mooeypoo

Frequency is clearly defined, lemur: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency#Frequency_of_waves It isn't "number of waves" per "second". There's no such thing is "number of waves". Do you mean a Period? Number of cycles? Frequency = Velocity / Wavelength. In the case of electromagnetic waves (such as light) the velocity is the speed of light. Hence, frequency is F = c/Wavelength. I understand what you mean but it's not right, and it just serves to confuse you. Read up again about my comment regarding "number of waves". You know, maybe you should look at the math a bit. It's relatively easy math, nothing too fancy (pure algebra) and it might show you what the transformations mean? See here as starting point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation (Forget about the 'matrix form', it's not needed for the sake of this argument, the basics of lorentz transform are enough for now. But reading that article might help you understand the transformations that happen (time dilation, length contraction) when seeing between different reference frames. ~moo

Strictly speaking, there's nothing that is certain. Everything is a varying degree of certainty, even in "empirical science". The question is WHAT the degree of certainty is, no? I mean, if you have one thing that is 20% certain and another 95% certain, is it not more reasonable to choose the latter? I understand, but my point is that they aren't logically. ~mooey No, again, I define every choice by varying degrees of expected certainty. How do you know that when I throw a ball off the Eifel Tower it will fall towards the ground? You know because EVERY time you do that, it does. Every time you throw a ball anywhere on Earth, it falls. So this is a high degree of certainty. When you consult with medicine, the vast majority of times, you will get better. That's a high degree of probability of success. I don't have a method of defining "Consultin with divinity"'s degree of success. Beyond that, by DEFINITION, I seem to not be able to do that because the divine is defined to be out of the realm of reality and hence unmeasurable. So by definition it seems it has less "value" as support to any decision that requires some expected degree of success.... You see my point? This is not a common definition of God. Let me ask you, then - what is the difference between asking the divine like you suggest and asking yourself? For that matter, why is the use of "God" needed at all if it's just a process of reasoning? For this to be logically consistent you need to first show that (a) God exists and (b) is infallible. Believing as a single proof of any of this is not enough.... Okay, then why use the term "God" at all? This isn't the common use of the term, by the way. Most religious folk treat God as an entity. Obviously, it's your right not to -- it's personal belief, and you have every right believing and holding this position. I'm just trying to understand what benefit it has over anything else, if it SEEMS to be indistinguishable from other processes?

Of course there's a basis, our observations *FIT* our predictions. There is no discrepancy. If there's no discrepancy, then either the discrepancy is EXTREMELY small, or it's nonexistent. That's how you support scientific theories, lemur. You make predictions and then you check to see if these are supported. Okay, seriously, you are losing me. Are we even discussing physics any more? *YOU* seem to assume. I said no such assumptions about spacetime. I used the wave example as a conceptual example, not as a basis to construct our view of the universe. Spacetime isn't 3 dimensional, either, so obviously it's not a 3D grid. Can you try to at LEAST stick to ONE subject. Please. I beg you. I'm getting insanely confused about what the subject matter is anymore. I'll leave any and all questions bout the nature of cosmological topology to the experts. I have no clue. Meh. Okay, I apologize, but I am not sure where to start... you're making assumptions that are just not right, and I'm trying to see how to start explaining it without making everything just that much more complicated. First, and once again, there is no reference frame for light. Hence, nothing is "relative to the motion of light". This statement makes no sense no matter how many times you'll say it I assume, at this point, that it is accidental. Do try to notice this, however, since it just serves to confuse me as to what, exactly, you're trying to ask. Second, the distance doesn't contract, it's the length of the object that contracts and time dilates - as a result it SEEMS to the traveler that he(or she) traveled in less time than what the observer (in another frame) thought it took that traveler. Nothing actually happened to space - it's the relative perception that is changed... Yes, they do, length contraction, as Capn pointed out. As far as your answer to him; Sure there is. Unless an object is in a vacuum, there is constant stream of oxygen molecules on it. I don't get the importance of a stream of light waves on an object, though. Other than making sure we see it later, what's the relevance? We can only see things that have light. That's about it for the relevance. No? It could be, sure, but wavelength is another property of the *WAVE*, not the particles. ~mooey lemur, PLEASE, stop inventing terms. There's no such thing as a "number of waves". You are making it very confusing to understand what you want to ask. "Number of waves" makes no sense. Do you mean 'number of peaks' perhaps, as in higher frequency? do you mean more intensity? What number of waves? Wavelength? Wavenumber (1/wavelength) ? I know you think I'm being a dork about this, but the terms exist for a reason. They define things clearly. I can't understand what the problem is if I don't understand what it is you are asking. ~mooey Interesting, I was under the impression Dark Matter was in "halos" around galaxies? Again, this is totally not my field, and completely and utterly above my head. http://www.universetoday.com/960/dark-matter-halo-around-the-milky-way/

I wouldn't define that as educated guess. If you go and do research and decide to count on proven methods to make your decision, how is it an educated guess? If it is, then can't that be said about *ALL* of science? Yes, but the difference between an expert and God is (a) that we have substantiated proof about the expert's track record (or we should, otherwise the reason to choose said expert should be a resounding NO), and (b) we also have an idea of why we consider the person an expert -- he studied something/somewhere etc. Not to mention that an expert decisively physically exists, while God requires that its existence is outside of reality. That on its own should give the expert an advantage on decisions that relate to reality, no? *and* be more trustworthy. I see the reasoning, but I don't understand its logic... I was trying to point out that the (a)/(b)/© that lemur gave are *not* equivalent to his "God" choice, like he *seems* to present it (I might be misunderstanding). ~mooey

It's okay, I was trying to make sure that the answer to the OP is a bit more clearer and that we're not getting confused (and confusing everyone else too). This, by the way, is out of *my* depth too. I learned special relativity and how it was derived, but I am far from being an expert in it. Still, some of the basic concepts you raise show a bit of a misunderstanding of the basics. No offense meant here, I'm just trying to see how to make things clearer. I am sorry, but I don't understand your point. We don't "assume" really, we test things out... observational corroborations are strong evidence. It's not like we're throwing wild guesses to the air, or even "educated guesses". We have a theory that is tested on and off Earth. We use it practically and get accurate results for our calculations repeatedly. I think you may have a bit of trouble conceptualizing this, but that doesn't mean that the physics is unsound or inaccurate. Physics isn't always intuitive. It's a problem How does that help you, though? We know that there are things we don't yet know. We also know where our theories have failings, and we try to find ways to solve for these - either adjust the theories or find new ones. Other than that, the knowledge that space-time might have a topography we're missing is not really relevant. The calculations are successful, so if we ARE missing something, it's likely realatively small. We probably do, so the knowledge serves to remind us there's much more to learn, but other than that, you can't really drop all your available tools and say you can't be accurate because it's possible you don't know everything. You know enough to be as accurate as you can. It's supported by observation and evidence. We use our lack of knowledge to remind us to look for more. What more can we do? Woah. Okay, we're on a totally different ballpark here. This isn't really about relativity anymore, this is about the topology of spacetime. <call to higher powers>Martin!!!!!</call> (that's his domain) Oh and I'm not sure I understand what "lower limit" of spacetime curvature means. Maybe Martin does. And this *IS* out of the scope of this thread. Maybe we should be splitting it right about now. (up until now we were more or less answering the 'how to calculate the speed of the earth around the galaxy' part. No longer.) What? I'm confused. I don't understand what you're asking. I wouldn't say that, no... It's like saying that the distance between New York and New Delhi consists of a certain number of oxygen molecules. That's not strictly wrong, but it's not really useful. What do you mean by "number of waves"? What changes is not quantity (there's no 'quantity' really.. intensity, maybe, you mean?) but rather FREQUENCY. There's a difference. I think you might be getting confused over what light *is*. It's true that it's a dual nature (wave/particle) but you seem to be mishmashing it to a point of confusing yourself. Photons move at the speed of light. Never faster. Light has a few properties we defined to describe it; intensity, frequency, amplitude, phase, etc. When you move fast - reaaaaally fast - the photons still travel at the same speed. No matter how fast you move. The properties of the wave of light, however (its frequency, sometimes its phase) can change. That's what happens in a red shift or a blue shift. The photons still travel the same speed. The wave of light is *seen* with a new frequency. It's hard to imagine. What I always found a bit more simpler to *try* and think about it is actual waves at sea. Think of a boat at rough ocean. The waves of water travel with a certain speed. The boat itself, however, is just standing there, the only displacement it has is up and down (I'm simplifying matters and neglecting winds or currents that usually drag boats away... I just want to relate to *waves* at the moment, so bear with me). This isn't really an equivalent to light particle/wave duality, since the photons *do* travel at the speed of light, but it might give you a notion of how the WAVE part and the PARTICLE (photon) part are separate in behavior. This is easily calculated. I'm not sure I understand your example so I can't see where to correct it. If you want, I can show you the calculation (it's not too hard) and you will see how things work out just fine to either observer and color shift. ~mooey Not only that, but there is no absolute reference point. That's the point, absolutely. Har. Har. ~mooey

e) analyze my personal situation and make judgment as to whether or not I should/can/may have that child There are more than just the options you think of, lemur. The point is that while it might seem reasonable for a religious individual that option "D" is in the same level as the other options, some people don't believe that at all. In fact, I *personally* would put option D at the very bottom of preferred courses of action, even UNDER a coin toss, since if I want it to be random, at least I know a coin toss would be. I have no way to evaluate what "divine inspiration" is, however. That is me personally, sure, but there are others like me, and I think you seem to miss this perspective when you define courses of action. If I do not believe a divine being exists, then divine inspiration is less logical for me than a coin toss. I know coins exist, and I know they can be tossed. See my point? ~mooey Then why should anyone take that position at all? I mean, if it is equal to picking any other method of coming to the best possible decision, then the only other factor we have here is reliability, no? For a coin toss to produce your desired result you have 50% reliability. for you to claim that trusting in a divine being is better than the above odds you first need to prove the divine being exists (since coins do, for sure) and then that the divine deity has a better reliability result. But you claimed (and I agree) that a divine being depends on faith, not real scientific proof, right? So... how is it an equal method to things that are at the very least real, and other methods that (consulting doctors, for instance, professionals, doing your research, trusting the scientific method etc) that have HIGH odds of success. I don't see how the comparison between God (outside reality) and reality-based methods stands at all. ~moo

They move relative to one another. The speed of light is constant no matter which reference frame you're looking at it. The reason we use "1/5th of the speed of light" or such in calculation is because it's a good mathematical reference, but in terms of actual reference frame, you can't look *from* from frame of light, because light remains constant in ALL reference frames. If I hold out a flashlight ahead of me and I move at 90% of the speed of light relative to you, then for me, the light beam moves at C, and for you, the light beam also moves at C. There's no change in the speed of light between reference frames. Nothing with mass can move faster than light. There are theoretical particles that are massless that, theoretically, can move at the speed of light. Not quite. Say you hold a flashlight and move away from me at a certain speed. The light of your flashlight beam moves at the same speed - C, the speed of light - as I see it. What changes is the frequency. In that sense you are right that the waves are "compressed" or "stretched", but that's not affecting the speed of light, it's affecting the frequency of the light -- hence the "blue" and "red" shift. The frequency is "shifted" up or down and I see a different color. No. Read up. Again, not exactly. The relative velocity will change the *frequency* of the emitted (or bounced) light, but never its speed relative to ANY frame. Yeah, that's how dark matter was discovered; the expected mass didn't fit what was actually observed. I suggest you stop mixing dark matter and dark energy, though. Those are completely two different issued that were discovered completely separately and have different effects. Again, split dark matter and dark energy. Dark matter is some mass, so in that aspect, it "curves" spacetime just like any other mass does. We don't quite know what sort of particles comprise dark matter - it's a bit of an unusual thing since it seems to not be interacting with normal matter the way we expect it to. However, as far as I understand (and this isn't my expertise, by far), dark matter does have a gravitational effect. However, I would be more comfortable if one of the experts could chime in here. I'm not really knowledgeable about dark matter. It was my understanding that it isn't *inside* a galaxy but rather surrounds it, for some reason it's "pushed out" of the galaxy boundaries. It's affecting the rotation, but not like the mass of stars and planets do. That is my understanding. I'm not sure I understand that question? We know by our theories and the fact that our observations support these theories. When the observations do not support the theory, we re-examine said theory. That's how dark matter came to be known; something didn't fit, and scientists examined what is happening. We can always say that there are things we don't know, but there are things we do know and quite a lot of them. We can use these to infer and to make calculations - those usually come out right, or, at least, give us a ballpark idea of what goes on. In the case of this particular question about the earth's movement around the center of the galaxy it depends how accurate you intend to be. I assume that here we are probably going to be satisfied enough with general estimates, so in that case we don't really need to venture too far, it's probably enough to estimate the movement as circular (even if it's probably not QUITE that) and calculate directly from the known (or estimated) speeds. If you want a more accurate result, we should likely mix in general relativity around our trajectory - other stars we might pass or stuff like that that will affect the solar system's trajectory in general. It seems to me to be extremely small corrections though. That's what I meant by using perturbations. You get a general equation for the motion of the planet and then "correct it" with estimated perturbations. Since the earth (and solar system as a whole) is so incredibly tiny compared to the galaxy these corrections will likely be extremely small - so small that it's just as well to simply get the "general" result by calculating it directly. ~moo

Just adding onto that -- If we take stars, for instance, which have an "easier" time rearranging their shape (because they're made of gas and plasma rather than solid rock) - the "best" shape for equal distribution of forces all around you in 3 dimension is a sphere. No matter which direction you look (from the center), the distance to the edge is the same (radius) and hence the FORCE that is applied on all the matter is equally distributed. That's why the most "natural" or "comfortable" choice of shape is a sphere. If you take water, for instance, in space, where they don't experience the one-direction force of gravity to destroy the natural shape, they appear in perfect spheres. That's because the surface tension of the water is distributed EQUALLY over the entire mass -- and the only way to achieve that is by creating a perfect sphere. While water and gas can more or less rearrange themselves and so are easy to get "perfectly spherical", rocks and more dense liquids are tougher; so the initial tendency for the object is to become a sphere, but then other forces apply (as Sisyphus said) and push the center outwards and make it "fat" around the equator. The Earth has a solid crust, though, that prevents it from "settling" on the originally "natural" perfectly-spherical shape; it has mountains and valleys and craters, etc. So the Earth is not a perfect sphere, but gravity pulls all its parts (and similarly other planets and stars) inwards, and creates as close-to-a-sphere shape as possible before it solidifies and continues to have internal effects that change its shape a bit. ~moo Yeah, but then you have a problem with the mass, it's just too small in this case. You probably could calculate it using GR and then add some perturbation or something like that, but it sounds a bit odd to do that... it's too small and too slow, I think it's probably best to calculate it directly.

You're mishmashing a few issues here. First, that's not quite what relativity says, but it's okay enough simplified (as long as we stick to a simplified version of *special* relativity). You can calculate the speed of the Earth relative to something else, i'm not quite sure how the speed of light fits into here other than, again, by the calculation itself (lorentz transform, etc) between the frames of reference. You will need to simply choose a frame of reference. What you should be careful of, though, is movement in an orbit, which is more complicated. The speed of light *cannot* be a reference frame. The redshift/blueshift is a RESULT of relative motion, it's not a detail you include to figure out the relative motion. So are length contraction and time dilation. You can calculate them out of the equations. HOWEVER You cannot use Special Relativity for the movement of the Earth around the galaxy -- movement in a circle includes acceleration, and special relativity is for motion *without* acceleration. General relativity depends on mass, and in the case of the Earth there are two main issues that arise - first, compared to the center of the galaxy the earth is extremely tiny mass, and second, compared to the entire galaxy "circumference" that the Earth (and the solar system) is moving through around the center of the galaxy, the Earth moves *REALLY* slowly. So, it would be like using relativity to calculate the speed of a turtle down a ramp. It's too slow for it, relatively. Either way, we can figure out the actual velocity for a reference frame. Other than that, if I remember correctly, Dark Matter is actually OUTSIDE the galaxies (surrounding them) and not interacting within the galaxy with normal matter. But on that particular point I'm not entirely sure. I don't know what "Spacetime Variabilities" are. ~mooey

A little bit, but after seeing that video, "a little bit" is a huge huge overstatement. I suck. But I love knowing the tiny memory/math tricks that help with solving quickly, they help me later when I solve my own math equations on paper too. ~mooey

Repeating my post #58: I agree with that. This also fits into my own personal view that morality, as a general case, is mostly subjective. There are a few issues that seem to be generally objectively agreed upon, but those are the "extreme" cases (like murder or rape). The rest? Mostly subjective, it's different between cultures and requires much more philosophical thinking. So to recap; Marat made a point that "Religions which hold that God only requires people to discipline themselves to be good necessarily rely on oversimplified, unrealistically clarified situations in which good and evil choices are clearly demarcated." Suggesting that what the definitions of "Good" and "Evil" are not as clear cut as some religions claim. I agreed with that overview, and added that in my opinion this extends to more than just some religions, but rather to the whole of mankind. That is, the view that something is "moral" and some other thing is not "moral" is not as clear cut as many people make it seem, whether they speak from the perspective of religion or not. I used the term objectivity and subjectivity, but since they raise contention, let's drop those. I shall rephrase: In my opinion and personal view, morality is not as clear cut as many make it seem. While some moral propositions seem to repeat throughout different cultures, many others do not, and this supports my belief in the matter. Most religions make it a point to stress what is "Good" and what is "Bad", and the "Bad" is considered sin; since we are discussing a soul's strength to avoid sin (or resist 'satan'), the point I was trying to make is that "Goodness" and "Badness" are NOT universal. They are, in general, mostly not agreed upon. Hence the relevance. I withdraw my use of the terms "Objective" and "Subjective" if they raise any form of contention that takes AWAY from the argument I am actually positing. ~moo

lemur, you'd be surprised, but I actually agree with you about the vagueness of objectivity. HOWEVER -- this is a tangent on what I was actually SAYING. Please read my post again. I was using "subjective" and "objective" in a manner that is quite clear for my point. If you want to argue my point, do, but you seem to twist my point on its face by replacing the meaning of words I'm using, and that's not fair. The argument of whether or not anything is subjective or objective is a completely different argument. I'd love to debate it, I tend to agree, in fact, that there are very little, if at all, things that are objective at all. BUT I said "x seems objective." You argued about the 'seems' and then about the meaning of objective. Stop nitpicking unrelated tangents, please. I made a specific point, and if you disagree with it, you can argue against it. I don't quite understand how this point about objectivity being mass-subjectivity is related to what I was saying. If anything, it seems to agree with me; call it mass-subjectivity, call it objectivity, call it bob. Whaetever it is, there's a difference between "IT" and PERSONAL beliefs. That was my point. Some ethical issues seem to be shared by large masses of people all over the world regardless of culture. Some seem to be cultural and geographic. That was my point. I thought it was clear, but if it wasn't, I beg of you, ask me to clarify. Don't reinterpret my words for me and then nitpick and strawman my point so it serves your purposes. ~mooey

lemur, objectivity is a word that has a definition. Quite ironically, it's not a subjective definition... Second, you can't really define a word using the same word in your definition, so saying that subjective is based on subjectivity is redundant and makes no sense. For clarity's sake, here is what Merriam Webster has to say about these words: http://www.merriam-w...nary/subjective http://www.merriam-w...=0&t=1301411778 In short, subjective depends on the individual and is considered to be different from one individual to another, and objective is something that is equal to all individuals. The entire point of objective terms is that there is a consensus about them. If oyu wish to discuss the nature of "Objective" vs. "Subjective", open a new philosophical thread. We will have ourselves a nice debate about it, and I believe you might be surprised on how much I might agree with you, philosophically speaking. But this isn't a debate about that, and so when I use these definitions, they're not really "questionable" - they're well defined, and I use their accepted definitions when I talk. I know you are getting upset when I keep asking you to stick to the subject, but I do this because it seems like every time you disagree with a point someone makes, you drag the argument into a tangent about the validity of the terminology or some unrelated philosophical point. This is a big forum; you can open a new thread, and people will likely participate. But changing the goal post when you disagree with a point I am making is unfair and quite annoying. I use terms that are defined; you can't redefine them just to disagree with me. I would love to debate you and see where our disagreements lie and if we can find a middle ground or just understand where each of us comes -- but it's quite impossible when you keep doing these awkward dances around words, definitions or the questions themselves. For the purposes of this argument, objectivity and subjectivity are well defined. It's called a dictionary. ~mooey

Notice, I wrote "Seem to be mostly objective". I'm not too sure they are. However, it seems that even in separate cultures around the world they are consistent, so I stated simply that these *seem* to be more objective. In fact, I can "prove" (as much as you can with any ethical arguments) -- or at the very least make a damn good argument that is logically consistent and evolutionarily and historically supported -- that both murder and rape are "wrong", without the need to a deity, but we should start a new thread about that. ~mooey

I agree with that. This also fits into my own personal view that morality, as a general case, is mostly subjective. There are a few issues that seem to be generally objectively agreed upon, but those are the "extreme" cases (like murder or rape). The rest? Mostly subjective, it's different between cultures and requires much more philosophical thinking.

Okay, I switched back to Mathematica and formulated (with Capn's help, quite a lot of trial and error and some tears) this code: m = 1; k = 1; gma = 1; w = Sqrt[k/m]; Remove[x, equations, inits, inits2, soln]; (* x''[s][t]==w^2 * (x[s-1][t]-x[s][t]+2*x[s][t]); *) equations = Table[x''[s][t] == (w^2) * (x[s - 1][t] + x[s + 1][t] - 2*x[s][t]), {s, 2, 50}]; inits = Table[x[s][0] == s/50, {s, 2, 50}]; inits2 = Table[x'[s][0] == s/50, {s, 2, 50}]; Join[equations, inits, inits2] soln = NDSolve[equations, x, {t, 0, 5}] But I am getting syntax errors. The values are added in great, but the errors are annoying. If I write it like the above, I get this error: NDSolve::dvleaf: The function x[1] appears as the head of the expression x[1][t]. >> Whose explanation is: The initial condition is not given in a valid form.: NDSolve[{f'[x] + f[x] == 0, f[0][0] == 1}, f, {x, 0, 1}] [b]NDSolve::dvleaf: The function f[0] appears as the head of the expression f[0][0]. >>[/b] This shows a valid initial condition for this differential equation: NDSolve[{f'[x] + f[x] == 0, f[0] == 1}, f, {x, 0, 1}] That, however, makes no sense, 'cause I have f[0] of a bunch of functions, f[1][0], f[2][0], etc. I can't abbreviate to just f[0]! So if I change it to x[t,s] the code breaks on the fact that the derivative and double derivative is unclear to the system (I get an error that tells me that the systems doesn't know if it should derivate in respect to t or s). HEEEEEEELP! If the entire output helps (as in, if anyone wants to go over the way the inits look like), I can post it here. It's just a bit long, I didn't want to flood the post. ~mooey

Oops, I might have misspelled that word... Sorry. Mnemonic. Of course... meh. Here's the link:

That's a powerful statement. I don't disagree with you, nor do I agree with you. I am a nonbeliever, and was that for all my life; the "most" I went with belief is being a sort of a Deist (before "trying" out some nifty pseudoscience weirdo stuff in my teen rebelious years.. maybe i'll tell you all about my mischief in some other thread some day ). But it seems like a really harsh judgment on people who believe. It's also something I've always had problems with understanding in regards to a God. The way I see it, if God created us (humans) with the expectation we follow "Good", we should have at least an inclination to do that. That is -- it's supposed to be easier to do Good than to do bad. While in some things like murder and rape these moral decisions are obvious, other moral statements aren't that obvious. Allowing for an abortion to a woman who was brutally raped, for instance, is an extreme case that has a not-very-obvious moral answer (if at all). Murder by self defense of your child, for instance, is another such case. And I am not even talking about the rest of the biblical laws (like the permission to beat up your child if he/she are insolent, like the demand that a woman who was rape will marry her rapist with no option for divorce, etc) -- those are *absolutely* morally vague (if not outright morally repugnant). So it always seemed odd to me that the blame for so many believers "falling" to sin to be a trap to begin with. It's as if God created the world to really try and see which one of his children could fail horribly and stray off. It might've been an "educational" experience (if we compare God to a father of humanity) if only the punishment wasn't roasting in hell for eternity. It just seems like a low tactics. I don't quite get it. So the other point I was trying to make is that even if we blame the person for the failing, isn't the fact this person was created by an omnipotent God automatically means that God is, in fact, created that person with "weaker" soul to begin with?

This is absolutely brilliant. I have a book at home that is filled with little mental tricks on how to do math quickly in your brain, including the "pneumonic" method; some of the tricks are laughably easy (but impressive to those who are unsuspecting) and some take a LOT of practice. I am not even remotely close to anything even SIMILAR to what this guy does. It's absolutely amazing! I figured you guys would enjoy it too. Since I know the book tricks in general (again, it's far from easy and I'm not really anywhere close to this level) I kinda looked for where he's stalling while he's calculating and where he uses humor to hide his mental tricks --- even so, this is insanely impressive.

Double topic closed. Refer to this one.

Okay, great, but this isn't a Book PR forum, it's a science forum. If you want to discuss your theory, you need to supply a bit of evidence.. anything, really, to start a debate about this.

The speculation forum is one of my favorites, because I love thinking about new ideas and ways to challenge what we know. But we have to remember that we're discussing scientific issues, so we can't really discuss a "whacky" idea without having to substantiate first. If you look back through the posts of the forum, there ARE quite a number of them where people discussed actual ideas which either passed or failed - in a scientific manner. The only time we get frustrated or close a thread is where the poster refuses to cooperate with substantiation or evidence, and starts claiming ideas that have no bearing in reality and ignores the problem in their arguments. It's all about how we discuss matters. If we maintain scientific integrity and examine the claims as well as the holes, we have great discussions. The problem is that many amateur (or young?) posters decide they know better without really allowing anyone to get through to the actual science and challenge the basis of their premises. THAT is what derails threads and makes the speculations threads go whacky. ~moo

Sorry for the ignorance (I've studied the "Old" testament, but not the "new"), where does this concept appear? In the Old testament God treats his "children" israelites as if they are incompetent, really, in preserving their own beliefs. He keeps getting upset again and again for how they stray away any time things start getting good. It seems even God recognizes that humans have weak souls that need constant guidance; of course what they CHOOSE to do with this guidance is part of their free will, but they seem to need that guidance regardless. It sounds to me that this is a bad opinion of the human soul in general in that case. In Judaism there's no concept of the devil, really; the Job story is explained with an alternate to the usual "Satan" as an actual fallen angel explanation that Christianity usually adopts. However, it seems to me that if Satan exists, he is more of a predator that waits for people to stray away rather than tempts them on purpose. It's not that hard to stray away in the bible -- it happens all the time. God and the prophets seem to be constantly battling to make sure humans are WITHIN the bounds. So I don't quite see how Satan's job is "hard" at all... Am I making sense? But if you need to convince someone to stay good, it means that the natural inclination is NOT to be good, doesn't it? I don't need to convince most human beings that they should eat -- that's a natural inclination. I also don't need to convince most humans that they should talk. It's soething that comes naturally. But it seems like "Goodness" as it is described in th bible is not something that comes naturally to humans; they need to be led to it, convinced it's the right thing, and then constantly reminded to stay there. If we assume that souls are the place where morality is observed in humans -- doesn't that show, on its own, that the soul itself is weak? Why would you have to constantly watch out of temptation if your soul was strong? You don't need to watch out of the temptation of swallowing toilet cleaners. You know it's bad for you because people warned you as a child, and you aren't really inclined to do it anymore. You don't see commercials urging you to avoid swallowing toilet cleaners. You do, however, see a lot of "commercials" in the bible (and out of it) that urge you to stick to the biblical message. It seems to me that this is evidence that it's not a natural choice, that's why the bible (and religions) keep emphasizing it. Does that make sense? ~mooey p.s Another example -- Smoking is bad for humans, but people do it for various reasons ('feels good' / 'social' / 'peer pressure' / whatever) . The main reason is that whatever reason they pick, it makes them feel good (either by peer pressure or by social interaction or status or just the act itself, whatever). The inclination of most human beings is to choose something that FEELS GOOD rather than something that is going tomake them healthy in the long run. That's why people have trouble sticking to diets, too. It's much more enjoyable eating fatty sugary foods than abstaining from them and exercising. So, that's a testament of the natural inclinations we have; we naturally prefer things that make us feel good. We're naturally inclined towards fatty foods and sugars. You need to make a PURPOSEFUL effort to avoid these if you want to be healthy. I think this is comparable to what goes on in the bible in relation to the soul. Humans need to do a conscious effort to be righteous, rather than just to be careful of sin. That means that the natural inclination is to NOT be righteous -- which means the soul, in essence, is weak. I hope this makes more sense now..

I understand your difficulty understanding how rationalists thing, so I want to show you something as an experiment. This is not meant to offend you, it is just meant to demonstrate the point that I believe you're missing in your retorts. See, you see God as so obviously existing, you're missing the fact that a lot of us do not come out of that point of view, and hence when we ask our questions about the world, we find alternative solutions that do not require a supreme being, solutions that are naturalistic and can be demonstrated by natural means (like observations and experiments and ockham's razor) and hence do not need to stipulate the existence of God. Your replies are of the style of "BUT OF COURSE!" when we, in fact, do not think "of course" at all. So, to demonstrate, I took your first post and replaced the word "God" with the word "Unicorn". Again, this isn't to offend anyone, it's to make a point. I also made sure these worse are bolded so it's clear what I've replaced. Read this: Is the problem more clear now? Beyond that, I think you have a bit of a misconception on what atheists/rationalists/secularists actually think as opposed to what you think they think. This is ecoli's initial problem. Your first post (and quite a number of your replies) use logical fallacies we call "Strawman" and "False Dichotomy". Strawman is stating someone else's views but not the way they actually see them. For instance, if I were to say "Religious people claim that God is a beautiful creature with a beard. That makes no sense, since beards are ugly." --> I'm making a fallacy here. That's not the religious claim (at least not the common one), and I am using my own version of it (the wrong version) to claim that the view is wrong. But this isn't the actual belief, so my criticism of it is just as invalid. Do you see the problem? False Dichotomy is a similar problem. You seem to come out of a position where only two options are available: Either you believe in a specific God or you do not. The fact is, many other options exist. The mere fact there are more than one religion (and more than one type of religion) is proof of that. Beyond that, however, you say that either you can visualize or you can't -- which isn't quite true. There's more than one way to visualize something; the fact I can't see quantum interactions does not mean I can't visualize them. The fact I personally can't visualize them in my mind doesn't mean I can't visualize them another way, say, in physical models that can be tested. And even beyond that, even things that I can't visualize do not necessarily mean they don't exist. You can experience the effects of things you can't see, touch or smell and still conclude they exist because of the interactions they exert on other things. Dark matter is one example of that. Black holes is another example. We know these things exist even though we've never actually observed them because we can see the effects they have on other things. There are a few other errors you make in your logic, like plea from ignorance: the fact *you* don't understand how something works, for instance chemical bonds or quantum mechanics, does not mean there is no natural explanation. That's what mississippichem was trying to tell you. Your "It's God!" claims are nonsensical to us because we explain everything you say with naturalistic terms and do not require a being that is beyond the realm of reality. If you wish to convince us that God exists, you have to try and first understand where we come from, what we *actually* claim, and what rational logic dictates proper forms of debate. Otherwise, you're just preaching. And it's not really working very well. ~mooey

Well, yeah, wouldn't that just mean that they all have the same power level -- weak ?