mooeypoo

It does not compute where? In your notebook? Because it does compute if you know how to compute it. If these mathematical expressions are above your level, it's fine, ambros, it happens, I would just recommend not making hasty generalized judgments on something you apparently need to brush up on. Or learn more about. Either way, it's quite clear that your idea of a mathematical expression is lacking, as people pointed out, and you don't quite seem to understand the expressions people give you. That's not a shortcoming of the (many) people who speak with you and their (many different) attempts to explain this to you. ~moo

You came here, you agreed to our rules, I think it's time you read them and abide by them, or you will be the one to go away. ~moo

I am not going to get into the science, you have enough help in that department. I will say, however, that it is a matter of common decency as well as SFN rules that you drop the attitude and start cooperating with people in a civil manner. You can agree or disagree with people all you want, but if you don't stop being obnoxious about it, you won't remain here. Please go over our rules and our etiquette guidelines, as they are not a recommendation. They are law in this forum, which you chose to participate in. ~moo

This just goes to show that there's a difference between a person and a position. I disagree with Mr Comfort's position, and in my view, some of his claims, are fallacious, but his articulate manner, polite attitude and surprising approaches to some of the questions show that in arguments such as these we can find points that we agree upon, as well as where we disagree. As a scientist, I can disagree with his approach that evolution isn't a science, and can point out a few inconsistencies in his claims (might do that later) but I did find quite a few points I thought were thoughtful and interesting as places where, if we were to conduct a philosophical debate, we could start by agreeing upon, and build a civil debate from there. Great interview. If Mr Comfort is reading this, by any chance, I'd like to thank him for taking the time to answer our questions. ydoaPs, thanks for making the effort and getting this interview, and of course, Cap'n, for carrying it out. Great job. We need more like these. ~moo Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged No, I disagree here. Picking apart his points is not disrespecting him, it's being thoughtful. Not in the common usage of that word, perhaps, but more in the term that you read the arguments and actually analyzed them. You don't just disagree, you show why you disagree. If you do it in a civil manner, then it's a good endeavor to take. But for me, analyzing people's claims isn't so much to convince *them* of their error, it's more as a way to keep my philosophical faculties in check, to train my reason and reasoning skills and to constantly test my own beliefs. I might have a few things I change my mind on. It would probably not be the scientific nature of evolution, but it might be an approach to take with some religious/evangelical debaters. It might be my approach to religion in general, I am not sure, but whatever it is, it will only happen if I take the time to consider the arguments made, not just read them and move on. By analyzing other people's claims - specially ones my immediate reaction is a disagreement -- I check my own reasoning and see if *I* am consistent. If my own morality or my own logic stands to the same scrutiny I automatically give the other side. I feel that if I don't d that, I'm in danger of transforming my beliefs into dogmas - just holding them because it's comfortable or a matter of habit, and that's dangerous. I want to grow as a person and improve myself, and I can only do that if I think things through. Analyzing and criticizing Mr Comfort's claims shouldn't be taken as a sign of ridicule or disrespect. On the contrary, we are taking the time to properly consider them, for good and bad, see if they're consistent, and if we are convinced, or if they got us thinking and made us shift our perspective, even if not totally towards his. ~moo

vuquta has been (again) suspended for a week for persistently hijacking threads with his own theories.

I made a tshirt with the current SFN logo on it for TAM6 (if you look in my albums in the forum you'll see it). I managed to get the same animated effect when I jumped up and down in succession. Totally doable. ~moo

You are beating around the bush again. I heard your argument. I don't want an argument, I want math. You claimed a mathematical claim, show it. Can you?? ~moo

If you didn't understand, don't call it nonsense. Say you didn't understand. You claim that: That's some claim. You claim that Einstein was wrong. That's fine, but you need to show it. We asked you to show it by actually doing the transforms, and showing us that Einstein was wrong and you are right. Either do that, or stop claiming it. ~moo

But you keep claiming A, you were asked to show A, and now you say you have way B. Please stick to a claim. You need to show us the transforms because you claim they fail. Either show it, or stop claiming it. ~moo

And according to no one else.

Okay, instead of arguing back and forth about how the transforms would look like if vuquta tries them, how about we skip the argument and vuquta actually tries them. Can you try, please, vuquta? That would end this circular argument one way or another; either vuquta *shows* swansont where he is wrong and you can talk about it, or vuquta finds out that he is wrong and you can talk about it. So much more helpful.

I must ask an obvious question: Why would a person choose to get into a lifestyle that is so much harder, so much less comfortable, a lifestyle that often gets your friends and family to shun you or disown you. I could understand trying out a sex experience with same-sex (as some american movies show women to do during college.. "Experiment") but to go into this lifestyle? Would you be able to live with a person you're not attracted to? Would you choose to do that when it means your entire social surrounding treats you differently --- often worse --- than if you went for the easier, more acceptable lifestyle? Why would anyone choose that if it's possible to choose?

Perhaps, but in this forum we require evidence and substantiation to claims. Saying that homosexuality leads to AIDS without showing evidence is not a valid claim, specially since it was shown to be wrong.

There's something there about the minimum radius required to be effective (I believe it's in the next page, pg7). I guess there's a requirement to bend the particle through the loop and that requires a specific force. But isn't the particle staying in the "middle" of the track anyways? That is, we're already building the accelerator to bend the particle through the circle successfully - why not repeat the loops further.. Is it a matter of energy requirements to increase the forces, or are we actually losing something when we bend the particle with those forces, and the goal is to use weaker forces anyways? Let's say we want to build an even better accelerator than the LHC -- do we go for size (have it circle the globe, eventually! or do we go for increased energy? What are the actual limitations in making a better accelerator in that aspect, and why are all the new ones getting bigger and bigger?

I'm moving this question here, it seems more suitable than the original 'news' thread I took the source from (thanks again Severian). I've read this: http://www.hep.ucl.ac.uk/iop2010/talks/14.pdf In it (slide 6) the claim is made that one of the factors limiting new and bigger and better hadron colliders is the size. And it seems that, indeed, the LHC is huuuuuuuge -- which also made it an incredible effort to build both in terms of actual work and in terms of money. But there's something here that I'm not sure I understand. The collider is circular, which means that in terms of a moving particle, there's no 'change' in the path no matter where it is located. It's being accelerated along the way until it collides with another particle. Why, then, can't we -- instead of building a *bigger* circle -- just send one particle on 100 loops around the circle, and then release another particle to be collided with after the old particle is accelerated? Why is it the size that matters so much? If forces are applied on the particle along the path, then instead of size, we can just ahve more rotations, save money, effort, and have more LHCs, and therefore more option for research, results, and wonderful science. I assume, however, that if it was that simple, it would have been done. Then... what am I missing here? Why is the size so important? Why can't we just do more rotations instead of making the colliders bigger? ~moo

That is an AWESOME share, Severian, thanks! Most of the talks there are waaaaaaaaaaaaaay over my head, but I felt quite good understanding random few slides here and there, remembering some of my optics class and some of this semester's QM. If you have more of these, please share. And.. you guys seem to have eaten a lot in there, geesh, there was a coffee break or food all the time! ~moo

Really? So "Healthy", which is also the absence of something (sickness), is therefore offering nothing. Is that your logic?

Triclino, you can make your argument and your counter-argument without being rude. Otherwise, spare everyone and don't make an argument at all. This attitude is unacceptable.

Lose the attitude, triclino, we are a debate forum here and this is unacceptable. If you have a claim to make, make it in a civil matter, or don't make it at all.

That's not 'showing' your work, it's reiterating your claim. Show your work means show us the math you claim disproves Einstein's.

I have to be a bit of a pedant here and remind you, vuquta, PLEASE, to be a bit more vigilant with your definitions and math. You mean, I assume, (x,y,z,t) to fit (r,0,0,r/c), seeing as you plug in 4 values into a supposedly three-dimensional coordinate system. This might sound pedantic and petty, but it is important. You're forgetting those, and you're confusing us and yourself. It's not the only thing, too. Please try to take the time and be accurate seeing as there seems to be a confusion here on what "coordinate system" means, "reference frame" means, and how things move at c and don't move at c. Without language, we can't communicate. Please try to be a bit more accurate.

It's not just the catholic church, and I believe it's more the evangelical ministries that are at fault here,but it's a well know problem. The ministries are sending over preachers that claim condoms are *causing* AIDS (plot by the 'white man') then literally encourage the disease and are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. Literally and directly. The catholic church is a small part, granted.The catholic church should be a little ashamed. The other churches should be more ashamed. Better? Yes, but it's quite a known phenomena that abstinence is NOT working, *specially* in Africa. So if you KNOW they will not abstain, and you STILL tell them that condom is the devil, then you *KNOW* they will not use condoms. Not much way of gettin 'round it, really. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/17/pope-africa-condoms-aids http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7014335.stm http://www.iheu.org/node/1754 ~moo

It can also cause the spreading of STD's, which is what happens, quite horrifically fast, in countries in Africa where the church (not just the catholic, but they're one of the bigger ones) decides to send its preachers. They are essentially killing thousands, if not millions, of people out of an archaic belief that has no support in rational reality. Irrational belief can be evolutionarily and ethically disastrous.

If only we had the funds, we could do a properly animated tshirt:

You have three questions about velocity, force and acceleration. Can you give me the formula that connects those? (Two formulas, ideally). I ask, because once you look at the formulas, you know what to look for in the question. The next step would be to draw the images and write down all forces that apply. And the important thing is *ALWAYS*: read carefully! You have all the information you need. Don't forget that the friction force isn't exactly opposite to the gravity. Draw it out... the gravitational force is downwards. Where is the friction? Physics questions are usually straight forward, and going by formulas (at this stage, at least). Lay out the relevant formulas, draw out ALL the forces and look at the picture, see what you can get from all of it and if you really miss anything. How did you start the first question? Where do you get stuck? ~moo