GutZ

I think that rule works within the universe only. outside is unknown. It's nothing. If space expands, how does nothing stop it? I think you could say nothing is not descriptive, no structure or form or anything. I think the hard part to get around is the point, being a point with nothing around it. Like if you draw a black point on a piece of paper. I think maybe that a lot of the confusion comes that we say nothing is the piece of paper but really it's the black dot without the paper, we just need the paper because of how our brain needs structure. "Nothing" is hard to express. correct me if I am wrong with this.

I guess you can never have an utopia for more than one person. I am not saying you are not on the ball scientifically either. Like I said this is the best run forum I come across. I see a lot of your effort being trivialized by the people who refuse to work with in the facts. I understand there is importance to allow free thought within the forums without ridicule or labelling. That comes mostly from frustrated posters that take the time to express rational and factual post. you can't satisfy both at the same time so...both are misplaced. both commit basically the same thing (at least someone could make a decent argument for that). If you allow one side to do so, then the other side should have it's right to do the same, or punish both. Not a great position to be in.

I don't know...maybe that idea I put forth! At least you can set rules based on some foundation. If you set forth what is fact then you have a basis to go on. You satisfy both sides. Also the scientific community is at rest because they are represented before the discussion takes place. It makes the mods job easier with there less need to make so many judgment calls. People are freely able to discuss GW within the context of fact sheet. Is it so hard that GutZ could just have an astronomically amazing idea? Well I don't really blame you, I do post half-assed a lot.

bumpy* Klaynos puts a lot of effort in this! This isn't politics your vote actually counts for something. ()

oooooohhh, I am an idiot. WOW I am an idiot...Thanks! I'll start out reading classical physics and get a good understand of that first with all the math. SO the models and such bring about the right answer, but the exact details of what goes on is not totally clear or possible to perceive? Is this a limitation of technology or QM itself, like HUP discussions we had? Could we ever view the quantum world without disturbing it? like we do with classical physics.

Is there some rule against improperly giving out rep? I give it to anyone, I am whorish that way. Plus I always leave Phi messages because its so fun to harass him. This is not wise is it?

So how do you guy retain the logic behind physics. How did physics makes sense to you swansont. Is there anyway I can force myself away from visualization because that seems to be my prevalent method to understanding things. Do you think the math would make more sense to me? like if I were to see an interaction through an equation? You guys have no idea how badly I want to understand this all but it seems like I am going in circles. I don't care if it takes me 20 years.

1. Most Helpful Member: Severian 2. Most Knowledgeable Member:Severian 3. Most Interesting Member: Severian 4. Best Debater: Severian 5. Most Enjoyable Member: Severian 6. Most Improved Member: proton what can I say, Severian is the man.

Yeahhhhhh unless you mean....obscure..... http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obscure as in: 1 a: dark, dim b: shrouded in or hidden by darkness c: not clearly seen or easily distinguished : faint <obscure markings>2: not readily understood or clearly expressed ; also : mysterious3: relatively unknown: as a: remote, secluded <an obscure village> b: not prominent or famous <an obscure poet> 4: constituting the unstressed vowel \ə\ or having unstressed \ə\ as its value — ob·scure·ly adverb — ob·scure·ness noun ???????????????????????????????????????? Oh I see your competing for the award! bastard it's mine!

I don't think it really matter who lies more. It's all about the argument for or against a specific position being factual. Due to the uncertainty (in terms of not being 100% certain) both positions by default has the potential to be correct. GW is an issue that has the potential to affect us (as a group) one way or another. A decision has to be made (Do something, nothing, or somewhere in between). Maybe as a forum we could instead of arguing point back and forth set back and objectively as a group place ideas surrounding GW and other issue which fact are true and lay them out for all to see. No "buts". I see a lot of issues debating around defeating a specific point to gain grounds, to deflame a specific idea of the opponents in pursuit to win. What if we took away the "win/losing" "right/wrong" of individuals and objectively take point from both sides that have merit. Start off withe basics. CO2 catorgorize it's affects. other contributing elements as well. What we know a to how climate works, all the hard facts that are not debatable. Then we propose interpretations. Take every single graph and break down what it proposes. where is estimates, where is the filtering, where is hypothetical aspects, where are the assumptions. We continue this way not to see who is right or who is wrong but that what is being represented is. That's where all arguements will lead. It would be a lot of work. but with that method we stop taking what is uncertian and use our own interpretations that can be wrong or right. Like for the example of sampling, range of data. Does ploting infromation from a short term of time give anything to us. What does it show, what doesn't it show, then move one to the next. I think if we do that this whole debate becomes less us vs them. I think it would be helpful for people like me as well because then I am not getting bacules interpretations in it, or john B's or jryans, or waitinfo's, or inow's, etc. just a suggestion, make a fact thread that comes with the debate. When something is accepted (say by a panel of experts) it get written down and stickified. Then those topics becomes pointless to discuss. I think it help move the discussion away from what the proposed problem is. I guess first you would need a thread asking for all the relevant issues surrounding it. someone could take the time to sort it all out. We can do that for evolution as well. or any other issue that are similar. I keep adding to this but I could go on forever so I hope I got my idea across properly. I think that would bring much to this board as to what it promotes as well. Objective science at it's best. We could set the trend. This way too we insure flexability and open mindedness. I know for fact that most biologist cringe at the idea that people are point out little holes like the lack of transitional fossil (or whatever), instead of going "that;s irrelevant" lets make note of it. It concerns someone out there so lets not downplay it, lets show we accept that it exists and that's it. move on.

I like the nomination for "Most obscure person who somehow isn't banned yet" award. I got a good chance at that one. or "Person with the best natural ability to steer conversations off topic or doesn't seem to need users to have a conversation"

Probably did nothing for or against the cause, but Buzz felt better, and that guy probably won't harass people as willing as before. It definitely made me feel better. I accept the event as inconsequential overall though. Name one significant event that hasn't had two sides arguing over it. You still have flat earth people arguing crap and the evidence is blinding....I don't know how you can trump satellite imagery. besides taking every FEer (LABEL!) to outer space and let them see for themselves. World still spins. I think a more proper course of action would for everyone to stop being offended by labels. I understand labels can be bad, like pedophile, or whatever. I am talking about when people label you "whatever", if it's not true just laugh it off. If someone calls me a socialist because I believe in free health care, then they are the ones makes the general assumption. It seems hard to not take things personally, I don't know if that in itself is productive for discussion.

I would think too that people, us, and me like to label things. Swansont is a physic expert. Phi is a moderator. I am a layman. It has to be at some level, even if it's negative be useful. I think it's a matter of mislabeling more than anything. The funny thing is no one is going to be upset by being labeled a genius whether they are or not.

One of the many reasons feline species kick so much ass.

This is my last bit of effort in trying to conceptualize the everything in physics....I made this image to help illustrate what I am saying. http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/7950/76374648.jpg First box: This is how I gather an EM wave is. Photons of different concentrations and intensity, and that the mathematical representation would be like the squggly thing I made. How close I am here. Second box: If a particle or lets say photon again has energy (I assume thats what a carrier does) is it sort of in the sense trapped (for lack of a better word) surrounding the photon, or is it within the photon. Three box: Let's say a photon is zooming near an electron...and say the electron is in an state where it can take the energy from the photon. Does the electron take the energy move to a higher state and the photon just keeps going on. As the photon goes on does it actually gain speed because it lost energy(it's relativistic mass)? Also I read somewhere that a photon can eject an electron out of it's "shell" how does that work? Fourth box: I am gather that fields are what give properties to particles so does a field operate independant of the particles or do they have a relationship. Like say a photon going through a field area that has a higher intensity (by whatever means) does the photon gain more energy, or say a photon with lots of energy does it affect the field in some way. If I can understand visually these concepts than I have a better chance of understanding things. If I am totally wrong and you guys can't correct me....I am going to be very sad.

It would definitely make life more interesting. If they had the ability to breed so that they could live within the environment now, what exactly are they going to do with them? Are they going to cage them up for the rest of their lives? Let them roam free? Could you buy one as a pet or guard. Lastly would they be scared of mice too? I just want one of those signs. BEWARE OF MAMMOTH

JohnB: sorry I kinda wrote that sentence as you being like a denier by being vague (my speciality!), what I meant was that like for there to be people willing to critique properly you will always have those people who overbearing. A spectrum of people and for the right people who do it properly (such as yourself) you have to take the other with them. So my sentence was reflecting on the fact that I feel safer knowing that deniers exist because within the spectrum of people there are people like you. I see you got what I was saying so....good. just wanted to clarify.

lol I do that sometimes. Not nearly to that degree but pretty bad. 0 "A black hole is where a star can't overcome it's own gravity then collapses into a single point....umm...something to do with some radius, and infinite mass..maybe...I can't remember. I am going to stop talking now." In my mind I am sure I got a better hold on it but, for some reason the words don't come out right. It's frustrating as hell that you know you are wrong but can't say why. Usually I can depend on you guys to understand what I am trying to get at...but when I go to the real world apparently science isn't so popular. I dont know what's up with that. there no back up, just faces of confusion and your dropping the ball big time.

I would think the physics since everything is based on it, even the mind. physics> chem> biology. Evolution of the universe and all.

All I have to say if they go back to the same practices, someone should be persecuted.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Thanks%2C+I+already+did+that

how exactly do they create them?

How do you play coffee!

ARE YOU ****ING KIDDING ME! excuse my language. ...I'm better now.

I'm confused so, if everyone has to pay for the GOVO (I made that up ) insurance, why would someone get private insurance? wouldn't taxing them cause them to raise prices? It depends I guess on what covers what. Who applies for medicare? isn't that like the same?