mooeypoo

Hi guys, I add this here because this is relevant to all scientific aspects.. hope I'm in the right place. I had an idea: How about creating a site 'wikistyle' (or the likes) that contains simple and advanced scientific experiments anyone can do. We can have easy experiments meant for kids, or more advanced experience for the purpose of understanding a subject (woelen has a GREAT site with experiments he made!! go woelen), or explaining past-experiments for everyone to learn and try for themselves some of the ways scientists made new discoveries. I was thinking (and this is just a basic thought, you guys are more than welcomed to add/change/suggest things) of a general structure, something like this: Simple Experiments with Household Items Experiments you can do with either chemistry, engineering, physics or whatever, and will be devided to "fit-for-kids" or not, and "for-the-lamens" and such, or "for the experienced experimentor" for more sophisticated experiments. Experiments after well known past discoveries This can be used to explain how discoveries were made. For instance, in this section we can have a "how to build a simple telescope", and in this section we can also explain that Galileo Galilei, using the same type of telescope, found moons around Jupiter and used that to claim that not all revolves around the earth, and start his famous theories. Advanced Experiments These will be for people who don't fully understand, or believe, one thing or another, OR for users who actually experimented something (woelen, you rock, man) and want to share their results. For instance, woelen's experiment with lightning-hitting-water helped me greatly to understand how the phenomena can happen, and such. OBVIOUSLY we will add a warning section to each experiment, and we can also explain what stands behind those experiments, the history behind discoveries made by those and such. It can be physics, astronomy, engineering, chemistry -- the works! I've seen many people experimenting with really cool stuff in the forums, but it's not bundled up and if you are looking for a cool experiment or a cool thing to build, you have to spend time looking for a SPECIFIC subject. This site can also have a search that allows parents (or geeks like me) to search by "amount of time needed", or "materials needed" or "difficulty level" or by subject; like, if, say, oh, I dont understand how lightnings WORK, I go to lightnings, and see woelen's experiment and the coin drop and suddently i get it.... (yes, I just re-visited the thread where woelen shares his lightning experiment, and the pictures rock, and i finally understood lightning-in-water, and i am in awe. I had to praise a bit, even if only to prove to everyone that I can - really! - say a good word, every now and then ) What do you guys think? Can we do this? Do you think it will be worthwhile to take the effort? You think people would be interrested in such a thing, or am I the only one? I'd love to hear responses on the matter!! ~moo

I agree completely with every word you said, AzurePhoenix! That said, I have to add something: Over the fact that we seem to be destroying the environment rapidly and therefore killing many species, we seem to be forgetting (the human race, I mean) one very important thing: Nature requires balance, and when we tip this balance by rapidly changing the face of our planet we are, in fact, killing ourselves. And that was also my point in the question of this thread. It's a lot worse than the instinction of animals, it's the possible route for instinction for the human race. If you change your invironment too quickly for your own evolutionary process, you will end up existing in an environment that doesn't support you, and you will die. It's not only about dodos anymore, it's about us. ~moo

I thought you were against "well known facts".. It is a well known fact in places that circumcision is done, that you are wrong. Arguing "well known facts" is moot. There are no facts on the matter, since - again - it is a subjective experience. I understand what you are saying, having heard that many times before, and I don't disagree with it, I am simply saying that factually, men that underwent this procedure --- even men that did that in a later age, so they have ways to compare it -- don't suffer great differences. The same things you bring, I can also tell you that it is known (and I stress "known", not fact, since I am at the moment with lack of time to search the facts.. so don't concider this a fact, like many of the other debate points we have here, for the sake of fairness), that the removal of the foreskin can prevent health issues later in life. I actually did have some sites explaining this, but at the moment I must run to save my roomate from getting lost in New York (good title for a movie so this will have to wait.. I promise I will post my resources though, asap. My point, however, is that it is hard arguing on the practical "damage" of circumcision. The bigger debate is the ethics behind it. Whether a baby should undergo the procedue if he has no way of concenting to it. If you speak to adults that did this procedure - whether by choice or by necessity - you should have no ethical problem, or any other for that matter, since they knew the "risks/rumors/known-facts" on the matter, and decided to do it regardless. And again - sexual experience is subjective. Smoking gets a man to feel orgasm less powerfully too, and pollution has the same effect, and stressful life same and so on and so forth. It's hard to compare sexual experiences with men with and without their foreskin, since many other aspects affect this experience. And your last paragraph - which i completely agree with - is exactly the reason why I think the discussion on "sexual experience" is a redundant irrelevancy here. ~moo

That would be something... I actually doubt they will, to prevent panic. But still, I am trying to think realistically: We said up until now two important aspects. 1. Big meteors that can cause great damage to the planet are "on target" as we speak. Far away, but on target nontheless. 2. We have great difficulties tracking and finding these objects, and we find them at the "last moment". Those two combined: Do we have a chance?? by the time we find them, will we have enough time to divert them? ~moo

Oh, another thing. I take the time to answer your claims, sir, I would expect you give me as much respect as I give you. I disagree with you, but I answer to the best of my ability, and try to explain myself. Don't throw a "yes" empty answer into the air, or a claim that "there are evidence that prove you wrong" without giving any. It's childish and inappropriate for a debate. You have a claim? explain it, don't just throw it into the air and expect me to accept it. Have some degree of debate respect, please. ~moo

Do provide it. That, actually, explains everything. Well I did too: I had a boyfriend who underwent the procedure late in life. He actually claims he feels a lot BETTER in sex. What do you say about that? He's lying? Sexual experience is SUBJECTIVE. Comparing those, when science failed to prove either way (and theres a reason why, clearly) is absurd. Let's get back into the topic of ethics, it was a much better and beneficial and good discussion when we dealt with ethical comparisons than with subjective treatment to sexual experiences. ~moo

I meant is it feasible in practice.. it takes time for something to reach far objects. For instance, I know it takes a few days for a rocket to reach the moon -- so will we have enough TIME to do that? ~moo

Did you check it? Did you have sex with a great partner WITH your penis tip, cut it off and tried without it? That would be the only way to prove your point. See, I lived my life in the jewish state of Israel. MOST of the men here have had that procedure done, either at birth or at a later age (by choice!). Also, check out sites that deal with statistics, because researches WERE done on the matter, and found that it is not true; circumcision and the lack of one is NOT changing (either way) the sexual experience. Both type of men (with and without their penis tip) enjoy sex the same way. Here, a nice site I found in only 2 seconds of google searching: http://www.nocirc.org/ If you claim I don't know what I'm talking about, do yourself a favour and check if YOU know what you're talking about first. But I agree that this subject is not completely in agreement in the scientific arena, however, it is a fact (FACCTTTTT) that it doesn't HURT the sexual experience. At worst, (and I doubt that, but still) a man with his penis "whole" is having 100% enjoyment while a man with a circumcision has 97% enjoyment. So big friggin what. They both ejaculate at the end, and I can ASSURE YOU that circumcised men enjoy, search, and try to have sex as MUCH as men with their penis "intact". I actually did have the experience with both types, and I can promise you I got no complaints from circumcised men. None. ~moo

Actually, it would not. It would be more like piercing your ear. As a chick who actually have 98% of her male friends HAVING GONE THROUGH this procedure, spoken to them (with and without joking around), I can tell you that your comparison is extremely flawed. Here's a few reasons why this is a wrong comparison: 1. Taking a breast off is painful not only at the instant of the act, but for a long long time after that, having your tissue heal. Circumcision is only painful at the instant done, and speaking with a few friends who undergone that procedure while being adults, it's also not as painful as anyone would imagine. 2. Cutting a breast off is NOTABLE-- you SEE when a woman has a missing breast even before speaking to her. Cutting the tip of a man's penis is something you don't see straight away, so it doesn't have a visible mutilative sign to it socially. 3. Breasts are vital organs for women in terms of childbearing. They have a clear purpose: breastfeeding. Taking one off will hurt that, while the circumcision hurts no processes or purposes. So it's a wrong comparison. I can understand people not wanting to have it, and I can also understand the discussion on its ethics. I have a view on the matter, obviously, but I can see why people find it unethical. However, it is not as BAD of a procedure as you make it sound by comparing it to these things.. and it is very important for me to stress it STRONGLY. Circumcision sounds more horrible than it is, because men - having a well known phallic syndrom - tend to be scared shitless of anything touching their beloved organ. It's understandable, and hence the discussion on its ethics is understood, but please put things into proportion. We're not talking about major pains here (speaking to adults who underwent the procedure will tell you that, and plus a baby is getting a bit of wine before so he is numb to lessen any kind of pain), there are no aftereffects (if the procedure is done correctly, of course, which is why i said i want my child to go to a doctor and not a rabbi), and it is not something that cuts down ones ability to either HAVE or ENJOY sexual experiences. Speak ethics, but please also get things into proportion... I know your organ is important to you, men, but try to avoid having your own organ spasm in spontaneous pains (i know its hard.. ) and try to view the subject a BIT more objectively. ~moo

Is it realistic to do that? Fly something big to it? And I mean a good margin of error to give us enough time to actually divert the thing before impact...

And yet, they didn't call anyone stupid and retarded. Makes you wonder, doesn't it. Anyways, please get back on topic. For that matter, I have another question: We already established that there are items flying towards us in space and that will hit earth aventually (or are in a clashing course) -- do we have anything to do with it? I'm not talking about a "heroic 'armageddon' type" action, but even a simpler one.. Is there a way to cause those type of items to get OUT of our way? ~moo

wh666-666 a person that calls people retards and stupid is hardly the one to speak about rude behaviour. I would suggest, regardless of whether you are right or wrong in the posts, that you first learn how to commence a healthy and good debate. I am also quite surprised no one reported you, to be honest. I can quite surely promise you, friend, that no one will come back to you. Perhaps it would be best if you don't come back to us, either. ~moo

It's so nice to see someone get pissed off with one detail in a long forum thread, and spills his rants without thinking what is relevant and what isn't. My dear friend. If you've read my post, you would see that I didn't compare sex organs. If you've read the THREAD, you'd see that your point, put a bit more to the point and a bit less cynical-non-debatable than you put it, was already discussed. I didnt compare the ear to a sex organ, I compared the PIERCING of a non-consenting-young-girl to the circumcision of a non-consenting-young-boy. How 'bout you READ what I write, try to process it, think a bit about it, and only THEN you post a reply. Unlike the removal of a clitoris, the circumcision is harmless and does not hurt the function or the enjoyment during sex. The removal of a clitoris DOES. And if you've read through the posts, you'd see that this was discussed, only not quite as cynically as you put it. ~moo

So if I understood you correctly, freshwater fish WILL be fried if that happens? I'm.. trying to get my mind to unboggle. hehe Lightning's always been something hard for me to grasp.. ~moo

Well, it's not the worst part yet - at work, I have a fundamentalist christian (I have to say he's beating many I've spoken to in my lifetime, and I've spoken to a FEW of these) - I told him, out of pure interrest, about this "meteor missing us" and such, and got a response that insulted the tenets of my being, something about prophecy of daniel being true and preventing the meteor from hitting us until the earth is ready for the resurrection.. I just stared at him for a few moments, trying to understand if I heard correctly. Since I was - at that moment - doing something highly mindless at work, we continued on to talking general stuff in "science" (its in brackets since what HE was saying was far from anything resembling that word), and finally, when he tried to "prove to me" that god diverted this meteor by claiming (and I quote): "What holds the earth in space??" /me, in slight shock:"Uh.... nothing.... it's.. uhh... space... uhh... the sun's gravity "holds" it... uhhh..." / him: "The earth is a ball right?? well, have you ever seen a ball just floats in mid-air?? have you?? NO! Something needs to hold it! ha!" At that moment, after trying to figure out if the guy was speaking, perhaps, kantonese, a fact that would explain me understanding his words wrong, I just quite speaking, and chose to do my mindless boring work without concidering his.. weird.. uhmn.. claims. So after hearing those things about our meteor, I am not at all surprised somone mentioned god in this thread. Appearantly, he's not alone. I'm still quite shocked. ~moo

I have a question someone asked me in my time in the military, and though I tried researching it, I am not sure I understood it correctly. Lightnings are "drawn" to anything that dissipates their charge - this is how, as i understand it, you can see a lightning hit sand (there was an occasion i have seen in Discovery Channel once), transforming the sand in its path to glass, and end up touching an underground metal wire-tunnel. Is it possible for a lightning to hit water? If so, what would happen to a fish (or a person, for that matter) that is near it, and how "far" away would a life form (fish or person) should be to be relatively safe? What would dissipate the Lightning's electrical charge, and why would it be drawn to the surface of the water in the first place and end up hitting it? Thanks for any information! ~moo

Oh, sorry for that.. But the fingerprinting is less than iris-print for MORE reasons than just the current equipment.. mainly for the reason of how easily fingerprints can be faked (no matter WHAT type of equipment you use..), and also because fingerprints may change. Unlike the iris, which cannot be faked (not talking about a specific reader, but the iris itself..) But yes, it sounds like a better idea for a fair. Plus, there's a LOT of info about it online. Tell us if you need more help ~moo

I'm sorry but if a baby girl has her ears pierced, within a few years, those holes will not heal. So on that term it IS the same. About the religious term of being given to god - you're right. I won't argue with that, however - I'm not religious, so I'm probably the WRONG person to ask ~moo

Actually... no... I don't understand your point.. are you suggesting that since we don't know these organisms we should'nt care about their extinction?

Well, yes it has a very specific command in the holy texts and specifically in the bible, but it grew to be more than that, since today it is being practiced even with non-religious jews as preserving the tradition of the nation. I found a site that explain this simply here: http://www.jewfaq.org/birth.htm Here's an excerpt:

Nothing would be "bad", it just.. is, I guess... I would love to get better founded statistics thought Plus, by the way I see people reacting here, it seems the odds are much higher.. or am I wrong? Thanks ~moo

Can you add Sources? What did it do to the invironment?

I think what is most dangerous in the development is not what we DO with the development as much as how FAST we change our invironment.. Evolution takes time, and if we don't give ourselves (and our environment) time to adjust to massive changes, we might be causing worse damage than we can imagine. Don't you agree?

Yeah it's not done yet, so when it will be done, I most certainly will. It - at least for now - deals with the basics of PHP and web programming, for people with small background in programming language. The next step is mySQL integration and databases. It's going to take me a little while, coz of work being a major occupant of my time lately (i hate summer) but when it's done --- or close enough to be helpful -- i will post it here. ~moo