mooeypoo

Nice, nice, so you were asked to bring a scientific quote from a cosmologist, and you bring one from the bible. I think that right there explains why you don't really getting along with the rules in this forum.

BTW, I did admit my mistake, apologized for it, and posted a link that was opposite to what I said, hence I corrected my claim. That's the way things should happen when people make mistakes.

I wish we had a way to work shifts, but in all honesty, we are working people who are volunteering our time in the forum. That won't really be possible. However, we work as a team, and we discuss our actions when and as we take them. Also, when we participate in a thread, we do so as members (for discussion) and not as moderators. That's why *other* moderators usually take the "moderation action". The moderators have rules too. One of those rules is that if you're participating in a thread, you're not allowed to take moderation actions. If you notice, we take that seriously. We *are* humans, and we sometimes slip -- when that happens, you should feel free to use the "report" button and let the moderators AND admins know about it. The only exception to this rule is in the Speculation forum. We try to uphold it there too, but in the case of severe trolling, the law is flexible, for the sake of taking quick action. Still, we try our best not to make "final" judgments (like closing a thread) if we participated. Also, moderators discuss actions -- we don't go off as some lone gunmen up for a kill -- we use the report button too when we think something deserves our attention, and we discuss issues and how to deal with them. Again, though, we are human beings, and sometimes like any human being we make mistakes and lose ourselves. you should really use the report button if you think that happened. That's why there's a group of us -- to keep everyone in check and notify each other when we make mistakes. If you look at the history of threads, we are known to take a step back every now and then or apologize. The community is important to us, we want to hear from you. If you don't use the report button, we can't really know something's wrong, though. We're not mind readers ~mooey

It's the big gun I'm holding.

I agree, I gave the child example as a bit of an extreme to make my point. Still, a definition (even the 'simplest' one) should at least make it clear what the word it explains is. I don't dispute that making definitions is hard, i'm just saying I don't think "A to B" is sufficient. Even your example: Is not quite sufficient. Like you admit yourself, that would define a mammal, not a "naked mole rat". But that seems a better definition for the requested word, and it's not that complicated. We could make compromises on definitions, but I think that there's a point where the definition loses its purpose. I see your point, but I disagree. "A to B" is meaningless -- it requires you to explain what you mean, and therefore cannot be used as a definition. I agree that the current definition of time is probably not sufficient, I'm just saying that if we go too simplistic, we lose clarity, and physics is also supposed to give some sort of clarity. ~mooey

Is this a request? It's funny. Most of the members here seem unaffected by our insane megalomania and insistence on stupid little rules you agreed to when signing up. It's quite odd we have quite a large number of members with not only a long list of posts under their belt, but a high reputation score. They must all be sucking up to us.

What did I say about preaching? You seem to *want* to disregard our rules. If you keep going, you'll get your wish. No one would think we didn't give you a chance. Or two. Or ten.

Well, you insist on talking more about what we're missing rather than address the questions we posed to you. You posted a thread "does hatred cause cancer", and while the first post was vague question about definitions, you continued to make some claims about this. We ask that you back those claims up, and no matter how much you avoid it, this is very simple: You will never convince anyone (forum dwellers or the scientific community) if you don't back your claims up with proper evidence. Are we going to get back on topic or what?

! Moderator Note Aristarchus in Exile, We are not here to preach or hear soapbox speeches, we're here to discuss. If the only claim you can make is "you have to believe", look for a theology forum. This is a science forum, and we discuss evidence here. In the case of religion, those range from interpretation of scripture to historical documents. Make a claim and back it up, or don't make any claims. It is that simple. There's no "holy cows" here, only "holy men" and they don't last long.

Look, you seem to face one of two options here. Either continue stomping your feet on the ground and insist that everyone is persecuting you, which would make this thread just deteriorate further, or let it go, accept my partial apology about my *own* flaw and in return work on the flaws you have in your statements. Instead of bashing heads with us, can we go back on topic? You were asked quite a number of questions which you need to answer with proper evidence. This whole "But it's you!" argument isn't really beneficial. Just remember, we're a private forum that has a set of rules. When you joined, you agreed to those rules. We aren't here to argue the rules, we're here to discuss science. I think you should go over the requirements of this forum again, and pretty soon this will stop being a kindly suggestion. Can we move on, or are we going to go back round and round about how horribly unfair we are? ~mooey

You're confusing the definition with the word. Mammal isn't the definition, "A warm-blooded vertebrate animal of a class that is distinguished by the possession of hair or fur, the secretion of milk by females for the nourishment of the young, and (typically) the birth of live young" is one proposed definition. (source) A definition should make the word clear. If you tell a child "Mammal" and the child has no clue what that is, that won't help him or her understand. The definition would. There are quite a number of words that have controversial definitions, or hard to define ones, but the definition can't be a single word, really, especially not something like "A to B" for time. It explains nothing.

Sure, but at some point a definition is so simplistic it's irrelevant. A definition should be simple and explain the meaning of the word it defines. If it's too simple to do the latter, it's not very useful.

The question was 'what is the simplest definition of time'. It seems this is an insufficient definition if it has so many interpretations?....

! Moderator Note This thread does not follow mainstream science, and is hence moved to speculation. When one day the physics community accepts the premises here and decides to operate by them, this thread can be moved back to the mainstream physics forum.

Isn't that distance?

I'm not the one making the claim. You are correct, though slightly shifting the blame here. I agree, I should be putting forth evidence, but that has nothing to do with the fact that you, as the claim maker, need to establish their claims. I fell into the trap and made a claim myself. Good catch. I officially retract my claim. I had a few articles to post here regarding high odds of survival due to medical treatment, but those were not with prostate cancer. In fact, this here seems to support the idea that the odds of surviving prostate cancer are independent of treatment. According to the article, there's a 5 year survival rate for both treated and untreated patients if the cancer is spotted early. I did the work for you, it seems, and all it took was a quite short google search. However, this isn't too much of a statement in that pdf. What it says, really, is that treatment isn't too helpful. It does NOT say that your treatment is helpful. Since you're stating that your treatment is helpful, you need to prove it. I gave my original statement as an example of why your statement is out of the ordinary. I agree, I should be providing link, but that doesn't solve the issue here that you are the one making the extraordinary claim, and hence you are the one that's required to prove it. A google search and a google-scholar search do not require having a PhD. Right, which we answered with our own questions, to which you started answering definitively. After we started telling you it's unacceptable, you started playing martyr and claim we're persecuting you. This isn't about you, it's about the truth and about what works. We have no way of knowing what works other than to follow evidence, which is why we require them. Newspapers are not scientific evidence. Doctors and scientists publish peer-reviewed papers exactly for that reason. Google scholar has a lot of them. You're sticking to irrelevant details here; even *if* Steve Jobs was full of hate, he's one person. One person with one example is irrelevant. And at the same token, even if he wasn't full of hate, that doesn't mean anything either. See what I mean here? It's not just one person. A research paper will tell you if ther's a real TREND. If I were you, I'd start looking into some medical resaerch regarding the benefits of psychological treatment on cancer patients, and go from there. Maybe you'll find something that will support your idea. Maybe you'll find something that will give you another idea, whatever happens, though, you have to consider first what actually happens and *then* reach a conclusion, and not reach a conclusion first and then look for evidence to support it. There's no dispute psychological state affects patients positively. The question is how much, and you seem to claim that medicine is less important -- and even HARMFUL. That's a dangerous claim, sir. You should back it up. ~mooey Okay, seriously now. You can say I made a mistake a billion times and I can agree with you a trillion time, and it will still not change the fact that someone ANSWERED YOUR QUESTIONS and you, instead of relating to questions and points that were raised in a rather lengthy and well thought-of post, decided to attack their integrity instead. Are you more interested in shifting blame, or discussing? How many times do I need to tell you I accept the error I made before you start listening and cooperating? We're not here to rub your ego, we're here to get facts, which you're not supplying in the least. Please. PLEASE, read the post I put up. You SERIOUSLY need it.

If we didn't welcome you, you'd be banned. We didn't do that, instead we explained to you what we expect. But we do expect you to follow up on this. This isn't about beginning science, this is about understanding how science works. You don't have to have formal education, you need to understand that claims must be followed by evidence. If this was a PhD thesis, trust me, you'd be doing a lot more work. We're not asking for a phd thesis, a basic start would suffice. That means showing *where* you get your information from when you make claims, and if you can't find where it comes from, read what scientific data actually says and then make your conclusion based on that. It does not go the other way around. You seem to have a certain belief on how things should work, and you make very gradiose (and quite dangerous) claims. Suggesting that mainstream medicine is less effective than your method is a *definitive* claim. We are being very insistant because if you're wrong (and there's no evidence you're right so far) this can mean death for people. You do understand that the bigger claim you make, the better evidence you should present, right? If you don't feel you have enough training to find the evidence that fit your claim, don't make those claims. I don't make claims in fields I have no knowledge of. I make suggestions, perhaps, in the hope that people who know what they're talkinga bout direct me towards resources that will help me understand better and make better judgment. The entire point of this exchange is to try and get you to step down from the gradiose unproven claim and to try and see what the *actual* data really says. Okay? So... how does this relate to any of your claims? I don't understand how we shifted from the original claim that hatred affects cancer to the above information about HPV and cancer. That link is well known, but HPV is a virus and has nothing to do with anger, rage or hatred. And remember, you made claims about how getting rid of hatered is *more* effective than medicine. If you want to retract this statement, please do, but until you retract it, I will keep insisting you clarify it and provide proper proof for it. It's a potentially dangerous claim. I'm a programmer, so I really do, but newspapers are interpretive, they're not personal evidence from the man himself. The fact he does things to make it seem like he dislikes the companies does not mean he has "intense hatered". You assume so, and you have no evidence for it. Perhaps he was simply very competitive, and while he respected those companies for their achievements, he wanted to "kill them" to make more profit. Newspapers are not evidence, especially not when your claim is so big. The wiki article is 3 paragarphs long, and has nothing to do with what you're proposing. The risks associated with Transurethral resection of the prostate are (and I quote) - There's nothing here about what you're saying, regarding the risk of making the cancer worse by spreading the cells. Your claim may as well be right, but (a) you still didn't provide evidence and (b) you seem to claim the risk from YOUR method is less than the risk of the medical intervention. Taht requires evidence on its own. Do you have research to prove this? Look. You make claims that you can't back up, that's the bottom line; you can't expect people (especially science-minded people) to drop what we have *evidence for* in favor of a claim that has zero evidence, for whatever reason. I expect you provide evidence to claims. If you don't have evidence, make it a guess, a hypothesis, or an opinion. You are the one who claims that your idea is true, and you have to substantiate it or accept the fact that it may well be false. ~mooey

What? Wait, I am losing you. Are you claiming the gravitational constant doesn't matter when I'm eating a hotdog? The only reason you don't use the symbol "g" in equations that talk about stationary objects is because the normal force and the gravitational force are cancelling each other out, and we built "simplified" equations that stem out of that. That doesn't mean g doesn't exist in that case...

You're expected to not expect us to agree with unfounded statements you're making. If you make a CLAIM, support it. This is why you came to a *science* forum and not a fantasy forum, or pseudoscience-R-us forum. You should really go over that post I attached, it wasn't just to make this thread look pretty. but you seem to make the claim that medical treatment is less effective. Isn't that what you said when the point about Steve Jobs? You seemed to claim the reason it didn't work for him is BECAUSE he "succumbed" to medical treatment. Let me remind you, from your own post: You are making a LOT of unsubstantiated claims in there, from what happens from medical treatment to Jobs' state of mind. As far as I know, you weren't his therapist -- you don't know if he had hatered problems, and who they were directed towards. You *assume*. That's not science. Don't make claims if you can't back them up, and don't blame us for insisting on this point. ~mooey

We can double check if it makes *sense*, though. Easy enough to do -- if someone tells us the correction to a certain chemical or physical procedure, we can simply experiment with the "new" idea and see if it works better. The original poster seems to give us only walls of text full of wordsalad and vague answers full of mysterious references to musical sheets. Also, I find it curious that the entire universe operates with 9 octaves -- which is what a human being is able to intercept -- while the entire universe is also not as teeming with life as I'd expect it to be if it operates by something as convenient as what we can sing. ~mooey Are you sure you're not talking about the Universal Avoidance Principle? You seem to be doing a heck of a job following that one with questions you don't quite like.

There's no banishment here, but you're making claims that you need to supply evidence for. I attached that post to help you, not to banish you. You're expected to give appropriate evidence for the claims you're making. You seem to claim that psychological state cures cancer *on the expense of medical intervention*. That's a VERY clear and VERY big claim. The expectation of a science-forum is that you support it; we are not supposed to "rebuke it". It's *false* until proven true. ~mooey

I find some good, some horrific, some so-so. I find the discussions that they cause incredibly satisfying. As long as we're sharing our belief systems, for the record, I'm an agnostic atheist. I believe I can't say definitively that there is no god just like I can't say there is one (that's where the "agnostic" part comes in), HOWEVER, I also believe that the existence of god is irrelevat -- according to everything we know, nature operates independently of divine intervention, so I'm quite satisfied with the knowledge that "according to everything we know, the possibility of god's existence is so minute, it's irrelevant." But again, I believe not only in remaining open minded,but also that the mere discussion itself is more important than the answer. By discussing ethics, we improve our own ethics. I see EXACTLY what you mean, and I completely agree. I do want to point out, though, that a lot of the rules in the bible depend on context, both about what they're refering to and about the time they were written. Today, we find the idea that you should offer a raped woman to her attacker appalling. However, and I say this while being appalled, but still, we should consider the fact that 2000+ years ago, especially in the semi-nomadic tribal culture that the bible refers to in its rules, a woman who's not a virgin is unfit to marry. No man would take her. This also means no man will take *care* of her, since back then the only way for women to be really taken care of is by their husbands. They did not own their own flock or property or land. So while, again, I'm extremely appalled at this rule, still worth mentioning that it was meant for that type of population, and the purpose of it was to make sure the attacker is now responsible for the woman he defiled. Rarely did men and women marry out of real love back then, the marriages were mostly a "transaction" -- unity of families, transaction of flocks, etc. Men wanted maidens, because that means they are "pure", and can give them children (and have no one else's children). A defiled woman was cast aside, or, at the very least, had A LOT of problems. As much as it pains me to say so, the main idea behind this appalling rule was mercy. Today this rule is ridiculously offensive, harmful and appalling. 2000 years ago, maybe not. It's all about context, and part of the reason I have a lot of problem with literalists is that they take rules that were "okay" 2000 years ago and say they are valid today. ~mooey

Yeah I don't think I'm the only one who doesn't, but regardless, going back to your statement here: The entire point is that the stomach breaks apart those enzymes, which means the human body cannot absorb any "DNA" or anything like that for it to be affecting its own DNA. Your statement makes no sense unless, for some feat of magic, the human stomach started delivering DNA particles directly to our genome. Which explains my own statement about digesting cat DNA. If Soldiers can get docile from eating tomatoes with bovine DNA, I might get feral by digesting cat DNA. I assume the future still has consistent logic, if nothing else. So which is it? That's probably the only reason why it's still open.

We're punishing gas now?

Perhaps, but the burden of proof is on you, not on me. you're the one making the incredible statement, not me. You're the one who needs to support themselves. I do accept your criticism, though, and I will post the links references of what I was talking about, but it will have to wait since I am at work atm. Still, I remind you, science states quite plainly, that you're the one in need of proving your own statement since you're the one who makes it. It's not up to me to DISPROVE you, it's up to you to provide evidence for your own claim. I don't care about mainstream media, I care about scientific evidence. You're right about me needing to post evidence, but seeing as you're making this claim, I'm pretty sure it is VERY simple to get the scientific peer-reviewed medical research that was done on the matter. Otherwise, why is your word any better than mainstream media's? We don't even know you. ~moo He did quite a lot of things, including psychotherapy and some methods I personally disagreed with, all having to do with discovering your inner strength and being happy and cleansing your feeling, and.. and.. and. At the end, didn't help much. Anecdotes go both ways. They're pointless. You signed up to this forum and you need to follow our rules -- support the claim you're making with evidence. ~mooey For your reference, here's the post "So you have a new theory" in the Speculation subforum, which is part of our rules. Refer to it, please, and while you're correct in requiring me to support my counter-claims, you need to understand that you have to prove your own statement, and not expect us to disprove you. You make a claim, you need to support it. It's not "assumed correct until proven wrong". That's not the way science works.