mooeypoo

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/03/21/shroud-turin.html ... interesting... but worse, I bet this will raise the issue (AGAIN) to the creationists (oh, sorry, "Intelligent Design") heads. What are your thoughts about this?

TheAmazingAtheist, on YouTube, recently made a VERY good video about this. And while I don't always agree with his views, he is very smart, and makes quite good points. So.. here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQHG9VSA-tA I am not too well versed in American politics, but TheAmazingAtheist makes good points about Obama and this pastor person. Guilt by association is ... well... understandable in politics, but not always the wise thing. In any case, I just thought you might appreciate his input, he's pretty good. ~moo

I can't find references now, but there's a sort of frog that freezes itself completely in winter and gets thawed up in spring, regularly, and is alive. How would we define that, too? You don't have to go to stem cells (which are also 'separated' from the host body so the question of life is even more complicated) -- what about that frog? Those are.. good questions.. I am not sure we can answer them without going into philosophy, or fixing the current definition of what is life.... ~moo EDIT: Found something: http://axiomsun.com/home/video/frog_reborn_after_freezing_itself_for_the_winter.html

Actually, this is a great philosophical question... I am not sure all life try to understand what it is to be alive. At least as far as we know from the limited experiments we were able to conduct (and I am talking out of my *** on this one in respect to proof, these are just things I've *heard about*.. take it with limited 'trust') -- no other animal is curious about these things. In other words, I am not sure that is good to 'define' (or support even) the definition of life. It might support our definition of *intelligent* life, or "advanced" life.. but I am not sure cocroaches (which are alive), or fish, or amoeba, or dogs for that matter, are curious about their meaning of life. But it's also a bit separate from the discussion, I think. It might be a good topic to talk about in another thread.

You're correct, I allowed my own personal opinion to affect my phrasing However, I am not sure the parts of "government vs woman" was a part of this specific discussion.. I think the OP was meant as a more philosophical one (though, i must admit, it seems to original poster directed towards that controversial subject). But still, I think that we should separate the two issues -- the philosophical/biological question and the legal/social/women-rights one.

Actually, I think there is a condition for the living that results from the same mechanism.. It affects mostly the elderly or chronically ill -- people who spend the vast majority of their "time" lying in bed. I don't know what it's called but I remember seeing something about this in some science TV show... According to what I remember, people who are sick and in bed for long times sometimes get "blue spots" on their backs and bottoms because the fact that their body is horizontal 'screws up' the blood flow (the body is "used" to be standing up). I'm not sure about any of this, but it may shed light on what happens when the person is dead. However, the fact that the heart stops beating and that the blood, at some point, starts solidifying, probably has influence on the dead rather than the living If any Doc here knows what I'm referring to, I would love to know what it's called.. it's quite interesting ~moo

(emphasis not in original) That would make any decently-programmed A.I alive as well. (actually, by this definition, I could count a few good computer viruses too that fit that) Who calls that life? I've never heard of involution in context of scientific description of Evolution' date=' or the evolutionary process. I know about it (in general, I suck at math) in context of mathematics (like here) and heard about it in terms of spirituality (and the development of 'consciousness' as a whole - the abstract concept of consciousness, as opposed to the individual life-form 'consciousness'), but never in relation to what life is biologically or even philosophically. Expand on this? I don't quite understand how evolution/involution by your terms defines a valid life form.

Nice but .. that doesn't answer the question. When does *life* *start* ? According to your description, it never ends, which is nice philosophically, but relates more to the "cycle of life" as an abstract. The question in this thread was quite specific -- when does life *start*. I believe it was also relating more to the human form. As in, when does a fetus become life (or.. a combination of sperm and egg).

Hot and gooey...

I don't see an FTP option there (or any way of uploading your own files).. if they create it for you, does it work for learning HTML ?

Yeah it was actually supposed to be a long chocolate bar, but after I bought it I noticed that inside was just a row of individual 'drops' ah well.

Be careful about the time, btw.. too much and the chocolate conducts heat pretty well... the experiment goes to waste (if not the chocolate )

Well, I posted another video with Duckies, baths and the Doppler Effect. Hope you like it... http://www.smarterthanthat.com/experiments/doppler-effect-experiment/

Hey, uhm, I don't wanna sound like a hoarder a**, but.. uhm.. it would really mean a lot to me if whoever likes it diggs it (there's a button). I would love to transform this to a widely viewed thing, so that I could pitch this method to schools in my area. Science education isn't all that good (as we all know), and I would *LOVE* to make a difference. Thanks for the comments, btw I hope I won't dissapoint in my next vid (comin up comin up! wooh) ~moo

Hey guys I recently posted a video on YouTube of me doing an experiment with the speed of light. I was actually #10 most watched *and* top rated for 24 hours, and am currently #33 top rated for the week. I think it's awesome that people get interested in science like that, so I figured I should do more (plus I had so much fun!). Here's the video along with a short blog post I wrote to accompany it (it has some factors I thought might be interesting to add to the relatively short video): http://www.smarterthanthat.com/experiments/measuring-the-speed-of-light/'>http://www.smarterthanthat.com/experiments/measuring-the-speed-of-light/ So, I'd love to hear your opinions, but on top of that, since people were quite happy with the idea, I thought I'd start doing this more often. And I'm looking for more cool scientific experiments that will help people understand scientific concepts in a fun and exciting way. I also openned up this address: http://www.smarterthanthat.com with the 'slogan' "Project: SmarterThanThat, because we really are if we think about it", and I *hope* that I can make people think about things and perhaps help in the alarming rate of scientific illiteracy. Any thoughts? Any ideas? Any more science experiments you could think of? I have a few but.. always looking for more ideas Thanks ~moo

wow, okay, first off, back up. I didn't mean any disrespect. My "thanks for the data" was an actual thank-you for the data. My remark that this is a theoretical data was an observation about this SPECIFIC paper, and my note that I will follow up on it was a true statement that when I have a bit more time I will look up more data. I am sometimes cynical, but not always.. I'll try to be more specific in my non-intention-to-be-cynical in the future... sorry. ~moo

What is 'vibratory state'? If something is vibrating, it's moving, by definition.......

I don't know any *free* hosting service that has no ads at all. There are a few that have small ones, or text ads, or that require you to put a link on the bottom/top yourself so you can control how it looks, but I never heard of any "charity" provider that gives you hosting for free but doesn't expect to earn money in return btw, googlepages isn't bad as well. http://pages.google.com/ It doesn't allow ftp upload, but you can edit your HTML files online (copy/paste what you have maybe?) ~moo

... oh RIIIIGHT they share hypothenuses.. (hypotheni?) JEESH! I was trying to find anything that is similar between them (I actually calculated that angle you were talking about 30-19.47 but had no idea where to go from there) I feel dumb now Thanks ~moo

But then, why is it all-dark at the end of the month..? The way I thought about it, I was sure that the effect in a full eclipse SHOULD be the same as in that time in month when the moon is fully out of the sun's light (in our direction). This question goes for you, too, swansont - I know that in sunsets the sun is red, but lunar eclipse *should* be different -- in a sunset there still *is* light visible, it is just being bent. In a total eclipse, there should be no light from the sun at all, from the position of the earth.. No? ~moo

Hey guys, In a lunar eclipse the moon dissappears as it goes through the umbra, but when it is completely inside, it turns red. I am not sure why... Lunar eclipse happens when the earth is between the moon and the sun. Technically, shouldn't the moon completely "disappear" (be blackenned out)? Why is it red...? Thanks in advance ~moo

Hey guys, I have a hw question I am stumped on, and I need help. I did most of it, so I'm going to post the question and what I did do; my problem is the last part of finding "d". The Question: When the light illustrated in the figure passes through the glass block, it is shifted laterally by the distance d. Taking n=1.50, find the value of d. Illustration: ((i have a few problems for some reason... if it doesn't load, the illustration is here)) My partial solution: n1*sin(theta1)=n2*sin(\theta2) n1=1.000 (in air) n2=1.5 (given) so: sin(theta2)=sin(30)/1.5 theta2=19.47 deg theta3 (emerging) is 30 degrees again (the same formula reversed). I calculated the distance I called "X" (bottom of the triangle inside the glass box) -> x= 2.00cm * tan(19.47) = 0.707 cm .... but now what? I tried rotating the triangles, putting them one next to the other, switching, flipping.... bah. How do I find d ?? Thanks in advance, ~moo (p.s: I *tried* using LaTeX but I failed miserably... all the help I found was results, not 'how tos' so... if you post a LaTeX version of the answer, I'd appreciate a short example of what command u did before that).

Your cynicism is great but I didn't mean SkepticsGuide literature.. Though I do double check my findings, I also take my sources with respect to their agenda. I must say, though, that Skeptical-minded "agendas" resources are ranked higher in my book than commercial-minded agendas. Regardless, PubMed is neither, and is ranked higher than both. And lastly, here's the quote from PubMed (lucaspa's link): This is a *study*, in theoretical applications. I .. have to say I am not sure I see any kind of proof that there actually is any effect on the bones; they are conducting an experiment based on the effect electromagnets do have on molecules. From the resources I have read (no, not just "SkepticsGuide" ), that's the entire "problem" -- that though electromagnets have an effect on molecules, their overall effect on the human body is negligeable. But thanks for the resource, I will follow up on this. ~moo

You get some new action-filled hollywood movies?

Not sure if you found this but I thought this was interesting, and fitting to the debate: