pwagen

The other option would be that gravity "pulls" towards somewhere that is not the center of Earth (or rather, Earth's center of gravity). Are you suggesting that? Do you have any reason to believe the pull of gravity is not dependent on mass? If so, what would show that to be the case? Also, if gravity depends on the density of the core, how did the core get there in the first place? Atoms, yes. Again, is the more compact core a result of gravity, or the cause of it?

Don't change for other people (as the poll would indicate). Change for your own sake. You want to start giving logical answers? Read up on the science. Want to stop behaving like a 10 year old? Read up on social interactions and how to behave towards other people, then practice it. Before you post something, ask yourself "how old does this make me sound?", then change the post accordingly. When in doubt whether something will make you sound like a child, don't post it.

Fine, so it's not 7/7 then?

Just to clarify, are you talking about the fruit or the plant? Because I can't see how the fruit can, for example, maintain temperature without the plant.

It seems you're comparing single cells to multi-cellular structures. If you're comparing the strawberry to anything, surely it would have to be the testicle? Neither can stay alive on its own, both contain something which is used for reproduction (sperm/seeds). All of them? Again, for how long? Without being well versed in the process of cell death, I would guess the cells in the testicles die off a long time before the sperms do, in which case the sperm can still be used for reproduction even though the container they came from is dead. Also, I think we need to make a distinction between the bigger and the smaller in this case. Sure, you can claim something "big" (such as the strawberry or the chopped off testicle) is alive due to it having live cells still. But then, a decomposing corpse is also alive, since it has bacteria and stuff like that in it.

If you amputate a testicle, and extract sperm from it within half a day or so, which is then used to impregnate a woman, was the testicle ever alive? I have no problem with the view of it having been part of a living organism. But I can't bring myself to seeing either the testicle or the strawberry as something with a life of its own.

Even if it did, I don't think it would matter. It can't sustain itself without a host. So while the head, in this case, is a part of a living thing, and "starts to die" if removed, I'd still argue that it's wrong to say it's alive, in itself. Same with the strawberry. While it's a part of a living thing, it's not alive in itself. Thus it won't die when picked. However, due to the general grey area that is the definition of life, I'm sure one can argue that it's alive due to there being live cells in it. So then, is the strawberry alive simply because there are live cells in it? Does it then die when all cell activity has ceased? I personally don't agree with that line of reasoning, but I can see how one could argue for it. As for the head being alive after being decapitated, it's a debated subject. http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/inside-the-mind/human-brain/10-brain-myths6.htm

It might very well be. However, another part of the definition of life is to be able to sustain biological functions on your own. This is the reason most definitions say a virus is no alive, since it's dependant on a host to function. Once, again, if you remove the strawberry from its host body (the plant), it dies. Thus, it fails that aspect of being alive.

I would argue the strawberry in itself isn't alive, and never was. The plant is, but the strawberry is just a peripheral.

Bignose touched on it above; What predictions can your theory make, that would be more accurate than the predictions made by relativity?

Firstly, it's not correct to speak of a purpose. There's no underlying purpose or goal of the universe. Secondly, you say the mass of a star creates the gravity. I'm sure that's not an accurate description to physicists, but let's go with that anyway. If that's the case, can you think of a reason gravity should disperse when the star collapses? After all, the mass is still there.

You're trying to change the subject. You said that believers who see their faith fail them will stop believe in that faith. I disagreed. You later said the complete opposite, that the believers who see their faith fail them will still believe. Both examples quoted above. I asked for clarification. Which is it? The appearance of a working belief. That can't be a serious question.

Sure. The way that I read this, and you might stop me right here if this isn't what you mean, is that for a believer to logically believe in a god, it needs to be real, and provide real evidence of its existence. If the god does not provide such evidence, the believer will realize this and change his or her view of the world. Is this interpretation correct? This interpretation seems strengthened by the following quote: So again, are you saying that if a believer does not receive adequate evidence, they stop believing in the god they subscribed to? If so, I disagree. In itself, what you're saying makes sense. After all, if you think all cars are red, and are shown a blue car, you would realize you've made a mistake and change your view of cars. However, experience tells us that this isn't what happens, in general. I've given an example above, where people pray for their god to heal X, and them still believing (but finding excuses for) the same god. Another example could be a congregation praying for their god to heal "aunt Mathilda, who's dying from cancer". Prayer is an alleged working practice in Christianity. However, if the prayer fails and Mathilda dies, do the believers stop believing, since the god does not provide evidence of its existence? Further, you seem to be saying the complete opposite of what you've already said: Here, can you really be saying anything other than that a believer would still believe even though they receive no evidence? So, in short: Are you saying that a believer would lose their faith if, for example, their prayers don't work or they are shown certain errors in their scriptures? Basically, when their god fails them. Do you say the complete opposite when you say a believer still trusts it to be real, even though the god fails them?

This quote: ...is in direct conflict with this quote, which follows it: The first quote seems to say that when a believer experiences a failed miracle (or whatever), they turn to other explanations. The second quote says that when a believer experiences this, they still believe in their diety. Which is it? If I'm misinterpreting you, maybe consider K.I.S.S. in regards to language. Edit: Fixed quote tags.

This is false. There are a myriad of different gods which obviously don't work as prescribed, yet that won't stop people from believing in them. An example would be"prayer heals X". When prayer fails to heal X, believers don't stop believing. Instead, they come up with silly excuses like "God works in mysterious ways" or "you didn't pray hard enough". Very rarely, the believer admits there's nothing there, and change their belief.

The supernatural has about as big an effect on philosophy as homeopathy has on medicine.

I'll call Stockholm.

Funny how the names on the patch in the image don't match Rutledge's crew, but actually match one of the crew that was considered for the mission, had it actually happened. In fact, I found an even better patch for you: http://magonia.haaan.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/apollo20patch.jpg This is the one shown in the video, and it's not real. How come there is no Latin inscription on the other mission patches? No, people do this on a daily basis. The videos were released in 2007, so anyone with enough spare time could easily fake it. Now you're just taking the piss.

How do you expect to win the Nobel prize when you refuse to explain your theory? Do you think the committee will take your word for it?

Am I missing something, or is there no sketch?

I bet that makes him a very unbiased source for a hoax. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LuisGomez111/Apollo_20 http://www.galaxiki.org/web/main/_blog/all/the-apollo-20-alien-spaceship-hoax.shtml

You should have checked the spam link then! I can't be sure, but my guess is New Zealand. Partly because of looks, partly because the spammer's name, which leads me to think of the Great Barrier Reef.

A lot of persecuted scientists turned out to be right because they were right. They were not right because they were persecuted. We've had that argument before, it's never been evidence of anything. So you have no math to back up your claim, and refuse to explain it in detail? Frankly, I wonder why you're wasting everyone's time, including your own.

I haven't been able to watch the video, but could you do what you say here?

Apollo 20 was cancelled. Why don't you start researching your nonsense Youtube clips before posting them?