mooeypoo

It doesn't make sense, though. You will still have to pass through more "matter" and therefore either travel with higher speed, or stretch yourself to pass through it better.... by the way, alt_f13, the site is AWSOME I'm in the middle of watching the movie that is why I didn't answer yet ~moo

The problem with ANY KIND of shield is that it needs to be designed to make some things enter and some don't. Unless, of course, you want NOTHING to pass through it, in which case you will need zillions of zillions (don't know how to say that number, sorry!! of nanobots attatched together. I think that in order for that to work you need them to be small enough to "float" in your substance (air, if you wish) - but then they need to be CLOSE enough to one another - maybe through magnetic fields. This case would require many many many (yes, I gave up the idea of trying to name a number! think of a really giant one) particles. Or Nanobots. I think it would be easier if you would use the nanobots as the GRID, and the actual field built from magnetic or electromagnetic fields... that's my nano cents. ~moo

Doesn't - in theory - a black hole *stop* time? It pulls EVERYTHING towards it, therefore movement is impossible, matter theoretically transforms to energy *and* time moves slower until it stops. That's the theory i know... :| ~moo

I think that's true to practically EVERYTHING in life, YT By the way, Aren't lightnings attracted to conductive matters? What difference does it make if the dish is round and the lightning defense is pointed? If the dish has 100 times more charge to it - won't it attract the lightning anyways? I've seen a show a while ago about lightnings, and there was this part where they showed a lightning-shaped-glass, that was made when a lightning hit sand on some beach. It was almost 2 meters long - and when they checked why it was specifically to that location, they found that the glass (meaning the lightning itself) touched an electricity cable 2 meters down in the ground. Other than the fact it's AMAZING (and really beautiful ) -- It just made me think that lightnings are attracted to electrical charge. Dishes should have more than those defenses, but now that I think of it... I'm.. not really sure. ~moo

Erm, I just finished reading a fiction story that explains some of Einstein's theories.. Isn't the only way of generating TRUE gravity (without actually greating a huge planet) is by Acceleration? ... ?

iglak -- that actually had me thinking. Isn't ALL random things non-random? I mean, we define them as random because *we* have too many variables to predict the ending, but isn't EVERY situation we define as random, can ultimately be predicted (theoretically) if we had ALL THE VARIABLES in our hand? The link is more about random not being random (which is already known) and relates more to the statistics of the fall. At least thats what i understood from it.

I read the entire thread (well MOST of it thoroughly) but for my own personal answer I would, with your persmission, go back to the first question: I have, actually, a few things to say. [*]The definition of life was done by the living - HUMANS in particualr, therefore it is biased. We look at ourselves and say "We are alive". We called OUR own situation "LIFE" and define other existances by our situation. It's not a wrong definition, it's just biased. I am sure that if Viruses would define life, they'd get an entirely diferent defintion - and perhaps would argue among themselves if WE (humans) are in fact life. And don't tell me "Viruses can't define", a) it would be petty because you should get my point and b) you don't know that. It's logical to assume they don't, but the might be "defining" by other methods we just don't understand. [*] The theory of Evolution is DIFFERENT than the theory of Evolution-From-The-Apes. (This is a little bit LESS related directly to this thread, but it explains what I am about to say next, so I added it anyways.) Evolution is the adaption of a cell - or an organism - to its environment. For instance, how humans get taller from generation to generation, or how our feet pinky gets smaller and smaller with generations, or why there are different coloured-people in the world. It's adaption to the environment you lived in for GENERATIONS and GENERATIONS (not only years! it takes a lot of time). Evolution-from-the-apes theory is actually another theory BASED on the theory of evolution that states that since organisms are adapted to their environment through time, if we look at our physiology and biology through thousands and millions of years - we assume that we evolved from apes. It's NOT the same theory. When I say "Evolution" in this post - I mean the first one, and not necessarily the second one. So please don't throw "how can we come from apes". It's irrelevant here. [*]Life can be - and by my belief, most probably IS - accidental. Us humans - we're really smart, aren't we? We look around at our world and say "Oh, holy cammoly - look how well adapted we are! it is by no means an accident, it MUST be higher planning! We have noses to smell, ears shaped to intercept sounds, brains big enough to think, a skin to protect our body from the powerful rays of the sun, and so on. How can one think this is an accident!? It's too well planned!" Well, NO. It ISN"T. If it was, we wouldn't be changing. Once upon a time there was a "Goo". A mush of .. STUFF. Unrelated stuff made of different variations of atoms and molecules. They were "swimming" together oh-so-peacefully for a long long long long time. But they weren't REALLY that peaceful. Their movements created reactions, that aventually made that mush CHANGE and become a different mush. A "Salad" if you will, of variations of matters made by those reactions. A Salad of different materials. Those materials changed in relation to their invironment. But the environment kept changing, too. The earth became cooler, its crust was forming, the continents were moving - and so the "Salad" mush, changed too. In relations to its environment. We are talking abou thousands and millions of years here. Now - aventually, those mushy salady components took shape of something that needs to grow. Why? Unknown. Perhaps it's the way of the universe - it LOOKS like it. Or perhaps it's just another one of those unknown riddles of life. But that is, still, what happened. Thousands and Millions of years passed, and those salad stuff became seperate, and each started evolving to its OWN personal environment. Ground, Water, Air, and so on. Thousands and Millions of years later - humans, who were aventually also formed along with animals and plants, looked around them and started wondering why this all happened. They are completely fitted to their environment. Isn't that amazing. NO. It's NOT amazing, it's EVOLUTION. If we WEREN"T FITTED to our environment, we wouldn't be here. And if the environment was DIFFERENT our method of defining life would be different too. [/list=1] Today, we say "Life was created from the initial goo". It's just a way of simplifying things. It *might* have a higher design, but the logic says it doesn't. If ANYTHING was made by a higher and better-understanding design to fit the environment, WHY are we changing all the time? Is the plan crooked? Those are my thoughts about evolution. Its not bad to see things in a biased way - in fact, i don't think we can AVOID that - being humans and all - but we should also know that we do that when we define life and think about how life were created. If you go to Alpha Centauris (about 4.2 LightYears from our sun) you would DEFINATELY find different compounds. You might not define them as LIFE (perhaps eventually we will? who knows) but you WILL NOT be surprised about "how those compounds were created perfectly adapted to their environment". Because it's CLEAR that if those weren't adapted, they wouldn't BE THERE in the first place - or would be there and perish. That is the point of evolution. The explanation in my opinion is MUCH MUCH simpler than everyone makes it look. Life is an accident. Since we are THINKING beings, we try to find the "why" behind it. Since we are also FRIGHTENNED little creatures, we would like to believe it was someone's plan to create us. It's much easier and nice to know that than to think we're just simply an accidental coincedence of the universe. ~moo

You're lucky I didn't start answering this thread, actually muaaha... muuuaaaaaahahahahahahahahaaaa... now where's my porn site...... ~mistress moo

I have so much to say about this matter, but I think the more relevant issue here is DEMOCRACY against NATIONAL SECURITY. Welcome to the discussion of my life The limit is thin and sometimes you need to try VERY VERY hard to make sure that it STILL exists. If a scientist would now go and tell national security secrets to a foreign country (SPECIALLY enemy country) I assume we all agree that this is a threat to national securty, and should deal with it regardless of his rights to free speech, because his actions would end in the death of hundreds of people - if not more. I think about guns the same. IN GENERAL: 1) The average person SHOULDN'T own a gun. The police should do their jobs right. If that's not the case, correct the POLICE don't take law to your own hands. 2) The average person DOESN'T KNOW HOW TO USE a gun. Even if he went to a shooting range. You need to know about a gun, the ways of safe keeping, the ways of engagement, the rules of openning fire and so on, so you won't have "mistakes". "WHOOPS, I thought he was a theif!!" Huge huge nono. 3) You do NOT correct a problem by creating another one. YOU JUST DON'T!! Doing that is like saying "Oh, we have lots of traffic accidents, lets just destroy the roads and illigalize cars". It doesn't work like that. You need education, and a better police force. Not raving maniacs in the streets. Now. Democracy is beautiful, but like EVERY type of ruling, it's not 100% perfect. It's not DONE this way because LIFE is not perfect. Even the democratic US has many many non-democratic rules. Religious rules, too. So don't get all hypocripts. Democracy should be kept - but not at all costs. Which brings me, actually, to my last point. If you know that someone's right is causing immediate and massive DANGER to others, it's no longer valid. The statement about "cars kills you too" is stupid to this discussion, Sorry. Cars can kill you, so can lightnings, drowining in your bath tub, walking on the street and being hit by a meteor. It's not the POINT. The piont is that a CAR has a specific target. People that MISUSE the car - can get killed. But the POINT of cars is not killing. UNLIKE GUNS. Guns. and it doesnt matter how well you'll try to put it "self defense" / "protection" and all this crap - GUNS ARE MEANT TO KILL. If you want to hurt someone, curse him. Or throw a can of Tear gas on him. DONT USE A GUN. Believe it or not - that's what you learn in the military. GUNS are not to arrest a suspect. THE WARNING CALL is to arrest him. The gun is used when there's an imminent danger. Hence - when you know you can (and probably will) kill him. And SOLDIERS are trained with guns. GUNS are made for killing. Claiming they're for "Self Defense" and "Protection" IS BULLSHIT. Let the police do its job. If they don't do it right, TRAIN THEM. MAKE MORE RULES AGAINST CRIMINALS. Make sure your lives are CALM enough to not NEED guns. but allowing citizens to carry guns just create MORE PROBLEMS than it actually solves. ~moo

If you can't beat them, join them. I say good for legalizing for the exact same reason - but I must add that we - as human society - HAVE to make STRONG organizations who will make sure we don't take cloning too far, and that Ethical subjects are always open for debate and inquiries. Other than that, I just find this matter scarey in general.

Yeah, about the coin and the butter - it's pretty much what i figured.. good to read it so scientifically ordered though That said... --- WOW. Okay, YT, you're officially geeker than me. And I mean that as the greatest compliment, as only a true geek can! :worship: ~moo

What if you picked your nose, or listenned to some sex talk with your wife (or.. girlfriend) while he crashed into you?

Its called catching up. And I haven't even noticedit's old.. it caught my eye--- ok ok I got the point, I'm a bored little geek. THERE. Happy?

The rat brai-- Goodness.

Continuing that frightening idea - Could EEG signals be detected (not interpreted - just detected) by a closer object - like a television set or something of this sort? Well, YOU were the ones who started with the conspiracy theories, and now you scared me and made me go into it too, so just answer and shuddup! err... or... well just answer hehe ~moo

Waaaaait a minute... so I'm a left-handed woman. I'm supposed to be Einstein if I got the summary of what you're all saying right... Thankyou!

ROFL

http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opinterview.jsp;jsessionid=LAFLFFELOCGK?id=ns24361 Other than the fact it's ABSOLUTELY HORRIFIC to see a cactus with human hair, I REALLY think this is another boundry in that was broken COMPLETELY by science. Aii Karamba.

A few Km from my house there's a huge Satellite dishes "farm". HUGE Antennas, about 25 meters in diameter, maybe more. The hilarious part is that every few antennas there's a Lightening "Defense" Antenna, thats supposed to attract the lightning. It always makes me laugh. The antennas are HUGE conductors, but the lightning would preffer a tiny 10 meters pole over them because it's SUPPOSED to attract it. Uh ha. On the other hand, we barely have any lightning storms here, so that might be the reason why they use such idiotic way of defense

Seriously? Maybe it's because of the gravity of the butter..? eh, well, at least you're not making decisions by the falling of the bread. Whats next by the way? We'll find out that Murphy had scientific justifications behind his rules? AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA The end of the world as we know it!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!

I'm not entirely sure this post should be on this specific forum, so if not, please move it to where it SHOULD be. I'm just not 100% familiar with the entire subject. I just finished watching a startrek episode (yes, I'm a geek, we already know that, deal with it) and I started thinking. The idea of a "folding" universe is something we hear about a lot in Startrek episodes but not ONLY in startrek. It's a theory I've heard a lot that if you take two points in the universe and would like to travel faster - you need to actually "shorten" your journey and do it by "FOLDING" space. It's explained visually by drawing two dots on a piece of paper, and then folding it. Something like this: But it doesn't make sense. The universe is not flat like a paper, it's 3Dimentional. Like a layer-cake, if you want the same kind of visual presentation. Therefore, if you want to "FOLD" it - then the space between the point is actually LONGER not shorter, you just SQUASHED the spage between it. If I want to go on with visual aids, it should be SOMETHING like this: So, what we did was NOT shorten the ride we just THINK we do. in fact, if we take into concideration that the universe is not VOID it's a substance (which, as far as I know, is a leading assumption), then if we look at it, we actually did something similar to THIS movement: So, basically, if we "FOLD" space we might "shorten" the distance but we must travel through a MUCH MUCH higher density (whether those are clouds of dust, planets, or whatever it is the universe is made of). So we need to actually use a MUCH MUCH higher velocity. Or EXTREMELY higher amount of energy to pass the extra amount of "matter". It doesn't make sense. Even when we try to calculate distances in 3Dimentions, the QUICKEST route would be the route taken in the 'lowest' dimention. We can't use ONE dimention since we only have a dot on one dimention, so we use 2. A line. Not a curved one... Am I wrong here? It really doesn't make sense the entire theory of folded space, but since the entire scientific world uses it - I am guessing the WRONG person here is me. So please, if anyone can show me why this actually DOES make sense, I would appreciate it. ~moo

Check this out: http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1697475 Appearantly the coin falls more often on HEADS than on Tails. I just found that REALLY funny.. think of all the decisions people made by flipping a coin... :haha:

antimonkey: The original Torah would be not written And the written one is MUCH more than 5 pages hehe they found scrolls. The debate is when it was written. I don't know f you know but there's a REALLY strict rule that there are NO CHANGES commited to the bible other than the dots that help reading it. That's *it* - even the mistakes you can't fix. It's one of the oldest books available. It's also true, though, that it probably wasn't written as a whole book but as a bunch of scriptures that were combined together along the times, but the "original" torah was MUCH MUCH more than 5 pages ~moo

When the means to the end are easy to obtain, the crime rises. That's my opinion. Those who don't NEED guns (most of the population) shouldn't have guns. True, people kill people -- but guns also kill people. We should treat both problems seperately, and avoiding the misuse of guns (as someone who owned a gun and was trained on a few kinds of guns, I can say that with the fullest confidence and belief-) is done by NOT giving a gun to those who don't really NEED one. those are my two cents. ~moo

No, see, the next stage is when you are having a car accident, to go to one of the NSA satellites and download the pictures of the accident, plus the pictures of two hours earlier to check if you have been drinking, where, when and why. Tomorrow's world.