mooeypoo

Fair enough. I also must say - my frustration over this subject isn't meant to be on you at all -- you seem to be a smart individual who is interested in checking the data, cooperate and think for yourself. It seemed, though, that the blogosphere should learn a thing or two from your attitude, and my semi-frustration was on them. There's a difference between letting others do the math and actually *admitting* to something. It has to do with official'ness and politics. It's not the first time and it's not surprising too much.. admitting this would mean that (a) they ran a test in potentially very bad weaponary (ICBMS = potential nuclear? potential political problem, probably) and that (b) they did it over a foreign country, or almost over a foreign country, and © they failed the test. Any or all of the above may cause the Russian military to .. well.. not admit to much ~moo

Nothing is 100% truth, but when you have an accumulation of evidence towards one conclusion, I would say it's safe to assume it's correct. My point is mostly that by saying "alleged russian missile" the OP seems to suggest an alternative; if the alternative suggested is the one paraded online after the event, then it has something to do with a paranormal even or a UFO sightings. Both of the above require quite a large number of evidence, because they require a leap from our *current* knowledge of our universe. The conclusion of the phenomenon being a Russian missiles that the russians just aren't too thrilled to expose too many details of, is a much more logical assertion. I wouldn't say that's a russian missile with 100% certainty. Then again, I wouldn't say gravitational laws are true in 100% certainty, either (as Einstein tweaked Newton's laws, etc). And yet, we're safe to assume that they are both - for all intended purposes - the reality. ~moo

I got the same answer with a statement that the Physics GREs are not the same as the regular GREs and that they're harder than MCATs and regular GREs, so in terms of knowing what to expect, I'm not absolutely sure I can trust the tips I find for GREs.

It looks like a missile depicted in long-exposure pictures. It behaves like a projectile/missile, bound by gravity and momentum (and as said before, ejecting fuel). The Russian military confirmed it is their missile. What's the problem? ~moo

Not sure where else to post it, seeing as the Physics GRE includes a variety of physics subjects, so here goes. I will soon start my senior year, and so I need to start thinking of the GREs. I am probably going to start studying for my Physics GRE soon, if not to take them before the stress of the senior year then at least to give myself enough time to practice. I downloaded the existing exams (there are about 4 online) and I will practice them, but I can't find a good source to get a bit more preparation as to what the exam is like, what to expect, maybe some methods of trying to deal with the time limits, etc. Does anyone has any good advice or resource to offer? I know that in the general GRE there are lots of books that offer some general preparation for how to deal with multiple-choice questions in a short time and discuss strategies but I couldn't find *anything* about strategies regarding the Physics GRE test, only the general one. Are the strategies the same? Can anyone think of advice they wish they had before taking the test? Much obliged, ~moo

Okay, so I thought this was a fun exercise, so here's my analysis for the first few pages (yeah, I'm not going to do this for 50+ images..) Feel free to correct or tweak my assessments: Page 2, Page 3, Page 5: These are clearly quarries - the edges are surrounded by hills of sand or soil, you can literally see the digged out parts and the resulting "dunes" of sand, obviously removed from the quarry itself. Page 4: This one's interesting. It didn't immediately strike me as a quarry (I was looking for the sand hills) but it has too many roads surrounding it perfectly to be a natural phenomena. Also, there are a bit of "edged" hills and the surroundings seems to be intentionally cleared. It seems to be another quarry with a lake in the middle. Page 6: This isn't a square. It's round. It seems to be another man-made hole (possibly a reservoir or quarry), specially due to the roads around it, but whatever it is, it's definitely not square. Page 7: I love this one. It looks like a hugging alien. OMG ALIEN CONSPIRACY RUUUUUN!!! Also, you can see the dunes around it, it looks like it was dug and not "impacted", and it has roads all around it, and I do believe there might even be a piece of equipment up on the northern part of it (zoom in); it's a quarry. It's also not square. So.. I am going to stop here. Seems to me that most of those are quarries, some aren't even square and the rest are reservoirs. Some could be a nice practice in Pareidolia, but for the sake of keeping this forum sane I won't say what came to my mind when I saw them. Also, we all know I have a dirty mind. If the OP wants to show us a specific image (page number maybe?) of a crater that actually is square (and not round!) and is NOT a quarry, I'd be happy to examine it specifically. This was fun. ~moo

Yup, here's an even better one: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=33.87%C2%BAN++103.57%C2%BAW&sll=33.499007,-104.84814&sspn=0.004545,0.004452&g=33.5%C2%BAN++104.84%C2%BAW&ie=UTF8&ll=33.870246,-103.570744&spn=0.002263,0.002226&t=h&z=18 Where you can see the excess dirt at the sides of the crater. Pretty neat image, too. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedOMG. Beam me up, Scotty! 34.560509°N -103.797502°W

Also, is there any chance to add the coordinates of those craters? I am going through the PDF trying to locate them (I'd like to see the area, the making of the soil, how close they are to other geological formations, etc) and I can't find any of them on google Earth. Of course, without coordinates it's like looking for a straw in a hay stack. The OP should give us the craters names, at least. ---- edit: yeah, oops, I missed the part where the coordinates appear at the bottom of the images.

Cubic bubbles that were supported by a structure, I assume...? The main reason I can see that people doubt the square craters issue is that an explosion or impact results - usually - in more or less equal distribution of energy. And if the distribution isn't equal, it's doubtfully distributed to create square craters. I heard somewhere (long time ago, and since we don't quite have sources to speak of I can't really research specific craters) that some of the alleged "squareness" of craters were due to later erosion. That is, the crater itself was more or less round (not perfectly so, but definitely not square) and then wind and water erosion made it seem squar'ish. That sounds more reasonable to me than an explosion/impact distributing its energy in such a way that you have angles and straight lines that produce squares. But, again, without proper resource as to examples, it's hard to judge.

Nor do you have any emotions. Or appeal. </rimshot> Kapow, a bow. Thankyouverymuch, I'll be here all day.

We talked about that in the thread before, and that's not quite true. Definitions of words themselves change all the time and that makes us change the literature to adjust to the new definition. Or, change the word completely to avoid a problem. Whichever one you choose to support, the problem in the USA is the *benefits* and *rights* that a certain group of the population is refused of. Well, there used to be a time where "nigger" was a perfectly valid way to describe a black person; the word existed in law, too, defining what rights that group is allowed and what it is denied.. there were a few minor differences between the southern states, but the general feeling of it was quite clear. The argument for equal rights includes an argument for re-examining the definitions inside the law. We might end up getting rid of that word entirely (like we did with "nigger") and putting up something different that includes everyone, or we might redefine the word itself (like was done with "queer"). Either way, the social definition is one thing, and the definition by LAW is different. The definition by law *results* in inequality. That forces us to re-examine the definition we attached to the words that defined the law. Yes, I'm sorry, I accidentally clicked the "post" button; I disagree with you on argument from ignorance still (for the reasons above) but I can see how it could look like it. Interpretation of the law is dependent upon quite strict definitions of words. Have you ever seen a lawful contract? The first parts are usually lengthy and wordy and include all the definitions that will be used in the contract to define whatever transactions/conditions that apply. Even words that are SUPPOSED to be familiar are again defined in length and in depth to make sure the contract is carried out as intended. Laws are the same. You must have proper definitions; if we see that a word is badly defined and is included in law, then we either redefine it, or we throw it out and use a different one. Either way, the argument for equality includes re-examining those definitions. "Nigger" was used for a very long time too. So were rules preventing women from voting (the USA got equality fro women in the 1920s, I believe.. that's a LOT of time for the existing inequality before that). We change laws to accommodate new problems we notice with equality ALL THE TIME. This is no different. Now, as to how to do it or how to amend it, it's a whole different discussion than the one we're having in this thread. *IF* the definition is said to be strictly religious, then that word has no place in a secular law. If we find ways to define it in secular terms, then there's no reason it shouldn't include gays. ~moo Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Really? So heterosexual couples that are *physically unable* to bear children - they might adopt, by the way, making them *have* children just not in the "natural" way - will have no rights under the law? Does that include christian couples that are unable to bear children and, perhaps, adopted children? Absolutely no rights under the law? Really? Is that what you want? If that's the case, then you should show that the benefits that come with the term "marriage" (under law) are strictly *for* the purpose of reproduction. I doubt the right to be buried next to one another, or to make decisions over one another's health issues are strictly related to reproduction, but in any case, that's a new discussion, you're welcome to open it and try to make your case. ~moo

Yes, agreed. As I said before, I don't quite care about what you call it, I care about the benefits the state decided to give the beneficiaries. If you allow *all citizens* to get the benefits, then, as far as I'm concerned,you can call it whatever you want (as long as it's a definition for *EVERYONE* - equally). If the term "marriage" itself is the problem, then abolish marriage completely under law, turn it into a strictly religious ceremony (and have the law have NOTHING to do with it) and make up another word that will encompass all the benefits, that will affect *all citizens* regardless of their sexual preferences, or gender, or religious affiliations. ~moo

Great, then you should see no reason to give those benefits to *ALL CITIZENS* in that definition that the state gave the word - for the purpose of defining the benefits. That is, you should see no relevant secular reason not to include all citizens. I don't know, and quite frankly I don't quite care. Call it oobapalooba if you wish, but all citizens should get the benefits the the secular law defines under them.

I'm sorry, I clicked "post" before finishing my argument, and edited my post later.. I think the expansion (and explanation) for my one-liner is in my previous post. That said, I disagree. The law should be secular. If we find no reason to have a law, then we shouldn't have a law. Societies change, and so do their laws; they are re-examined every now and then, and changed. The reason *FOR* gay marriage exists - and is absolutely non religious: Equality being the main one. That means that there *are* reasons for getting rid of the inequality, and if we find no reasons against it, then there's no reason to oppose it. That's not argument from ignorance at all, that's an attempt to examine our reasoning and adjust our rules to *fit* the reasoning, and not our reasoning to fit an archaic law.

By searching for relevant valid secular reasons and finding none. This is really very simple: if marriage a term like "baptism", then we would have no quarrel here.. it would be religious and I would have nothing to say. However, unlike "baptism" (that *is* religious term) "marriage" is a term used by law to give some citizens certain rights. It should therefore be re-examined in secular light, to preserve separation of church and state. Or, it should be totally abolished from the law and the "union between partners" should be using a whole new word (for *all*), with whatever rights included. This is not the case, though. The religious parties want to eat the cake and leave it whole; the want secular law to use a religious term, but not dare secularize it. Nice plan, but it lacks logic, and is against the separation of religion and law - a separation existing in the constitution of the USA.

What? I am not sure I understand what you're saying.

If you're refering to defining the word "marriage" under the law, then it seems the Lemon test would fail on it if its definition is strictly religious. And if the definition is secular, there's absolutely no reason to prevent gays from being included in it.

But if the reasons against gay marriage are found to be *ONLY DUE TO RELIGION* then they are religious (and hence, non secular).

Not when the state is built on the principles of separation of religion and state, which the United States is supposed to be, according to its constitution. Also (and we have been through this before in this thread), if you go strictly by majority decision, then in states where racism still prevails, there should be no reason to oppose it. The majority used to be against equal rights for women (seeing as the majority was *defined* as white males) - should we have just accepted that fact without opposition as well because that is the majority will? It's not just about not *asking* the voters, it's about making sure church and state are separated. The irony, by the way, is that this is meant to protect religious people just as much as it's meant to protect atheists: Separation of religion and state will make sure that *all* religions are free to practice what they will without intervention of the state. If the state has no separation of religion and law, then there bound to be one religion that enjoys favorable treatment by laws, and all the other religions (and factions of religions) that are hurt by it. The separation of church and state is meant to protect everyone. I find it ironic that in the USA fundamentalists are usually the ones arguing for religious laws.. which religion, though? and which faction of the religions? If all of christianity was in total agreement about which laws are to be practiced, there would be only ONE version of christianity - and we see that's not the case. When you let the state dictate rules based on religion, you must first pick your favorable religion. Just like some Christians interpret the bible to avoid beating an insubordinate child (Proverbs 22:13-15, Proverbs 13:24, Leviticus 20:9), some others interpret the bible to not care about homosexuality. Which rules do you chose your state to dictate? Obviously, religion is split on how to interpret the bible (literally and non literally, and more in between's). The government is DEFINED as secular government that allows for its citizens' freedom of religions. The laws of the state, therefore, should be secular, while the citizens can practice their own chosen religion freely. The laws, then, should allow for gay marriage, while the individual citizens should be allowed to practice whatever they choose. For that matter, the fact the law should be secular (and correct unequal treatment) doesn't mean the christian (or other religious) citizens are forced to marry gay marriage.. You can do whatever you choose, but if the state is defined to have separation of religion (again, the USA does), then the laws MUST be secular. ~moo

Severian, the point of "relevant secular" reason is simple: people claim they oppose gay marriage without having anything to do with religion - and the point is to find a non-religious reason. Obviously you have a right to oppose or support whatever you want, but if people oppose something because of religion, they should admit it - or at least be aware that the reasons are religious. It would also mean that there's no reason for the STATE to oppose gay marriage, if the reason is religious, for separation of church and state. So, for the state to continue excluding gays from marriage, there MUST be a non-religious reason - otherwise there's a problem with church/state separation. Most people who oppose gay marriage seem to claim that the reason is valid for the state as well.. most claim the reason is non religious. If that's the case, then where is such relevant secular reason for the state to use to exclude a group from rights given to all others. Quite frankly, the discomfort people have with it is irrelevant. People were (and some still are) discomfort with interracial marriages as well - that doesn't mean that excluding blacks from marrying whites shouild continue, or that the unequal treatment should just be accepted. ~moo

Then they should be uninvolved for all marriages, gay and heterosexual. That might be, but that's a completely different debate (also touched upon in this thread). The issue is equality. Either no for all or yes for all, the key words here are "for all". ~moo

You probably haven't experienced it then, having sex especially to produce offspring is in the minority of times you'll run across it. Thus why contraceptives are so popular, and sexually explicit acts are up for grabs free all across the internet - as I'm doubtful most of them end up with child. Also, the fact you don't find value in sex for non reproduction, walkntune, isn't a reason to oppose gay marriage. As was said in this thread BEFORE (multiple times), using this as a reason will necessitate making sure heterosexual couples who are unable to bear children are also forbidden from having sex. We aren't talking about what people approve of, we're talking about equal rights. The state is allowing for certain rights that ACCOMPANY marriage (read the thread, they're discussed). You are essentially claiming you wish to take a group and exclude them from the rights that are given to everyone else. The fact you are not approving of their lifestyle -- or, rather, of what YOU think is their lifestyle (no, Gay men are not just into anal sex, nor are they *all* into anal sex, nor is the LGBT community made up of gay men only) -- has absolutely no bearing on the discussion at hand. Especially when the debate is specifically encompassing the relevant *secular* reasons to oppose gay marriage. ~moo

Those also are also quite irrelevant, though, seeing as anal sex is not limited to gay couples (by far) and that gay couples aren't limited to anal sex (by far).

You *are* being rude, walkntune. We've discussed your claims in this thread multiple times, and you ignore it on purpose, as if that would make you right. You are obviously not here for honest debate; if you were, you'd be going over the thread, and making comments on anything that *WASN'T* already discussed. ~moo

Look. This thread is 300 posts long. You seem to expect me to forgive your insistence to IGNORE all the posts in here, some of which actually answer the claims you made and claims you probably intend to make, and suggest that because I don't jump at the opportunity to repeat myself (and others) then you must be right. You put forth a claim in a 300+ post thread, you are the one in need to prove it. Your resource was a random website; that's not good enough. Find peer reviewed articles, or stop being rude and - at the very least - readthe thread you insist on resurrecting. ~moo