mooeypoo

So how powerful (theoretically) an electromagnet should be in order for me to feel it's force?

I believe that's what I just did.

I was watching a science show about the beginning of new life (yes, sex! ) and I understood that women are fertile (generating eggs) since BEFORE their birth. Anyone knows why so early? And why - if women are generating eggs since birth - do men only start to generate fertile sperm from puberty onwards? ~moo

I actually have a question about electromagnetism, a field that unfortunately I know almost nothing about. I thought this place is probably the best forum to put it in, If I'm wrong, sorry, just... err... move it wherever it should be. I know that electromagnetism is an EXTREMELY powerful force - and I've heard that it's a force higher 1e39 times from the force of gravity. It's also, as I know, the force that stops my atoms from passing through other matterial objects, like the table or the floor. My question is this: When we have a very powerful Electromagnet - do we feel it's repelling force PHYSICALLY on our body? Or, on different words - how strong should it be in order for us to feel (not be 100% affected by it, like fly to the other side of a room, I just mean FEEL) its effect on our bodies. For instance, if I put my hand close to an Electromagnet - will I feel some sort of "field" that would make it more difficult to get CLOSER to that electromagnet? Sorry if it sounds idiotic, I was just having thoughts about the subject after hearing about the meaning of this extremely strong force. Thanks, ~moo

I've watched the movies, and actually started watching other movies in that site, it's an AWSOME knowledge-base, thanks a lot alt And now I realise a bit more what this means. Still, though, just to be 100% certain that I get it right: What I've seen in the "startrek" episode about folding the time-space to travel faster is actually something that relates to wormholes only, and not to something we can forcefully create by "folding the universe" ourselves, but something that happens through the 'natural fold' of the universe. So, even if we COULD create wormholes, it would only be for CERTAIN places - as the universe is folded, and we won't be able to decide to ourselves how to "fold" it custom-made .. I got it right, right? Thanks again, alt_f13 that was REALLY helpful. If you know any more of these sites I'd love getting them ~moo

By the way, as I've written before in my last few posts in this thread, I don't deny the fact that my opinion might be based largely on the fact that this is a very close-to-heart subject. However, we *are* talkin about ethical matters here, so the fact I am close to it only gives me an extra "ethical" view, I think. I don't know if you've read my first post in this thread but you might want to take a look, it's explaining my INITIAL thoughts about the subject... might shed some light on why I am saying what I .. am saying. The first post is here: http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=28444#post28444 ~moo

Yeah I understand what you're saying, I just don't really agree. 1) Because no matter how ti is used, it's going to be known that they're using the data. The data itself shouldn't be anything special - just the fact it's originating frmo the nazis' experiments are going to create the media zoo, which will get it to people's minds and would likely create what I was saying, and 2) Even if its only in the science community, it's enough to be given SOME sort of legitimization. and 3) If it doesnt contain any "sensational" data anywys, then its my opinion that this data can be aquired in other - more ethical - ways. ~moo

There's a difference between being extremely good at preserving knowledge while making good notes, and actually knowing how to create a scientific test environment so that your test results would come out correct. Dr. Mengale (sorry bout the spelling) did all sorts of experiments about all sorts of things that other than the fact half of them had no scientific value WHATSOEVER, many of them were done in very one-sided and non scientific ways. Ways that if anyone would use today in science labs, their results would not be used. No matter how good his notes are. So that is one of my problems with the subject. My BIGGER one, obviously, is the ethical matter (which we discuss here). I don't care about tabloids, whatever will happen tabloids would exploit information and turn it to their own likings. I care about the deeper and psychological and ETHICAL meaning, which is what I am trying to say here. Other thanwhat I have altready said about using the data being a message to the world, we should also concider the fact that there are still holocaust survivors alive today. Using that information is unethical towards them too, and people who lost their entire familes in the holocaust. That's my opinion, at least.

I suck at those things but since i had an idea what the heck, I'll give it a try. Worse case scenario - I'll make you laugh Okay, about (2) What I was thinking is that you take the group and devide it to half, putting half on one side of the scale ad half on the other. If you'd know that the coin was HEAVIER or LIGHER you could pick a group, but since you don't know, you need to start (I .. hope? taking halves of each group. [*] You have 2 sides of the scale - one has 6 coins and the other 6 coins, and the scale is not balanced. [*] Now, you take 3 coins of each side and removes them. If the scale REMAINS unbalanced, then your forgery is ON the scale, and you just got rid of 6 coins. If they balance, your forgery is OUT of the scale and you also removed 6 coins. Either way, now you have 6 coins you are SURE are original, and 6 that you can't be certain of. [*] If you put one next to the other on the scale, you'll know if the forgery coin is HEAVIER or LIGHTER than the rest of the coins. Since we already saw the coins on the first "look" (and saw which side is heavier and which is lighter) we now can know which of the 3 coins the fake one can be in. [*] You also know that the other 9 coins are originals. So if you take one DEFINATELY original coin and put it on one side with one coin out of the three you have left, and on the other side of the balance you put the other 2 coins, you can either see right away where your forgery is, or all you need to do is switch coins between the sides, and make sure you switch one coin with the ORIGINAL coin - if nothing happened, it's the coin you didn't touch (the one left on the other side of the balance scale) and if the scale moved, it's the coin you just switched with the original coin. That - of course - depends on the fact you didn't already discover that your forgery coin is the one with the *definate original* one. [/list=1] Err, I hope that made sense, and since I have no idea what you meant by "least number of turns" I just... tried. Hope that if it's not the right answer, it might get close. In any case, that's my try. ~moo

Basically, and generally, yes, I supposed that's true. However, I also said that its not only holocaust deniars and neo nazis, it's also sending a message to the world that - even by a little - those actions bear good results. Even psychologically, in the back of everyone's heads. (I wrote that in an earlier post to this thread) And on my opinion, that fact combined with the fact you can a) get more information about thsoe tests anyways from redoing them and b) can't 100% rely on their scientific accuracy, it's a big enough reason to not use them. ~moo

By the way, is there a medical/physical/biological question that men's voices change (and in specific - what you explained in your answer, Glider) and women's voices don't? If its "only" a matter of growing up, theb both genders' voices shoulod have changed. Why only the males voices change, then?

Gotcha. Sounds reasonable enough. Still a bit tricky, but I get the point.. Okay.

Will I look like a *complete* idiot if i ask you to tell me who taht man and why he's not credible?

In the last version I think there is a pretty cool trick to do that rather easily. What version of Powerpoint do you have?

Uhm, Wait, I don't think I understood you... I thought evolution contradicts creationism even for teh simple fact taht if creationism speaks about an intentional creation of the universe - then the fact we are changing (and it's not 'changed a bit', its quite a change) means that the thought wasn't perfect and needed modifications... Doesn't that contradicts a planned GODLY creation? If someone believes in evolution, then god might have made a mistake in his craetion if he needs to "fix" it all the time... Thats at least what I knew of creationism.. I might be wrong here ~moo

A few things: I didn't say it was WRONG definition i said it was biased. if you ask any other life form - assuming it can answer you of course - about the definition of life you'd get a different answer. You can also read in my post that I insisted it wasn't FALSE. It was biased. That's what i meant by it No, no of course you're allowed. But this is a discussion - and I'm stating my mind here. I didn't say you're not ALLOWED I said I think you're wrong. I disagree with you (as I wrote ). So you're allowed, and I'm allowed. if you don't want me to say different, though, you might wanna reconsider writing your ideas on a debate forum I also didn't say you can't talk about evolution or that this thread doesn't belong to this forum.. please try to read the entire post before you defend yourself, I wasn't saying anything AGAINST YOU I said what I think of the idea you posted. Isn't that why you posted it? To hear different ideas? And I ALSO DIDNT SAY that everyone else's definition is like MINE. I Said that *my* definition is what it is, so that when *i* say evolution in my specific thread (I wrote that..) you will undersatnd what I mean. And by the way - it IS a definition a lot of scientists believe in. It's also not the only one. In short - In my post I described WHY i disagree with you. I still didn't get any claims that prove - or try to prove - that I'm wrong. Sorry that my post made you defensive - I wasn't meaning to attack, I don't even think my post showed any kind of attack, I was just stating my mind and trying to explain myself. Other than that, I'm a complete and very STRONG agnostic. Those who know me knows that it's extremely hard to get a 'No, that's impossible' answer from me, even on subjects of god and creation. Well, maybe on creationism, but rarely. I never said "NO! Thats WRONG!" I said I disagree and also explained why... if you hae any response I'd love to hear and explain my position... ~moo

well you're talking about nanobots but I'm not sure you actually need those in this case. If we're talking bout a shield that is ACTUALLY made of electromagnetic fields - then those "nanobots" elemtents are symply there to support it. Instead of actually using nanobots you can use metalic particles. If you have some sort of machine CREATING the initial magnetic fields, then those metallic particles need to just transfer it from one to the other. So I think that they 1) Won't need much of power to their 'inner actions' -- 'cause they won't need any 2) The problem would be CONTROLING their position. It seems that the biggest problem is actually making them stay at the same position "mid air" and float for a while. ~moo

Ahhhhhh haaaaaaaaaa... Thanks alt, that was VERY helpful I'm still watching those movies, by the way - it's a really great site. So we can't control those "curves" in space ... if space is infact folding (like you gave the example of similar to earth..) then the "space-folding" we are theoretically using for ships to go through lesser distance - is something we can't control over... Actually, isn't what you're explaining wormholes? And so we can't CREATE those "passage-ways", between to stars, or "dots on the universe", because we can't actually curve the "surface" of the universe ourselevs... Did I get it right? ~moo

YOU are the one going in circles, I explained my position by saying that neo-nazis use it to justify, and the world may get teh idea that "no matter what happened, at least one good thing came out of it" which is bad. READ WHAT I WRITE before you say we're going in circles. I've been saying this - and explaining my position for at least 3 times this thread. Other than that, I disagree with you on the scietific accuracy. I wasn't speaking about notes - they did VERY good notes and also films - and most of it still exists - i'm talking about the WAY experiments were done. I am not sure they were 100% aware of fair-testing, and all the methods of making sure the tests results are actually accurate. And I would appreciate if you stop patronizing me, dude. Whatever I say is my opinion. If you don't GET MY POINT tell me and I will elaborate. Stop writing patronizing and non-helpful-one-liner-statement sentences that only piss me off without even contribute to the discussion. ~moo

Yeh, iglak, it sounds like your theory contradicts itself... but isn't there the theory of Chaos that states something similar to this..? impossibility to predict infinite number of variables...? Don't really remember that one but I tinnk the idea is similar ~moo

That might be the reason I'm confused... still, though.. how can you fold a 4Dimentional space WITHOUT taking into account that since its multi-dimentional, the matter (and time, for that matter, if we talk about 4D) is FOLDED TOO.... I don't get it.. :\

Okay, do you mind EXPLAINING the things you write? I am asking a question because I *don't understand* something. You saying "no, you don't" helps me about <--> this much. No, actually, it helps me less. I don't get why it doesn't apply. We're SUPPOSED to be talking abuot a three dimentional space - there might not be DOTS in space but it was the only visual way i could think of to visualize matter in a three dimentional appearance. Now, please, if I'm wrong (which is completely possible that's why I am asking this question) - PLEASE explain why. ~moo

It is supporting the "cause" of the nazis, because people (mostly holocaust-deniers) claim that -- HERE! SEE!! GOOD THINGS CAME OUT OF IT!! And that's BADDDDDDDDDDD bad bad bad. That also answers the cost, by the way. There's a huge Ethical cost to this entire thing - if you use it, you know that you are legitimizing (sp?) - even if you don't want to - the tests that were made. If those results were one of a kind and impossible-to-get-any-other-way and SURE SAVING PEOPLES LIVES at *this moment* and you couldn't delay with taking anotehr tests and another results, then you might be able to concider it. But tis NOT the case here. Besides - can you be CERTAIN those tests were made 100% scientifically? I am NOT sure. That itself is one more reason to retest that. ~moo

I think we should have an automatic response in the forums. Every person saying the word "Find", "On the net" and "Please" in the same sentence would get an auto response telling him to google it. That would save up SO MANY hours of typing... ~moo

Err.. Yes, I think I see waht you're saying here BUT If you don't support animal testing (I don't either btw, MOSTLY), then find and work towards implementing other ways of research. The difference here is that there ARE OTHER WAYS to obtain information that the Nazis gathered through their horrible immoral testing. ~moo