mooeypoo

While chatting innocently online (proud geeks like me do that often), I got this weird message: (21:31:51) —› fark.com: NASA doesn't want you to know about the alien skulls they've discovered on Mars (21:31:51) —› url: http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/news/index.cfm?instanceid=60632 NOW. I know that tabloids rarely contain ANY kind of material that isn't completely BS *but* I also heard that any rumor has a tiny grain of truth. Not saying this si true (its one of the funniest things i've ever seen though, no doubt) I still would like to know if any of you knows what is the grain of truth in this one - or in other words, what is this article basing it's statement about? The "3D Pics" from mars? Some weird shape of the gases there? I really would like to know.. just found it funny and got curious. ~moo

What about intelligence? By the way -- three of anything is *not* always three. That's the point of the fourth dimention (time) and the possibility that what YOU concider three might be actually 5 in a different dimention. My point here, though, is not even the dimentions themselves but the possibility that we think DIFFERENTLY than other creatures - in such a sense that maths will not be their way to calculate things. They might have the perception of the fourth dimention of time, in which the CURRENT numbers (maths!) means absolutely nothing. I'm throwing hypothetical ideas to make my point. I don't know how many dimentions there are, if any, and what kind of extra-stuff you suddently understand when you can intercept those dimentions - but my point is that ANYTHING is possible. We shouldn't close our minds. Maths is *our* way of understanding. Aliens most probably use something else we don't even understand.

You both REALLY should read Crichton's books. I agree with you Rasori, but on a different level. I think that its not only that we seek for out OWN personal human definition of life (which is LIMITED as hell, since we haven't even began to imagine what's on our own planet - say, at the bottom of the ocean) its also a matter of perception and definition as a general. The odds there are life around the universe are extremely high. The odds they are similar to us (have eyes, nose, hair, legs, hands, head, even if they're combined differently..) is slim. If such slight changes in the surroundings (such as air pressure and exposure to sun radiation) resulted in such a difference between human races (chinese, arabs, native americans, africans - they're all different = though having very VERY small changes in surroundings, if we compare them to the infinite space..) we can't expect aliens coming to earth from huge changes in atmosphere, pressure, AGE (we're relatively young, don't forget), and so on - to come to earth *before* a much advanced, much less noticeable (they might be standing here and we intercept them as a BUG because we don't realise the true meaning of what they are..) that possibility is EXTREMELY slim. ~~~ btw, I'm back ~~~ ~mooeypoo

I've been working like mad the past few days, and just about to go out to another work frenzy for five days, so I didn't have much time reading each post (I will when i get back, promise!!) BUT i just wanted to post something to clarify what I meant by the thread question - I understand what you guys mean by "survival of the fittest" - those who will not survive the changes are probably not meant to survive, that's fine physically but what I meant wasn't an "individual" resistance to the changes. I meant to ask you what do you think the ENTIRE human race would suffer. Those who die from heart desease that is related to pollution (see article here ) might not be resistant enough - but aventually AS AN EVOLUTIONARY process, the rest would probably get different heart biology or physiology so they CAN survive it on the long run. I am also talking about 'small' things like our tiny "pinky" (on the foot) that is becoming smaller and smaller from generation to generation. EVERYTHING affects our evolution on the planet - the question is whether we are making it "unbalanced" and aventually we will suffer greater risks to the HUMAN KIND resistance (not individual groups). There's no question about the fact that *we* are responsible for those changes - we cut the trees that supply oxygen to the atmosphere, we walk with shoes, we stare hours on hours at a computer monitor, we sit on chairs, we drive polluting cars and eat greasy unnatural food. Will the human race survive its "war" against the balance of nauture? Don't forget that those changes don't only affect humanity - but the animal and plant world also. Just like when you bring an animal to extinct a rodent somewhere (When its not its original and natural habitat) you get DIFFERENT and sometimes very hazardous occasions of over-population, and destroy the natural balance - are we going to the same path? I'm less talking about the "short-term" changes, when people might die of heart desease or such - but more of the LONG term where we might end up with tiny hands (due to comp use), huge eyes (monitor?) short-sighted (radiation from monitor and tv?), enourmous and thick lungs (pollution), tiny feet (shoes and the fact we're barely walking) and so on. Hope that was clear.. trying to clarify my question. see ya in a few days. ~mooeypoo

Thanks for the help, all

You're half right -- I see your point but think of this - Science, unlike the creation, allows us to explain physical phenomenas in space THROUGH the theory of the big bang. Creaetion only lets us explain through tautology. BTW - look what I said. I didn't say one created a universe and one created a world, i said that one is the QUESTION and one is the ANSWER. If you want to have an ultimate answer, no matter how tautological it may be - chose religion. If you chose to question you sometimes get more questions than answers.

Ahh. So if I want to treat it URGENTLY (ie: in middle of the field trip until someone more qualified comes, like a doctor that is allowed to give medications) am I supposed to make the person with fever DROP the fever? I mean, I know that people take aspirin a lot (I personally hate that, it kills the sympton, not the problem) but according to what you're saying it's even WORSE - not only does it not help - it can even get worse, since its lowering the body temp and decreasing pulse WITHOUT treating the problem thus making the body not fight it.. ? What is the best thing to do with such a patient if I am in the middle of no where and waiting for an eviction to hospital or doctor? try to drop the temp with moist pads on the forehead or just do nothing (other than the obvious - giving the patient water, making sure he rests and so on). I'm talking about the URGENT rsponse btw. Obviously someone with a fever needs to see a doctor. ~mooey

The only word I think about right now is: WHAT?!?! If the situation for an airbag arises on an aircraft - it's too late, and it probably won't work. I can actually imagine the pilot go "AAAAAAAAA we're gonna crash into that cloud!!" Err.. sorry for being cynical but it just sounds like if the plain is is in a situation that has such a huge "danger" to need airbag - it won't matter anyways, the entire plain would go down. Those were 30 seconds of sarcasm from mooey. be well ~mooeypoo

Hi, In my day-to-day work I'm a security guard in trips (mostly children and highschool kids) and as such one of my responsabilities is being a Medic (not full, more for CPR and emergency help). Recently, I've encountered many cases of kids having fever, while their pulse was sky-high (though blood pressure was fine). I was wondering about the reasons the body is having a fever. Is it like a headache - more of a WARNING sign? or is it caused by the reactions in the body? If this is a stupid question, I'm sorry. Tell me, and I'll be ashamed of myself. btw, another related question - why does the pulse get so high when a child is having a fever? If there's an infection somewhere, shouldn't the body NOT want to spread it? The blood is known to spread infections.. Thanks ~mooeypoo

I think the major question to this thread is: IS IT SMART!?!?!?

Good point. I agree, we seem to build weapons that will aventually kill us - but I was actually meaning more towards the idea of mankind changing his physiology -- through sitting near computers, driving cars instead of walking, breathing polluted air, cooking meals in microwaves, cutting off our "Green Lungs" - the rainforests and so on. Those all change the human physiology and aventually his evolutionary process that "Nature meant".. if that makes sense. The question is do you think we'll "Get over it" despite it's mostly EXTREMELY against the balance of nature - or do you think nature will have the upper hand, and we'll end up destroying ourselves when the natural order of balance will come biting us in the ass? ~mooey

I might be an idiot, but I really don't understand what you want here. Am I the only one?

Well, we all know we took over the world. We created factories that throw loads of smoke and chemicals into the atmosphere, we use cars, we watch television, we speak on cellphones and we are generally surrounded by electromagnetic radiation that is usually not found in nature. Good or bad, one thing is certain: We are changing our own evolutionary process. Even the fact we go with shoes is changing us. When we click a computer and sit on a comfortable chair - it's all changing the "natural" way of the evolution. We might think thats awsome and great and natural - but we should also remember we don't yet know all about our OWN BODIES - to know what those changes will affect not only ourselves but the entire planet in terms of evolution and nature in general. My question is this: Do you think nature will regain balance and our own changes in the evolutionary process will ultimately come to bite us in the ass - or do you think this is actually the best way of human kind to survive.. ? Have we taken the term "Survival of the fittest" a bit too far? ~mooeypoo

dave: I don't think you got my point though. I'm not saying we can't explain other dimentions, i am saying we can't intercept them in our consciousness - that's why we need to REPRESENT them in a 3Dimentional form. Until we CAN intercept more dimention - we can't be 100% sure we know what else is out there using higher forms of perception. Perhaps *knowing, seeing, intercepting* the 4th Dimention (not just undersatnding it, but actually living in it!) will show us that there are other and BETTER ways to explain the universe than math. Who knows.

Neurocomp2003: I believe we will *never*solve everything - we will ALWAYS have unanswered questions and flaws in logic - but hypothetically -- when we do solve everything, we will just be able to create our own mini universe and play with it. Who knows, maybe God was bored too...

We should make a "Quote of the day" with those amount of hilarious human outputs I can't believe I just said human outputs. I AM a nerd. ~mooeypoo

btw if he's alive, people just continue the debate and aventually start forgetting the DAMAGE he did and start talking about his jail conditions and how much he suffers YADDA YADDA YADDA you just stop the debates and mess (or, have a VERY VERY short one) instead when you just eliminate the problem. And since the USA usually - and much more often recently - works a lot to help out her own political agendas and such - they would WANT to solve it quickly and "without doubt" that this deserved him. The last thing bush wants is someone going all "He might be evil but we're better.. dn't treat him bad in jail.. bla bla" demonstrations in america. Thats... possible, btw. We all know that.

Agh, it's AMERICA No pun intended, my american friends but AMERICA never was afraid of whaetver the rest of the world would say, AMERICA seeked justice, freedom and perfect world-for-all-americans. God bless america. Yeah I believe he will be executed after a long and very dramatic trial, where America will presenf (btw, he deserves it) why he's such an evil evil man, and on the other side would stand a rightous lawyer STANDING for the rights of the defendant AS COMMANDED IN THE American CONSTITUTION and will try to show ways on why not killing, until aventually everyone will decide that killing might be bad as a punishment (hence, death sentence) but since that man is the DEVIL ENCARNATE (err.. spelling sorry) - then if ANYONE deserves that, it's him. VOILA. america goes great in the world AND doing her own will. The power of press in the hands of the greatest nation on the planet. Gotta love 'em.

Hehehehehehe ROFL Iraq. RIGHT. America will try him herself (not even send him to the Hague international court) and in a probably huge and very public trial, which, by the way, will end with his "oh so surprising" execution. Mighty America. Well done on the catch though, really impressive. And YT -- The huge smiley face made me laugh so hard i need to take a paper bag so i won't hyper ventilate. It just.. looks.. so... appropriate. hehe :-D ~mooeypoo

Thanks!! In addition can anyone please tell me where I can get a table of matter densities (to use with Snell law and different kinds of wave frequencies) ? Thanks a lot again

I chose "Only for theraputic purpose" but I must HONESTLY state that the main concern i have in this subject is the reprecussions. If we want cloning - to wahtever purpose - we need to make sure it is done correctly, ethically, and doesn't go beyond what we intend for it. Since that is highly unlikely - and cloning is now a fact more than a debate - i just hope humanity won't slide to what is shown in GATTACA. Cloning is bad to the human race in terms of social structure, ethics and evolution (we might know a lot - but we don't know all, and cloning might affect human evolution in such a way that will aventually bring to our extinction... seperate topic if u want me to explain why i think that),. But then again - so is cutting the rainforests, pulluting the atmosphere and sitting too long near a computer (ahem ahem). Maybe the question shouldn't be if we think it's right or wrong - but how we make SURE it doesn't get to a "point of no return" where it is used to evil and unethical purposes. Watch GATTACA. It rules. ~mooeypoo

I know it's not exactly 2D, but it's not 3D either -- its probably something in between. The point is that you rotate a matter inside the centrifuge in ONE axis - which makes it "2D" in my current debate. By the way, the entire point of CENTRIFUGE is "2D". I am talking about something higher than that . AND don't forget a rotation was initially CREATED by those powers i'm talking about - so saying that the rotation created the "flat" axis is like saying the ocean is blue because it reflects the color of the skies, and the skies are blue because they reflect the color fo the ocean. Tautology..

wait... I need to catch my breath... I've been laughing so hard I think I hyper ventilate. Blike, you're a genius. hehe I loved that -- wait 'till I show it to my ultra-religious extra-preaching friend of mine. Thanks for that, blike :-D ~mooeypoo

Every theory should stand the test of logic and reality. The BIG BANG theory - as any other theory in our world, by the way - is unproven. However, the theory DOES stand the test of reality - we CAN use it to explain phenomenas we see in space and the universe (such as the rotation of stars, the similarity between planets and stars and so on). Yes, someone can jump up in the next 200 years (or even tomorrow, who knows) and claim it's all a big *BS* and show us a different theory-- But if we want to ACCEPT that theory, we will put it AGAIN through the same tests: does it fit the phenomenas in space, does it explain them, and - does it HELP me in any way. About your chair. No, no one can clame that he is 100% sure the chair wasn't made up in thin air within seconds through a huge bang in the room. You can't be sure, since you haven't SEEN or WITTNESSED the making of the chair -- in order to say it was braught there, you are using your logic --- chairs don't go "PUFF" from thin air, someone makes them, therefore - this chair was made by someone and put inside the room. If you want to say the chair was created by a devine force - you may, but you still need to ask yourself two major questions: 1) Can I support this theory with reality phenomenas? 2) Does it matter? Since both answers would probably mean "NO", no self-respecting scientist would accept your chair theory. The universe' BIG BANG theory, however, answers to the first question in a huge YES (as i said in the beginning of the post, rotation of stars and all) and to the second an even bigger yes: WE WANT to know our creation so we could understand the rest of our life and existance. At the same type of question, I can always ask you this: How can you be sure that our existance wasn't created with our own false memories and experiences by a higher being - the almighty GOD himself - only Tuesday last week at 14:52 EST. You can't prove that God didn't, and you certainly can't CLAIM he didn't since he's almighty. However - this doesn't explain ANYTHING and it also doesn't give you any other information. It gives you NOTHING. Therefore, its meaningless. The big bang went boom and created a universe of questions. Creation went "Puff" and gave us a SINGLE answer to all questions. I personally preffer the first one. ~mooeypoo

Well: Uhm, a centrifuge is a 2dimentional "tool" -- its made of a cylinder. The matter is pushed AWAY -- not necesseraly to one of the axises -- unless of course you're ROTATING it directly TO one of the axises - and that shouldn't have had any reason of happening in space. Let's take something a bit more similar to 3D movement in space -- WATER. Water allows a 3Dimentional movement without PHYSICAL limitations like a in a cylinder. Shouldn't the movement be the same as in molecules and atoms? And by the way, if dark matter doesn't reflect the light -- but its still a MATTER, shouldn't we have seen a black-hole phenomena instead? A SPHERE is equal in all planes... there is no "middle" normal plane in a 3dimentional sphere. I'm not reffering to EARTH because that is not a sphere - but in space we shouldn't have physical boundries, so it still doesn't make sense.