Reaper

Alright, I skimmed down some of his "explained theories", and "Relativity +". His latest thread Time Explained v3.0 actually had 2 equations in it, though he did them incorrectly. Gross misconceptions aside, he also contradicted himself a number of times. But, I will admit that I like looking at the pictures. But anyways, Well, a burst of radiation is how we see all subatomic particles, but it does not mean that they are made of photons. Typically what we are seeing is a release in energy as subatomic particles interact, and we know which particles they are because we can measure their properties through their interaction. We detect neutrinos in a huge tank of heavy water. The heavy water is important because it has an extra neutron. The neutrinos interact with it to produce electrons, which give off Cherenkov radiation. You just got that picture off of wikipedia without even trying to understand what it meant. If you read the beginning carefully, you would have caught: And yes, matter can be created from pure energy via E=mc^2. Do you even understand the mechanism behind this? Try looking at a Feynman diagram. They annihilate with each other and release 2 gamma ray photons because they are converted into energy. If they are only made of photons, and in your specific example an electron is one photon, then explain how electrons give off or exchange photons when they leap from specific energy states in atomic orbitals, or when they interact with each other. As you can already see, an electron is not a photon.

Less than 50% of the people in the US actually vote, so what you will find is that all of the candidates represent the interests of the few. It actually doesn't really matter who gets up there nowadays, because the only people who will benefit from this will be the richest 1%.... Personally, I don't support her at all.

Yes I have. Unless there are members that don't live in the US and thus never really studied the cities, I doubt anybody here is that ignorant.

When one discusses the evolution of internet spam, it is appropriate that we start with it's humble beginnings.

If you are talking about Al Qa'ida, then yes, one of their goals is to ruin US economy. Well, pretty much they want to give the western powers and any kind of influence it brought the boot. I agree that they are totally ineffective, so I don't know why the White House fusses over such a trivial threat. IMO, the U.S. should focus more on Russia and China. I was just talking about terrorist tactics in general, which are used with the purpose of demoralization. In the past, especially during the world wars, they were used in addition to conventional warfare in an attempt to gain any kind of advantage.

Pay special attention to BenTheMan here, he puts it quite nicely. I already showed you evidence of such, it can't get any better than that. and I'm not aware of earlier confrontations between you and the members of this site, but I know that people on this thread have indeed addressed your points and showed you that you were wrong on a couple of recent threads that you conveniently ignore; here is one such example in this thread: And then you, Farsight, responded:

It's not so much the economy that they are looking to drain, but rather just to instill a sense of fear and hopelessness in the enemy. The whole point of terrorism is to, well, terrorize. Get them to believe that the war is un-winnable. Mostly what we are seeing is a sort of guerrilla warfare going on in the Middle East, and terrorist tactics are common. Typically what would happen is that once they got enough support or manpower, then they would switch over to conventional warfare and knock the enemy right out. And there are examples in history in which these tactics did actually work, just look at Vietnam. The Viet-Cong relied heavily on terrorist tactics and it demoralized the troops to the point where they were not able to really fight effectively in combat.

It's a very complicated issue and one can write entire books about it. But overall, we've been pretty much raping them for their resources since the early 20th century. At the same time we've been installing tyrannical sock-puppet regimes. All in the name of democracy and freedom.

The thing is, all topics, especially physics and psychology, are all so badly reported that there really is no way you can fix it. If you go into media outlet such as CNN or ABC they will probably fire you for reporting the science correctly. The best way is to simply make sure that the newspapers and magazines responsible for reporting it do it right. Even organizations such as Scientific American are guilty of bad scientific reporting.

http://www.templetons.com/brad/spamterm.html Here's a quote:

Ok: This is an example of quark-gluon plasma' date=' created by the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider back in 2000. It was an attempt to re-create conditions that existed about a ten millionth of a second after the Big Bang. More details here All that people here are asking of you is to make an adequate defense of your points and demonstrate what the implications of your so-called theory shows, especially since its against what is accepted. Your refusal to address any of them has clearly demonstrated your lack of knowledge on the subject, and the extent of your over-inflated ego for that matter. You keep on making ad hominem attacks.

That's pure speculation, and off topic. But you are free to discuss your speculations in the speculations sub-forum. Anyways, to expand on what Bentheman said, the equations for the Lorentz transformation are: t' = y [t - (vx/c^2)] x' = y (x - vt) Y' = Y z' = z And "y" (just the lower case; its actually some greek symbol I forgot the name to) is the Lorentz Factor. y = 1 / [ 1 - (v^2 / c^2)] Take note that these equations are describing what is happening in 4 dimensional spacetime, so you need 4 points to describe them. <edit> Relativistic mass: m = y m(initial) where, as before, y = 1 / [ 1 - (v^2 / c^2)]^ 1/2 When v = c, the denominator is zero, and thats why mass goes to infinity as one approaches the speed of light.

That's actually a misconception that most people have about singularities and black holes, of which unfortunately is propagated by the pop science media. A singularity is a solution for which GR breaks down because they yield nonsensical answers. That is, the equations of general relativity aren't defined as a singularity. It is NOT a point of infinite density or an infinitely small space. We won't know what it is until we have a fully consistent quantum theory of gravity.

I've read the Russians are trying to claim a huge piece of the North Pole right now by sending geologists over there. They have even planted a flag on the bottom to claim territory.

You gotta give the supercomputer some credit for coming up with that, it took it 7 million years to come to that solution.

Well, no, curved spacetime was a property predicted by Einstein in general relativity, in order to be able to predict how light would behave near a gravitational field. However, it is not curved like the way as is depicted in pop-science and in many diagrams that you see, those are more or less ANALOGIES to help understand what is going on. When they say curved, what they really mean is distorted or warped in some fashion that would alter or deflect the path of light, which will only travel in a straight line. It isn't just light that this principle is applied to. It also helps explain gravitational time dilation, gravitational lensing, perihelion of Mercury, etc. Some experiments which CONFIRMED this theory include the Muon decay and the Relativistic Doppler affect. There aren't any experimental confirmations or evidence for the existence of wormholes or time travel, but the fact that there are fully consistent solutions to General Relativity that do allow wormholes and time travel are worth investigating. Whether or not we would be able to do anything with it is another matter all together.

You see this a lot in politics, especially by the democrats. Open mindedness to most Americans seems to only mean that you either agree with everything all the time, or that you avoid inconvenient topics or arguments. Its amazing how everybody is so afraid all the time.

I think the causes are a little different for Agenesis of the Corpus Callosum and Autism. There is strong evidence that Autism has genetic causes, but ACC can have both genetic and environmental causes, such as obtaining an infection or injury during some time period of pregnancy. Mind you there many disorders associated with this, such as Aicardi Syndrome. There are symptoms that are identical to Autism, but not all. There is strong evidence that Autism is genetic and can be spontaneous. The genetics are even stronger for Asperger's Syndrome, which is the mildest form and that particular condition is unique in the fact that it appears to be heritable. There was a radio talk about this on NPR right here a little back, and the genetics of Autism are very, very complex. This is because there are hundreds of genes involved in intelligence and brain development, so its hard to say what the specific cause is. However, some copies genes responsible for neurotransmitters and certain hormones are missing for people with Autism, for example oxytocin. You can actually read and listen to the NPR program right here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8926283 --------------------------------------------------------- As for brain differences, people with Autism have abnormalities in brain structure, but not quite as profound as that in ACC. Mostly its abnormalities in grey matter and white matter volume in the frontal lobes and the cerebellum. For people with Asperger's syndrome, there are excesses of white matter in certain parts of the brain. Here is the full study right here: http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/128/2/268#SEC3 Because this is off topic right now, I encourage you to refer to the Autism thread for more information and discussion. Later on I might drop by that thread and add more current research. P.S. I sometimes get freaked out by this, because I am in essence detailing what my own brain probably looks like . I am describing myself, and it doesn't sound too good. But knowledge is nice, and helps me understand my weaknesses better. Definitely. In the video they said that they might actually find a way to improve memory by studying his brain, though they didn't really detail it very much. I've read somewhere that magnetic stimulation might help. As for his mental skills, he is technically retarded, but his memory skills are astounding.

I would like a blog feature for this place.

The problem with Dawkins argument is that he is attempting to use science to support his arguments, when in reality science doesn't give a say in whether or not God exists. In fact, you can't even form a hypothesis on how a deity might behave because there are differing definitions and an "all power" deity is by definition outside of the laws of nature. At least, that's one of the problems. That doesn't mean that you should ignore scientific evidence, but science by itself doesn't really give a say. So he doesn't have adequate grounds, and then he attempts to force it on other people, and anybody who doesn't agree with him, or if some point is inconvenient, they are dismissed as "deluded" or "unreasonable" or "illogical". Basically, what he does is that he slaps labels and uses stereotypes. He doesn't really give any credit to the other side. And this is where you get into trouble when you try to have a discussion about it. If your going to argue about God's existence, you have to learn to put aside your prejudices against the other belief and give the other side some credit. It's just like arguing any other point, it doesn't matter if deities or supernatural elements are in it; if one side brings a point, you have to come up with an adequate counterpoint. It's a fine line, I know, but it can be done maturely. No, he knows I'm an Atheist. I'm just not in the same line as Dawkins.

I've not actually done them, but what I don't like about it is the number of solutions for them.

There is criticizing religion, and then there is bashing it. The claim that everyone who believes in God is delusional is just plain wrong. He's attacking everyone who even dares to attempt to derive any philosophical or religious meaning from science, even though he does this himself. I have a friend here in college who is Islamic and we debate about this kind of stuff all the time. But I don't go off claiming he is delusional or dismiss him on the basis of his belief.

Talk about a punch in the gut .

I don't know if string theory even suggests evidence for such. Seems too convenient for it to require a particle accelerator with the energy output of the sun to be able to detect one. Seems much more like numerology to me. I thought they looked more like spaghetti .

There is overwhelming evidence for their correctness. That is why it is called "accepted science".