mooeypoo

Is there a question in this thread, or are we just reading random ramblings from online encounters?

Look. We're a science forum, not a mass-media study group. We go by scientific evidence and experimentation and observation. Plate tectonics is supported by established, peer-reviewed evidence. Giving us anything *less* than established peer reviewed evidence is going to fail hitting the mark. Videos are not evidence, they're videos. A single person explaining a theory with zero evidence and no supporting corroborating scientific evidence is not enough. This wouldn't have been enough regardless; but here you have a further problem that the current observations go AGAINST an expanding earth. So not only should you first establish that an "epanding planet" is plausible, you should also show that this is what happens to earth DESPITE what we see to the contrary. Until you do that, we can't really accept this theory. The alternative theory makes more sense in reality, because it explains the different phenomena that happen on the Earth's crust and inside its core and predict events. Expanding earth cannot. You seem to expect us to replace a working theory that gives us full explanation AND prediction with an alternative that gives only some imaginative videos and random word-filled pseudo-logical explanations. That doesn't cut it in science. ~moo

Yes. The emanations have radioactive propreties; the emanations are not radiactive themselves. Showing radioactive properties implies that the BODIES that produce the emanations ARE radioactive.

It's not ignorance, it's science. I posted links that show you the physics of what happens. If you have refutations to any fo this that include more than just a fancy youtube video, feel free to post them. Otherwise, sheer "arguing" against scientific facts is not really going to help convince anyone that there's merit to this. Give us the evidence, and we'll discuss it. Otherwise, at the very least examine the evidence for the theory you seem so eager to counter. We're open minded, but we still keep our brains from leaking out. ~mooey

I disagree with you, but I respect your opinion. This is a subject that's extremely emotional, and hence I will have a lot of trouble keeping myself rational, as I am trying to do here (and you are too). These type of arguments are already easily going to the emotional rather than the rational (specially with the emotionally-leaning claims that we see on television, many of which are simply inaccurate on *both* sides). The introduction of this particular point will, at least in my case, push things too far, whether you think they're relevant or not. It might be a flaw in my character, but that's irrelevant. I simply admit to you that if the debate will contain this type of points and involve any sort of comparison with the Nazi regime, be it justified in your opinion or not, I will have a very hard time arguing with you rationally. It simply touches a nerve. I admit it. The rational thing to do in MY case at this point is to step away. So if this is where this debate is going, I humbly step out of this discussion. ~mooey

! Moderator Note You already know this, keelanz: Offensive remarks are NOT welcome in this forum. Please don't make us turn our friendly reminders to more permanent actions, and instead go read our rules and etiquette again. They are in effect in ALL forums, Religion and Philosophy included.

! Moderator Note If you want to discuss your own speculations, start your own thread. Quoting from the Speculation Forum rules: "Keep it in the Speculations forum. Don't try to use your pet theory to answer questions in the mainstream science forums, and don't hijack other threads to advertise your new theory." (emphasis added on purpose. please follow the rules)

Great. It took us 22 posts to bring up Godwin's Law. I suggest we avoid this topic, and continue, instead, in an argument that does not involve emotional low-blows. I'm sure we can do that in a science forum. I'll answer the rest of the points after a bit of a break from the thread, if you guys don't mind. That's scaring the seculars, as well, let me tell you. It has more to do with the fact they're producing large amount of offspring than an increase in religiosity. You should rent "Idiocracy" ~mooey

You're not the only one to think I'm stretching it. I, however, am not alone in "stretching" it. The vast majority of Israelis are secular; either non-practicing or completely atheist. Ironically, Rabbis find me Jewish despite my lack of religion, since they go by a quite simplified "If your mother is Jewish, you're Jewish" definition. This might work for most cases, but it fails working when, say, the father is Jewish and the mother is not, but the child grew up as a Jew (even religious jew) -- why is he less Jewish than, say, a "full" Jew? So, I disagree with the ultra-religious take. Even people who didn't "act" Jewish (that is, didn't follow the cultural and religious customs) were considered Jewish for persecution purposes; this common history, I admit fully, is part of my heritage. It's part of why *I* consider myself Jewish. My family was butchered in the holocaust despite the fact a quarter of them were business-men with almost no ties to actual Judaism. My other side was beaten in the Pogroms regardless of beliefs; This common history is one of the things that make a "Jew" more than just religion. Take into account, however, that my definition is vague *BECAUSE* it's off topic; I gave it as an example of how the "religious" and "ethnic" cases are not as clear cut as Marat seems to present them. My own thoughts on the "what is a jew" subject is quite more elaborate than what I wrote in teh previous post. If we want to discuss this, though, we should probably start a new thread. ~mooey

You know, Marat, you might be surprised, but I tend to agre with you about the definition of Israel as a"Jewish state". In fact, I'm not the only Israeli who sees a lot of problems with that definitions. The main issue that led to the necessity in having a "state for the jews" was the fact that regardless of how much effort Jews made (even the secular ones) to integrate into societies around the world, particularly in Europe and Russia, they were always a persecuted minority, and often quite violently. Again, the holocaust is used a lot because it's the most NOTABLE example, but it's far from being the ONLY example. The zionist movement started in the end of the 1800s, before the holocaust happened, when bloody Pogroms against the Jews flooded eastern europe. Jews are more than just a religion, but the definition is a problematic one, and even Jews themselves argue about it QUITE a lot. Take me as an example: I'm completely and utterly secular. I am an agnostic atheist and do not follow any of the religious rules. I see the bible as an interesting historical document (not one that tells history, because it doesn't, but one that was created in the past, and can shed light on the way things were, including how people intended to educate their young, etc). I follow the cultural holidays only, and that is because I do feel connected to my "people" through the culture and the history, but I do not follow the religious ones (all the fasts and things that happen "strictly" for God's forgiveness, etc). Like me there are many many many Jews around the world and in Israel. So, what is a Jew? Is it a religious one? Well, if that's the case, then I have no place in Israel whether I believe in having a place for my people, served my country, paid taxes or not. Is it just culture? That would mean that anyone who follows Jewish culture, even if he belongs to another religion, is Jewish, which is a problem as well. So... what's a jew? If I told you I have a definitive answer, I'd be lying. If people tell you Israelis (or the government of Israel, or even the people of Israel in general) knows the answer, they're lying. This is a philosophical argument that's being argued for decades now. Part of it even created the Secular Humanist movement, which spawned out of secular Judaism. We all have an idea of what Judaism is and what a Jew is; when it comes down to citizenship, there are more options than just "being jewish" (there ARE arab israelis, whether you choose to believe me or not, some of them serve the army and parliament and they're 100% citizens...). But "law-wise", you need a definitive definition, which is hard, so there was an initial definition, and then it's being built on, constantly. The rules change; they're not the same today as they were 60 years ago, or even 20 years ago. That's what happens in a democracy, specially a young one. But the point is that while we might not know exactly how to define "what is a Jew", the nations around the world seem to not quite care about subtle definitions; Jews were persecuted (and still are in some places, more than you might think) around the world. Professional frenchmen or russians or germans who were completely secular and, incidentally, were jewish, were persecuted for their judaism and NOT treated as "frenchmen" and "russians" and "germans" *because* they are jewish. The decision to seek for a homeland for the jews was not out of someone's religious aspiration for world domination. It was out of necessity, because Jews were being persecuted everywhere. Jews are also not the only nation to start its way like that, by far. This is a valid attempt to claim one's right to have their own land to protect themselves. In fact, the Palestinians do the exact same thing now. And yet, we seem to claim THEY have a right to do it but the Jews did not. Huh? Israel is the only place on Earth that declared that ti will help all Jews, anywhere and everywhere, against antisemitism. I see nothing wrong with this statement. What I do see wrong with is declaring there's no space for any other religion. I see a lot wrong with that, which is why I am fighting against such voices in Israel; but the laws of the land do *NOT* prevent other religions from coming to Israel or being citizens in Israel. I also have a problem with the fact that the religious (and a particular kind of religious) folk are the ones who define what "jew" is. I fight that too, and I'm not alone. These are things that we need to work out and sort out, but it's also a result of a YOUNG country, not to mention a young country that had to constantly defend itself against hostile neighbors. Expecting Israel to be as solid and fair and perfect as countries that have HUNDREDS of years of existence is unfair and unrealistic. Instead, we should try and see how to improve things. Finally, I want to say one more thing here. Palestinians want (and, in my opinion, deserve) their own country much like the Jews wanted (and deserved) their own country. To protect them against persecution. The plights of both nations is very similar, and they both deserve to be heard. I don't quite see how 1948 decision in the UN was illegal or unfair when Israel is expected to follow UN decisions currently. You can't move the goalpost like that -- either the UN is the authority, and in which case we begin from the claim that Israel (sanctioned to exist BY the UN) has a right to exist, or we claim that the UN is meaningless and then we also claim that today's UN decisions are illegal and meaningless. You can't hold the pole on both sides. Or eat the cake and leave it whole. Or... choose any other saying you like in here. You can't move the goalpost and remain rational. The Palestinians should have their own country; but we cannot -- and shouldn't, really -- live TOGETHER in ONE country. There *can* be two countries in that region, each with its own unique culture, rules and existence. And that does not negate peace.. the countries can cooperate and live as friends. The option isn't "either or". It CAN be both. It's the extremists on BOTH sides who claim "either/or", who make things worse, who attack school-busses and kill civilians, who run amok settling where they *shouldn't* settle, who make things worse for the moderates, who just want PEACE while keeping their cultural identity. Both sides want that. Why is that so wrong? ~mooey

How did you start this, Lessa? any ideas? do you know what equations to use here, or where you start to get your rates?

Sure. but then, why are we talking about "who came first" when Israel is concerned and not "who came first" when the USA is concerned? Why is there no talks about "returning the areas to the original owners" in, say, Mexico, or dismantling the states in central and south america in general because they were created on the basis of a genocide? Look back-enough into history, and every country was, at some point, in some sort of war to push some sort of people out of somewhere. It's just the way things are. We seem to be treating these countries just fine, but when it comes to Israel, we suddenly care to say that it means the state has no right of existing. Also, there's another bit of detail we're ignoring. The arabs in Israel did not call themselves "Palestinians" until Arafat's days. Arafat, who was kicked out (and his people were actually under genocide in Jordan (Black September) and Israel was the only country (ironically) that gave them refugee status. Only after that the "Palestinian" term was created, and the nationalized notions (much like "Zionism" in the 1800, so did "Palestinian" in the 1970s, very similarly) were developed and raised, and the demand for a free state started surfacing. It's also one of the reasons I *DO* believe they should get their own state. Like the Jews, they were (and are) persecuted everywhere they went. They should have their own place to call a country of their own. The only issues at the moment are *how* to do that while keeping the region secure from the fringe extremists and prevent terrorism and extremist notions on both ends. Funny how people forget parts of history that involved cooperation between the two nations, though ~mooey I ask again: Why is 1948 "injustice"? It was INTERNATIONALLY decided. I could understand you saying that 1967/1973 is "unjust" (it was after wars), but 1948 was done "by the book" in that aspect. The area was requested by two nations, and the UN - the official "international" authority that involves multiple countries -- decided to split it. How is that unjust? Would you prefer the UN to kick the jews out and give the place to Arabs alone? Wouldn't that be unjust? You make quite strong statements. We have arab citizens with FULL voting rights in Israel, and 2 arab political parties in parliament. Ethnic Cleansing?! That's.. quite a hard statement. Other than rumors on TV, do you have any evidence for this? The modern Israel is not ethnically defined, but it DOES allow for other religions and ethnicities; as I said, we have an arab party in the parliament and arab-israelis with FULL citizenship rights. Is there racism in Israel? Absolutely, but there's racism in the USA as well. We're fighting it, just like it's fought in the USA and in Europe. And, sadly, the racism in Israel is not "limited" to arabs; we have black jews who suffer quite a lot from it too, despite the fact they're "Jewish bretheren". There's racism everywhere. The LAWS of state, however, are equal. As I said, in that aspect, there are a few issues where we're MORE open than some other democracies in the world. Gay rights are one such example. I can give you a list of laws and regulations allowing Gays (jews and arabs) to get equal rights in workplace and citizenship and marriage/adoption/etc. This, however, is in the democracy of *ISRAEL* and not followed in the Palestinian regions controlled by Hamas. In fact, Gays under Hamas regime are not .. happy. To say the least. Israel does a lot of stupid things and a lot of mistakes, but it also does a lot of good things and has democratic fights for equality. If you insist on seeing EVERYTHING israel does in negative light regardless of what it actually is, I don't think we can have much of a debate. Don't you? ~mooey Apartheid? Really? Did the Blacks in South Africa had ANY representation in the government? Arab Israelis do. They also go to the army like jews do. I can accept claims of inequality. But Apartheid? Really? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eupkfyd1ulc (this is just one example. If you REALLY think it's apartheid, I can post a whole comparison of the definition of apartheid and Israel's status. I think it's straying a bit off realistic-debate if we go to extreme definitions just for the emotional aspect.

! Moderator Note Initially, I moved this thread to the Religion forum because of the original post and the semi-spiritual/semi-philosophical debate that seemed to be building up. I was notified, however, that it might not be that,and that the debate is actually concentrating on a science focus. After a small deliberation, we decided that you're right. I'm moving this thread back to speculation to allow everyone fair chance to participate in the discussion as long as it remains with a scientific focus and avoids going into any religion or spiritual content. Thread moved BACK to the speculation forum. With due respect, michel, the original post is on the very borderline of religion, and the religion thread is closed to posters with certain amount of posts. The rules are there for a reason, and they're not up for debate. But you are always welcome to do what others did, click the "report" button, and make your case. As you can see, we're listening.

It's not theoretically possible, it's imaginatively possible. Write a fiction novel, then, and stop claiming to do science. We've provided all the necessary refutations and links and information. Claiming we're the ones with the closed mind is mindbogglingly ironic when you're the one refusing the even CONSIDER any of our points. ~mooey

Actually, the current borders are not 1948 borders. There were multiple wars that started by Jordan, Ecypt, Syria and Lebanon, all attacking in unison. The current borders are nothing like 1948 division. The talks (and disagreements) in and out of Israel/Palestine are usually about whether we talk 1967 borders or some other division. No one talks seriously about 1948 borders, really. Perhaps they should. I *personally* think that's not a good solution, based on the way things worked so far, and that 1967 borders, in case a peace agreement is DOABLE, is plausible and doable and should be accomplished. Many Israelis are against it, sadly. Still, these things ARE discussed. Israel is not going "throw the arabs out to sea" mentality like some of the media outlets make it seem. Also, why is 1948 an "injustice"? The land was divided by the UN between the arabs and the jews. The jews celebrated, the arabs attacked, which ended in the jews, incidentally, winning. This proceeded with more and more wars that were started by the Arabs (except 2 of them in Lebanon, both resulting in no conquered land). If anything is "injustice", isn't it the arabs trying to take the divided land by force? The decision to divide was sanctioned by the UN, a majority of countries WORLD-WIDE agreed on it. How is that an injustice? I think it's good to discuss injustices and ways to fix them, but I think that if we lose sight of historical occurences and start branding EVERYTHING that is on the "jewish side" as unjust and EVERYTHING on the arab side as "just", we're missing an opportunity to actually talk realistic solutions. ~mooey

Jews have lived in the land of Israel for thousands of years, not just since 1800; the Zionist movement began "sending" jews over after it was clear that the Pogroms and specific antisemite attacks against the jews in ALL countries they were living in was not going to stop. These Jewish settlers supplemented the jewish settlement in Israel, they did not just start it from scratch. Jews and Arabs lived in the land of Israel in relative peace (And occasional strife) for hundreds of years. Reducing the history of two nations to a simplified version does not give justice to either nation, the "rightful" and the "not rightful", whoever they may be. The majority of Israelis are secular, and the Zionist movement, initially, considered other areas as permanent residence for the (haunted) jewish nation, not just Israel. Eventually, Israel was chosen out of two main reasons: First, the historical value (yes, religious as well, but the Zionist movement of the 1800s was not religious, on the contrary, it was completely secular) and the second was the already existing settlements. But this whole deal is no longer relevant. The state of Israel exists, just like the Palestinian presence. Those who think that Israel has no right to exist are no different than those on the ISraeli side that think the palestinian state has no right to exist; reality dictates differently: They DO exist. Now it's time to see how to make them COexist. I always found it interesting how people have a different goal post when it comes down to Israel. Though it wasn't really "conquered" in the traditional sense of the world, even if people believe it was, it's FAR from being the only country that started its way like that. Of course, the United States of America and Central and South America are the biggest examples. The English and Spaniard settlers to the Americas did not come with a bouque of flowers and a box of food to live together harmoneously with the local population. They came and committed outright genocide, introducing diseases by accident and (sometimes) on purpose and declared an official war on the locals. Yet, no one ever speaks of the right of any country on the America continents as having no right to exist. Why is that? Because history dictates reality, that's the way things go. For many centuries Jews lived with Arabs in the land of Israel, sometimes cooperating, sometimes not, but they lived together. The Arab dwellers had the entire region's support and were accepted in their countries. The Jews were not. The holocaust was not the first time the Jews suffered as "the outsiders" in the countries they belonged to; it was just the most notable one. So, after centuries of being casted aside and literally killed by Pogroms and antisemitism, the Jews sought land of their own. They came back to Israel not as the religious symbol, but as the historical one. They developed cities like Tel Aviv and Haifa and kibbutz's around the country, including in the desert, not just Jerusalem and Bet Lehem. I am not religious at all. I'm a complete atheist, and, perhaps to some of your surprise, I think my government is doing badly in terms of seeking peace; they're more interested in their own seats in the parliament than actual progress. I also believe the Palestinians deserve, and WILL have their own free state, and I am not afraid to reach compromises that give away areas of the country if it means a peace is then achieved. We've done it before with Egypt (giving back the Sinai peninsula) and earned peace. A cold and not too friendly peace, but peace nonetheless. Israelis are human beings, and Israel is a democracy. There are many voices that scream and yell for many points of view, just like any other democracy. The media, however, tends to publish the loud ones, or the "interesting" ones, which causes the majority of the common-sense, peace-oriented Israelis and their Palestinian counterparts to be burried under heaps of hate mongering and extremism by factions on BOTH sides. That doesn't mean that's the way things are in general. Israel is a democracy, but it has a lot to go, too .It's easy to criticise a country by a goalpost that was achieved after hundreds of years of relative peace from outside. Judging a 60 year old country (that has been attacked by its neighbors constantly through its short history) by a 300 year old relatively stable country "ideals" is not very realistic. That said, Israel has quite a number of advancements in its democracy status; We have gay marriage. We do not have "don't ask don't tell" silliness, our women voted from the get-go and we had a woman prime minister. We have a very advanced high-tech culture and quite a large number of gadgets you all use came initially from Israel. It's not all about a war. How is it, then, that I, an Israeli since I was born, can disagree with my government and work to replace it democratically, work to improve my country's culture and cooperation with others, have quite a number of Palestinian friends -- and yet I seem to be generalized into a compact notion of "THEM" vs "THOSE" as if we're all the same, there's no difference at all, we're all murderous killers. Doesn't sound too rational to me. We can argue and debate the politics, but I think it would be much more fair if we stopped generalizing both Jews and Arabs into these "GROUPS" we want them to be in. It's not respectful to either nation. ~mooey

! Moderator Note Religious questions go to the religion thread. There's a reason we limit post-count there, I know it can seem like a bureacracy, but it isn't. We're a science forum, our focus is science, and the religion forum is secondary. Please don't try to circumvent the rules we've created by posting a religious debate anywhere outside the religion forums.

I am not sure I understand. First, "mph" is velocity and not acceleration, so the "acceleration on the gas pedal" is unclear here. Second, the gas pedal moves the WHEELS faster, which relies on traction with the ground -- that's why cars slip when there's dark ice, for instance -- so pressing the gas pedal in space will do you no good. You need some form of push. Using Newton's third law fits here so you can throw stuff off the rear end or shoot a projectile, and get the reactionary force backwards to "push" the car. Similarly, when you stop the gas pedal, it will do nothing at all. However, if I understand your question correctly, then let me try and reframe it; if you use acceleration initially (by however means), the car will accelerate to, say, 50mph. When you stop the acceleration, the velocity will remain constant (lacking external forces). It will not slow down, because slowing down is also an acceleration ("Deceleration)" which requires a force. Hope that helped, ~mooey

We gave up because you seem to be utterly convinced you're right despite the comments we're making to the contrary.

Really? In the beginning of freshman year before any entry-level physics classes were completed? That's pretty cool. We can start a research project as freshmen, but it's less advised; the idea is to be able to carry as much of it on your own as possible, and in the freshman year there's not a lot of experience yet to do that. They give us this option in Sophomore or Junior year usually.

First year of college is a bit too early for research, you should wait until you finish your first couple of major-related courses and have a solid basis, then you can approach a professor. Personally, my research came by "accident". I had a question that interested me, and I tried to solve it. I went to one of my professors to see if he can help me and if I'm on the right track, and we decided it is a good enough problem to be researched officially. So, not always is research entirely about joining an existing one. Also, it depends what you have in your college. We have "Independent Study" that we all need to take, so there's an "official" place to start research even if you don't know how to approach a professor. Some people take a subject (like black hole behavior or general relativity) for their independent study, and some join a professor's research or conduct data-analysis. Maybe your college has that too. I suggest you keep the research plan in your mind but don't rush it. Get through the first year and finish your first few major-courses to get a proper base knowledge. Some of it can give you an idea of what interests you or questions you might want to try and answer, or a research you would like to participate in. Then you can talk to professors. They usually want undergrads to run around for them Good luck! ~mooey

You're a bastard. <3

That's a good point. Beyond the fact that this poll asks for a belief question which, in science, isn't too relevant to the actual existence of ghosts (personal experience is not a good evidence), I didn't think about the fact that things can go the other way. This is actually ironic, since, thinking about it, I, too, had a couple of experiences that fit the common "ghost" description. They were all explainable after a brief test, though.

I posted the videos regardless, I was planning to, since they're relevant (and Captain Disillusion is awesome), but you're right, I started and had to run. I shall re-watch.

There are many things that can be the explanation of such videos. Case in point: BTW, ALL of Captain Disillusion's videos are excellent and highly recommended. Not all ghosts on video are bugs, but some are, some are illuminations, problems with the camera, optical illusions and problems with the equipment. Some are simply paraedolia. In the presence of a few possible explanations, the explanation that requires the least extraordinary assumptions wins. Ghosts are last on that list, really, since assuming that would require proving first that ghosts exist, can come to our world, and can be caught on camera without anyone else seeing them. ~mooey This is a good one too: (shows how gullible people can be when they LOOK for stuff to see, rather than check what's going on objectively).