet. I wouldn't say it defines judaism, though. It's an entirely different problem or defining what the State of Israel is, not quite what Judaism is. And the subject is much more complicated, too. A lot of the immigrants from the former soviet union in the latest immigration just "claimed" to be jewish while they're utterly not (even if their parents were). There are lots ofproblems with that, too, specifically due to some antisemetic events happening from some of that same community lately. So.. it's more complicated that that, but I would separate the two issues of defining what and who is jewish and defining what the state of israel should and shouldn't follow or accept. ~moo

That, however, is driven by religion, not by culture. Religion is similar everywhere, sadly, as a concept of "I'm right and all who disagree are wrong!" But I must say, in Jewish *RELIGION* the "concept" of who is jewish is quite more clear cut. It is the secular jews that try to philosophize about it and evolve the archaic terms into a more pluralistic culture that (we hope) we evolved into. In religion, for example, the rule is that if your mother is Jewish, you are jewish. you may be "bad" jew if you don't follow God's commands, but you are still jewish. Ask any rabbi the "trouble" starts when seculars start wondering what would happen to a child that is raised by the cultural jewish mentality, in a "jewish home" so-to-speak, but his father is jewish and his mother isn't. Or neither of his parents are, just their grandparents, or somethign like that. That's where the discussions arise. And since there is a VERY large majority of secular jews nowadays, the discussion goes on to MUCH MUCH more than just the religion part of it. Orthodox jews consider reform jews as jewish, just not GOOD jews (hence, they don't think they 'obey god's laws as they should' or whatever. The difference in that aspect is that even religious jews don't consider judaism as purely a religion. That, if nothing else, is interesting by itself, imho. Of course... I disagree with it.. but it's still interesting. ~moo

I guess so, indeed, though there is some collective base-culture to all of them that unite all cultural jews to one general culture, I'd say. Many of the holidays are celebrated slightly differently, but with teh same "spirit" to them, as reflected by both stories, folklore and shared (and unique) histories. But yeah, it's true, like any other culture and peoples, we are diverse. I must say, btw, the discussion of what constitutes a Jew is not limited to just this forum Jewish organizations host Scolars to debate this question philosophically. Over the years the global "term" "Jew" has 'evolved' and changed, and there are lots of philosophical arguments about who is and who isn't jewish even within the Jewish community/culture/religion/people. BTW, ecoli - Happy Shavu'ot. ~moo

Actually, this thread was supposed to discuss where (if) space ends, not what was before or during the Big Bang. And the point I was trying to make is that this speculation (!) is *one* out of an existing some. It's not obvious, and it's not the only one. And you still need to give references and basis for your claims to make them valid. This, for instance: Makes no sense, whether it is because of our limited minds or not. We (humans) created the word "TIME" to describe a phenomenon by which we perceive things. We do not entirely perceive time (like we do the other three dimensions) - we are AFFECTED by time. The word itself is our creation. I see what you mean, but you can't use "before", not even as a broad sense, because it is senseless by definition. We have limited brains and limited definitions. Example: The question "Where is nowhere?" is moot. The word nowhere means that it is no where. No matter how broad or thin I propose this question to be, it is still, and probably always will be, illogical. ~moo

How I love that word; "Obviously". Since the multiverse is unproven, it is, obviously, not obviously anything. We have hypotheses on its existence, not obviousness. Obviously the word obviously doesn't fit here. On top of that, even if we ignore the 'obviously' in here, you need to base your claim on a LOT more than your own obvious opinion on it. Who claims that the "branes in the multiverse obviously exist in the absence of space-time"? What is it supported on? What predictions can you make that prove - or at the very least support - this hypothesis? It is quite meaningless without these. The 'common' theory is that space-time is a "connected" term. Therefore, not just "space" was created, but Space-Time. the word "Before" is related to time, whether it is "broad" or "thin" definition, it doesn't matter. Before is still a definition relating to time. Time does not exist, did not exist, will-not-have-had-existed prior to the big bang. By definition. This argument is moot. You're arguing definitions. If your argument is speculative and opinionated, I suggest we move this thread to the speculation thread, where you can hypothesize and opinionate on "Obviously" obvious things with much less opposition. But with, still, requirements for citation and proof for basis. Obviously. ~moo

Actually, Phi, Judaism is a culture, not just a religion. I am an atheistic Jew - I feel culturally connected to the history and cultural habits of my people, but do not follow the religious belief. Like me there are many many more. Not that it has anything to do with stupid people making stupid racist claims. I just wanted to make that point That said, I can't believe you guys are continuing this thread after mister wobblehead is banned ~moo

<antimatter> but I just like Kevin Spacey <antimatter> he's my favorite actor <iNow> is that like the Liger being a favorite animal? <antimatter> ... On YDOAPS.... Well, theres a limit to how much I'm willing to compromise.

Alright, my attempt, at least the three I must must nominate (I may add the missing ones later... sorry mods...): 1. iNow 2. insane_alien 3. 4. Edtharan 5. yourdadonapogos 6. G'luck everyone ~moo