mooeypoo

All the claims you make are answered in tis post: http://www.universetoday.com/2008/05/19/no-doomsday-in-2012/ At the very least, people should check their facts. The sun is *NOT* going through the "galactic equator" this year. It did in the past with no ill effects, last time being around 1998. Read the rest in that article, it's very informative, and answers all your supposed claims with actual facts. ~moo

I think you're missing a very important statement. I added it in red: It might seem redundant, but it makes those statements much more clearer; it's also the reason why #3 makes sense. There's no "absolute reality" in which these statements exist, they each are related through some frame of reference, and we need to be quite clear as to what they are. I also think you have too many 1s, 2s and 3s as points. I'm not too sure i know *which* point 1 and 2 Klaynos meant, and which you mean. Can you be more specific? It's confusing, and I get the feeling we're debating different points.

Moved to "Homework Help" forum. Phone and email removed. Gayne, we'd love to help but we are not really comfortable with feeding answers. We'd rather help you reach those answers yourself. At the very least, tell us what you already started doing and we can try and help you get more sources.

o3vxDcBLGaU

Let me interject here for a moment. iNow, I see your point about the posts being off-topic, but I have to say, I disagree with your request to split them off. People aren't machines, and discussions are never run on a single track. We usually veer off to the sides and go off on tangents; in debate forums, when tangents are too far off the original subject, we split it off to continue a side-discussion. But when discussions veer off to make a point that is valid to the general picture of the original debate (as was done here), then there's no need to split the posts. The tangent might be slightly off topic, but it's valid. The only way to truly, and honestly, and actually gain from such "tangents" is to veer back onto the original discussion, taking the side-argument into mind. We won't be able to do that if the debating sides are stuck in a resolution that the debate must be "pure" and consist STRICTLY of what the original subject was discussing regardless of any accompanying "bigger picture" discontents. "Off topic" doesn't necessarily mean a bad thing. It sometimes *contributes* to a thread. When a discussion is too much off topic, and results in a completely different argument, we split it. When a discussion is off-topic to make a point, we veer back to topic, and sometimes the discussion is better after the tangent. Please -- PLEASE -- stop arguing about whether or not we should split the threads, and get back on topic. We're a discussion forum, guys, not a collaborative essay. ~moo

True, and they completely disregard the basics, like momentum and things like that (you fire a torpedo on an enemy ship, in space, but you don't get recoil/momentum backwards?). And lots. And lots more. Oh, and it's not just pockets that they forget, it's going to the bathroom, too -- that's one of the longest joke going around the startrek fan sites, the fact that in none of the episodes did anyone EVER go to the bathroom. Or needed to. I agree. It's still fun to discuss these things, though. And I think that the things that do have some shred of truth to them (like how would a supernovae look like up-close) are fascinating enough to get people interested in space which is, on its own, a great result. Startrek is partly what got me into astrophysics to begin with (as a child, before I knew what is realistic and what isn't).

Yeah I agree, they tried to make things as close as they possibly can to actual physics but they don't pretend to follow actual physics all the way, which, btw, gives the fans tons to talk about. Personally, I love star trek (I'm not the star wars type, though) but the small things - like the fact the ship makes a sound in space, or that they have artificial gravity even when the ship's systems are all dead, damaged and almost-gone, etc - are fun to discuss and analyze and hypothesize better cinematic solutions for, but they don't take away from my enjoyment of the show. In the end, it's a TV show, not a documentary. The fact the writers TRY to insert as many physical-phenomena they can into it and the great plot stories makes it cool enough for me to forgive the bad science.

So you talk to your vista often? That explains this quote.

Yes, and pywakit, notice that both "Twilight Zone" and the "Outer Limits" might've been playing on some scientific concepts but neither of them was truly scientific, nor did they truly follow the laws of physics. My point is that the discussion of whether or not your idea is physically realistic should be separate from the discussion of whether or not it can be commercially successful.

"Black magic"? What does that mean? Why black and not white? And why magic and not psychic connection, or shaman intervention, or pink dancy unicorn'ism? In short, this is a science forum, so while we're all open minded to all opinions, the opinion needs to have a bit more evidence to be valid. At the very least, it needs to be explained more, seeing as "black magic" can be numerous phenomena not all proponents of "black magic" agree which one holds 'true'. EDIT: I shall clarify; if this was *about* opinion (hence, 'what do you think of the weather lately?') then such opinions do not require evidence, as they are subjective. Since we are discussing an objective event (namely, a person seemingly controlling the weather consistently) the 'opinions' are attempts to describe our reality, in which case they need to be substantiated to be valid. It might be that I chose the wrong word to describe, but I can't come up with a better one, so I'm using "opinion" but not in the subjective way but rather the objective one. Hence, we should require evidence.

As I said, we are going to sift through them to pluck out the actual claims made in between the mutual insults and genital measurements. You're a big boy, you can ignore them for now and answer the points that are valid. And from now on, people, use the report button when you think a post is problematic instead of responding to them in kind, so we won't have to face such problems in the future. Remember the golden rule: When you respond to a problem-post, consider if your response is advancing the debate or if it is just creating a bigger problem. ~moo

Okay, let me be clear here: When moderators act in a thread, they do not do so on their own accord, they do so with the support and according to moderation rules the rest of the staff abide by. That is, if daddy said no, mommy ain't gonna say yes, iNow. That said, the moderators are going to take a look at what just happened in the past 2 pages and make a decision of what to do with all the posts that have no points to them other than a comparison of whose panties are tighter. iNow, Mr Skeptic has made some valid points you are in need of answering. Start with post #161, while the moderators ponder the fate of the other poop-tossing posts. ~moo

Comments were made that pertained to this subject. If either of you have a problem with the attitude used, you should report it. If you have a problem with any of the content, use your words to articulate a counter-argument. I know you can, all of you. If we start arguing about "who did it first" and "who was worse" we will lose the valid points on either side to petty claims that will - very likely - end up in the trashcan anyways. Here's a suggestion, guys: Instead of answering one another like we're in the second grade, resulting in multitudes of ad-hominem and personal attack "examples" on both sides, how about you stop arguing about the nitty-gritty silly stuff, get your attitudes together, stop pulling at each other's hair, and answer the points made. I think that would be a great way to continue the discussion. Don't you?

Offensive post was deleted. Please take into account, Trprice, that no one owes you anything. People voluntarily offer their knowledge, and if you have any valid complaint, you should use the "Report" button at the top of such post to alert the moderators and have us deal with it.

Only until it's shown that they don't come strictly from religion, exist in nature, and are solid in rationality.

You spend way too much time with ydoaPs, Cap'n.

But then how am I supposed to get some exercise to my mouse-clicking finger?

You know, when you reply to spam thread, you force moderators into the dilemma of what to do with your now orphanned post after the spam was deleted. That is, after the perpetrator is banned and his propaganda erased forever from the system, we are left with orphan posts we now have to either go back and delete individually, or look for an alternative thread-parent. This means spending time thinking, and forcing us to perform three more clicks of the mouse, people. THREE!

Sorry to be slightly off-topic here, but I gotta ask- How can one be an "ex-postdoc" ? I thought it's like a PhD.. you can't be an "ex-PhD", once you have it, you have it. Once a post-doc, always a post-doc. No? Sorry, it just struck me as odd, that's all.

Which is..... ? And that would work, if you and DH were the only two people on Earth.

DH, I'm not sure about this, so I'd love it if you could verify/correct me - the effect is noticeable on a long-range missile because of the large distance (where it "picks up" enough of the effect to actually be noticeable) and it is noticeable on the focault pendulum because of *time* right? That is, the longer the pendulum is moving freely, the more we see the effect. The effect still exists in short-distance or short-duration movements on a rotating frame but if it's too short in time or distance then it's negligible. Is that right?

I try to give the benefit of the doubt. I also try not to take finite decisions such as a ban on my own, and share them with the rest of the staff. Seeing as it's holiday-season, we take our time. I don't work in the forum and I don't get paid, when I have time, I come here and I do the best job I can. I don't quite have "deadlines". Neither one of the staff does. Specially not during holiday season. Though I am not sure I understand where the sudden hostility comes from.. if you have any actual complaints about my role as a moderator, you can address them to the administrators. ~moo

No one is saying that the universe goes on "forever and ever". You just seem to not really care what is said.

BTW, Pywakit, I am hoping that you're enjoying this as much as I do I love thinking about future applications and analyzing those things. I might be a pessimist compared to your idea, but the debate so far is quite enjoyable. I hope you don't take my rebuttals as a sign you should drop the idea. Far from it. And another BTW, I *love* Battlestar Gallactica - specially the new version - and some of it has some decent realistic applications, some doesn't. The parts that don't, though, *sound* realistic enough to maintain my enjoyment of the show. Remember that -- we're talking about scifi here, so I might be a pessimistic hardass in terms of reality, but I still see value in your idea as a story and a show. You shouldn't give up on it.

For one, to be perfectly honest and pessimistic, I don't believe that all 7-billion will be saved.. If you face imminent danger and you want to save the human race, you don't need to save *all* humans. Not that I would totally support such decision, or be willing to make it, but I am not too sure it's all that obvious. Big ships carrying lots of people from various countries are enough... but that's a whole different issue. Also, as a TV show, it was done before But my point is this: In order to build the technology you are offering, we would need such a production going on that I am not sure it will be more than building a few humongous ships. Especially if we decide that we don't care stripping the planet off. I'm not sure, and I am not sure you can calculate that, but what you're offering is "OMG!" too Why? Why not a ship that can carry a million? Go big. But yeah, read up -- I'm not as optimistic as to think whoever actually builds these things (governments? private institutions?) will care to save *ALL* humans. I think it probably will be much more plausible for them to want to save humanity as a whole, and hence take "representatives" or who they deem as representing humanity. Not remotely close to how big the Earth is, though.. so they will be much more maneuverable, easier to take care of and take less fuel. In the long run (and the trip is long), it sounds like a much better alternative. The ideal would be to build them in space already, and if we're really tight for time and stressed for a solution, then we can find ways to send lots and lots of rockets up. Daily. With lots of people and equipment. Again, I doubt the *entire* of humanity will be saved. I doubt anyone would make this their plan. I don't know if "tough luck" would be it, but, yes, kinda. I have a more pessimistic view of the future and the money-holders' interests, I guess Maybe, but would your solution (building underground, self sufficient cities to house *ALL* of humanity, build the pyramids to stir, build something to control the stirring, build something to make proper observations, and make sure you cooperate with all parts of the world without satellites and without the ability to walk on the surface) be less "Yikes"? I'm not sure. You would get all the above on the Earth too. Those are problems you need to solve either way. By the time we get to Alpha, the Earth won't be "good planet" to land on either. I think you're guessing that the Earth will "resurrect" after reaching Alpha centauri. That's not quite how things work. I don't see how Earth will regain atmosphere after it being lost for an entire trip for 4.3 light years. The Earth won't just be "unrecognizeable" it would stop being habitable. Unless we "terraform" it, that would be permanent. Since we're talking about science fiction, you could invent a technology that "reignites" the atmosphere (hence, terraforms the planet) but without it, it isn't going to happen. That depends trying what... If you mean trying to take the entire planet for a ride, no, I don't think there's a point in trying because I think there are more viable solutions. If you mean trying to make a TV show, I think there *is* a point, because realistic or not, this is a fascinating idea that has a lot of potential both in the drama aspect and the 'what if' science aspect. Woah, we're talking MUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCH MUCHMUCH stronger force, here, pywakit. There will definitely be Geological implications, and I am quite certain we can calculate them. I did that with my professor in terms of tidal forces -- and those are tiiiiny compared to what it would take to increase our velocity and get us out of orbit around the sun. Well, again, that's a fantasy novel/tv-show must, and I can't wait to see the special effects. Is it realistic? Maybe.. it would just add to the workload that I mentioned in the start and increase the "not sure it would take less than" hypothesis I raised. It might be possible, but it's not that simple, and we will have to deal with quite a lto of problems along the way. The least of which, btw, is that humans and animals need the sun, and some need the moon. Lack of sunlight for an extended period of time is known to cause the extinction of some species.. Right, well you will have other problems killing people Cramped atmosphere underground, lack of sunlight, problem with ventilation and heat, reaction with chemicals underground, waste management (for the ENTIRE world, yes?) and taking care of the animals you want to keep down there.. and those are only problems off the top of my head. There are lots more. Yeah I would too, for the adventure, that's why i would watch the show if you ever manage to produce it