Iggy

Yeah, a few days ago Assad said in an interview, "The only way to deal with them [rebels] is to annihilate them. Only then will we be able to talk about political measures" The Assad regime isn't hiding the fact that they are annihilating a sizable portion of their own population, and doing a pretty good job of it. And, John wants to know who to target, because he just can't figure it out. This all got started when there were peaceful protests in the north (people asking for basic human rights) until al-Assad decided to take after his father and just started killing everybody. And, everybody sort of seems fine with that. I'm reminded of Eddie Izzard...

No, the mother's treatment... like "yeah, you're gay... now clean up your room"... like it wasn't newsworthy, is what it made it worthy of a grin. It's a good note. Worthy of sharing.

I agree. I think it started with Napoleon. He impressively blew through the middle east, knocking the whole thing over. Everybody was thoroughly impressed with his use of modern technology, and they wanted it. The Imams told everyone that they should accept the power of modern technology, but not to accept the philosophy that developed it -- not to accept the scientific method. That created a chasm that put them on the receiving end of the benefits of the modern world, but destined them not to be the drivers of it. I think conspiracy theories fill that chasm like nothing rational can. It's sad in a way.

A google search for "middle east conspiracy theories" couldn't hurt, or watching Bassem Youssef on the daily show. Their conspiracy theories have nothing to do with anything probable or possible, or anything that can be rationalized -- it's all to do with conspiratorial thinking (on a level the west really can't understand) It's the same in Pakistan, and some other south, central, and western Asian countries... all incidentally Islamic... hummm...

Yeah, probably got it wrong. Probably. More funny, from your link: It makes sense to me. They used to use horses in war, and carrier pigeons for passing messages, so if I ever found a bird with a bracelet on its leg I'm quite sure I'd take it to the authorities to do an autopsy searching for Israeli microchips. I'd probably have to tell the media too, so they could report the capture of a zionist espionage bird. Civic duty. You never know who your pets are working for. Loose lips sink ships.

That's an awesome note. I think people must like the... yeah, you're gay, I love you, it doesn't define you... now clean your room... attitude of it. If more politicians had that attitude I think we'd be alright. I like your "beauty" of an avatar, by the way.

I was curious if this would work so I figure... a wwII era searchlight is 800 million candela. At an altitude of 370 km covering 20 degrees it would illuminate about 56 billion square meters. That should be 0.01418 lux. You can convert lux to apparent magnitude by log(E) = -0.4(M+14.2) and it works out to -3.56. That's a little bit brighter than Jupiter at its brightest, so your idea would work if you could power a giant spotlight up there (and keep it cool)

The red line was set 36 years before the president was born. Almost nobody seems to take it seriously anymore. It's weird. Obama gets in trouble for saying "hey, you better not use chemical weapons", as if that's a novel thing to say. Really weird. Because cruise missile strikes don't amount to a declaration of war. You think the US is incapable? After Libya and Mali it shouldn't be surprising. No, that may be funny, but not true. It's prejudiced. To lob a few cruise missiles? I feel like Iraq has caused the whole world to lose perspective. A mad dictator continually escalates his use of chemical weapons indiscriminately murdering something like a thousand civilians, and everybody figures this makes for a good opportunity to give Obama a hard time because he wants to do something abut it. Where are your priorities?

I've read about that before. It's true that Russia would prefer to hold the monopoly on eastern European (and increasingly western European) energy, so they have pressured Syria not to build the pipeline. And, it's true that Qatar would prefer the pipeline be built for the sake of their own economy, and I'm sure Europe wouldn't mind the prospect of cheaper energy, but I find it really hard to believe this plays very much into the current conflict. It would be about impossible to build a pipeline in the war-torn aftermath no matter which side wins and gets to rule the pile of rubble. I'm sure Saudi Arabia, and other Arab countries support the downfall of Assad for mostly religious and ethnic reasons. They would rather Syria be a partner with other Sunni nations rather than Shia Iran. Syria is, after all, majority Sunni. Russia just hates the idea of the west intervening in anything. EDIT: I forgot the US. The US doesn't want to go to war and isn't going to war with Syria, so the question "Is The United States Going To Go To War With Syria Over A Natural Gas Pipeline?" is absurd. Besides, nothing could motivate the US less than natural gas imports from the middle east.

I remember about you that you don't stop an argument. The post said: "well-defined" You may be missing the thing that I was refuting... that God could not be part of science because it could never be proven in the negative. The idea was that science would have to know *everything* to show that "god does not exist"... therefore not part of science. That needed refuted. My point was that scientific laws are usually formatted that way. "perpetual motion machines of the first kind do not exist" is the first law of thermodynamics. Scientific laws are universal, and "god does not exist" is the negation of an existential statement which is logically equivalent to a universal statement. "God does not exist" is perfectly formatted to be a scientific law (assuming 'god' is well-defined). The particular definition is irrelevant to my point. It could be a Greek god living on mt. olympus. It could be the emperor of Japan. When you say "Good luck trying to argue those don't exist" it makes me pretty sure you don't understand what I'm saying. The point is that "God does not exist" is falsifiable. Maybe one day you meet Zeus on Mt. Olympus, or maybe Japan hears the voice of their Emperor God on the radio for the first time in 1945. The hypothesis can (in principle) be proven wrong, just like the first law of thermodynamics could in principle be proven wrong if you built a perpetual motion machine of the first kind. "God exists", on the other hand, could never be proven wrong. It is conceptually, and logically, impossible to disprove it. It is unfalsifiable -- and therefore a very bad scientific hypothesis.

Exactly how I thought about it. Earth would be at different positions for the two present instants of the measurement event. Yup. Right. 0.5 resting w/ earth and .5 catching the mouse. And, earth should spend seven times as long (.5*7) for the catching phase since v=0.9897 has a gamma factor of 7. So, 3.5y + 0.5y makes four years total earth time. Yep, yep.

I think so too. I meant 'expressing an opinion' more like "personal testimony". I suppose in the context of theistic scientists... as long as they keep their testimony personal then it's alright by me.

It gets tricky because a lot of people tend to use opinion polls as evidence, but like wikipedia says "in general, an opinion is a judgment, viewpoint, or statement about matters commonly considered to be subjective, i.e. based on that which is less than absolutely certain" If we can't trust the content of an anecdotal, subjective account told by a person, then how can we trust the subjective accounts told by lots of people? But, the religion forums here are knee deep with Gallup polls that apparently give evidence of something.

I wish, for the sake of your peace of mind, that were true. But, it certainly is not. The context is that you don't have to fear people because they can only destroy your body. The point is that you do need to fear God because he can destroy your body and soul in hell: And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell -Matt. 10:28 If you continue to insist that I'm taking it out of context you can read Luke's account which really drives the point home: And I say to you, My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear Him who, after He has killed, has power to cast into hell; yes, I say to you, fear Him! -Luke 12:4-5 And you say all Christian law is based on love. I wish that were true. And the word "vanilla" comes from the Latin word for vagina. This doesn't literally mean that we flavor chocolate chip cookies with Latin vagina. It's just the etymology of the word. The new testament also uses the Greek 'tartarus', which is the subterranean land of the evil dead. Besides that, the new testament makes very clear with the story of Lazarus and the rich man that hell is a physical place that people go after they die -- with real physical torture. You can rationalize it, but it says what it says. Read your book of Matthew again. Read chapter 25 that actually describes the moment God segregates people into two groups, and blesses one group, 'cuz he likes them, and tells the other group "Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire"... "away into everlasting punishment". "Everlasting punishment" "all Christian law is based on love" You'll have to try again. Cursing people and throwing them into everlasting fire as punishment because they didn't like you isn't so much love as it is childish sadism.

That all looks ok except the last paragraph. Where you say "ok to do I think?", I believe not. In Mouse's frame both the earth and cat are moving so you shouldn't be able to use the length contraction formula between them. One of them would have to be stationary in the frame. You could use earth's frame, and of course we could just use the velocity you give and the distance you give in the length contraction formula: [math]L = L_0 \sqrt{1-v^2} = 3.464 \sqrt{1 - 0.990^2} = 0.489 \ ly[/math] But I bet we can get a more general formula and have more fun with it... Simplifying the velocity addition formula ends up saying that the cat's velocity in earth's frame is [math]v_c = (2 v_m)/(1 + {v_m}^2 )[/math] where vm is the velocity of the mouse relative to earth and the velocity of the cat relative to the mouse (which is to say [math]v_m = \sqrt{3}/2[/math]). So if we plug that formula into the length contraction formula: Length contraction formula: [math]L_C = L_E \sqrt{1-{v_c}^2}[/math] Substituting our [math]v_c[/math] formula for [math]v_c[/math]: [math]L_C = L_E \sqrt{1- \left( \frac{2v_m}{1+{v_m}^2} \right)^2}[/math] the above simplifies to: [math]L_C = L_E \left( \frac{1-{v_m}^2}{{v_m}^2+1} \right) [/math] and since vm is [math]\sqrt{3}/2[/math] and [math]L_E[/math] (the distance in earth's frame) is [math]2 \sqrt(3)[/math] the distance in Cat's frame would be: [math]L_C = (2)(\sqrt{3}) \left( \frac{1-0.75}{0.75+1} \right) [/math] or [math]L_C = \frac{2 \sqrt{3}}{7}[/math] Sweet! [math]L_C = 0.49487 \ ly[/math] That should make sense too because if Earth travels 0.49487 light years in the cat's frame in 0.5 years then the velocity is 0.49487 / 0.5 = 0.9897, and that is indeed the Earth / Cat relative velocity.

If Matthew is the message, and "love God" in particular, then why does Matthew say that we should fear God because he can destroy both our body and soul in hell? In Matthew 10.28? We are supposed to "love our fellow man" while Matthew says things like "cast into eternal fire", "eternal punishment", "burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire". If all Christian law is based on love then I don't understand where all this sadistic stuff comes from. I know what love looks like, and I know what "burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire" looks like (I've seen WWII videos of concentration camps). I don't understand how Christians square that circle.

You use the relativistic rocket equation

My favorite image is from Joshua 10:11 where God kills people by throwing big stones down from heaven on top of their heads. Like a kid with a magnifying glass. I can explain that. In ancient times you could never really be sure who your dad was. I mean, it isn't something you could prove. If it were passed down patriarchally then there would have no doubt been many people who thought they were Jewish (by their dad) when, in fact, they were unrelated to the tribe at all because Mom isn't Jewish and Dad was an unsuspected secret visitor in the night. Easy to prove who mom is. That really was the smart way to do it.

I just addressed this. There is no reasonable consensus in science as to the definition of "time". Time in relativity is substantially different from time in QM which is one reason the two theories are incompatible. What is important is that time is well-defined in each theory. I didn't say anything close to "god can mean any silly thing one wants it to mean". I said that my post was correct regardless of the definition of God (so long as a definition is given). The particular definition is irrelevant to my post.

Detail: Not quite. Perpetual motion is compatible with conservation of energy, I'll quote wikipedia: Clearly that is the type of perpetual motion machine about which I was speaking. The post was long enough without writing "perpetual motion machine of the first kind". Sorry if that distracted you. It is up to a religious person to define their God, not me, which is why my post said "You can do the same thing with any definition of God you want". Different scientific theories use different definitions for things like "time". Time in relativity is not the same as time in quantum mechanics. The definition of time doesn't have to be exclusive, as long as it is well defined in the theory. Likewise in my post I was very clear that any definition could be used as long as it is given. My point didn't hang on the definition.

For "what cat measures is consistent", what mouse measures is: [math]\tau_M = \tau_C \left( \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-{v_C}^2}} \right)[/math] so we want to get the same equation from cat's perspective. Cat also measures mouse's clock slow: [math]\tau_M = \tau_C \sqrt{1-{v_M}^2}[/math] But also measures a jump in mouse's clock from the relativity of simultaneity by: [math]\frac{(x)(v_M)}{\sqrt{1-{v_M}^2}}[/math] if you use velocity and time rather than distance, x, it would be: [math]\tau_C \frac{{v_M}^2}{\sqrt{1-{v_M}^2}}[/math] Add the two terms (the time dilated clock and the jump in simultaneity): [math]\tau_M = \tau_C \sqrt{1-{v_M}^2} + \tau_C \frac{{v_M}^2}{\sqrt{1-{v_M}^2}}[/math] by the principle of reciprocity, vM = vC [math]\tau_M = \tau_C \sqrt{1-{v_C}^2} + \tau_C \frac{{v_C}^2}{\sqrt{1-{v_C}^2}}[/math] A few steps in algebra will take you from the above equation to this one: [math]\tau_M = \tau_C \left( \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-{v_C}^2}} \right)[/math] which is what we were looking to show from Cat's perspective. It's just the jump in simultaneity that makes up the difference because, like Toffo said, if it happens at a distance then it matters. Mouse accelerates when they are near, and Cat when they are not.

And, the current PM again rightly made the point that the UK could intervene legally via Humanitarian Intervention without a UN resolution. But, the House of Commons did not authorize intervention because they were looking for a UN mandate. Hence: the UK is not going... not going because MPs were provided with a reason not to intervene by, what Kofi Annan called, "pervasive ambivalence within the United Nations regarding the use of force in the pursuit of peace". Nevertheless, the very idea that nations have to sidestep the UN is the sort of thing I was talking about. It has become a hindrance.

Follow me (no pun intended). I'm going somewhere with this... Until we know everything, and search everywhere (literally everywhere), there is no way for science to say without a doubt that perpetual motion machines do not exist. I don't mean that God is a perpetual motion machine. I'm just using an example. Stick with me. The law of conservation of energy says "all isolated systems conserve energy". That is what philosophers call a universal statement -- meaning it applies everywhere (any isolated system). Through predicate logic we know that a universal statement is equivalent to the negation of an existential statement, so these two sentences mean exactly the same thing: all isolated systems conserve energy there does not exist an isolated system of non-conserved energy It's just two different ways of saying the first law of thermodynamics (aka conservation of energy). The definition of perpetual motion machine is "an isolated system of non-conserved energy", therefore these two statements mean exactly the same thing: all isolated systems conserve energy there does not exist a perpetual motion machine So... it is impossible for science to know without a doubt that perpetual motion machines do not exist. They would have to search the whole universe for one. Like you said: they would have to know everything. However, the most trusted scientific law on the books says exactly that. It says "perpetual motion machines do not exist". Likewise, there is no reason why "there does not exist a god" couldn't be a scientific law. It is perfectly formatted to be one. All you would have to do is define "God". Let's do that now... and let's make it simple. Let's say God = 'supernatural'. Start with the negation of the existential statement: There does not exist a God.Use our definition: There does not exist a supernaturaland the logically-equivalent universal statement: Everything is naturalBingo! We have a scientific law that means the same thing as "god doesn't exist". You can do the same thing with any definition of God you want, but... The point is that "God does not exist" is a perfectly good and scientific hypothesis (assuming that 'God' is well-defined). It would make a perfectly good scientific law. It is falsifiable (which is something science puts a high price on). "God exists", on the other hand, is *not* properly formatted to be a scientific law. It is not falsifiable. I'll do the same as above for "god exists". I should say, sorry for the tediously long post... ok... "God exits" is existential: There exists a GodAnd... let's define God as 'immortal' since I was forced to watch president Lincoln kill vampires last night. Subbing the def: There exists an immortal beingAn existential statement is the same as the negation of a universal statement: Not all beings are mortal So then; how would a person prove false the statement, "not all beings are mortal"? Trying to kill every being in the universe is guaranteed to fail. The cops from the delta quadrant would catch us eventually. No. It's impossible to falsify, and the sign of really bad science -- of pseudoscience -- of non-science, is unfalsifiability. "God exists" is unfalsifiable, but "God does not exist" is ideally formatted to be a scientific law. I find that fascinating.

Well... the post got +2, and iNow went out of his way to say "good argument, and well focused on the point..." so, hopefully our nitpicking isn't too unmitigated. Myself... if you put 'rational' in front of 'conclusion' the statement would be alright by me, Sorry, that really is nitpicking. I've been trying to win the pedantry award *** note to self *** Fill out application for pedantry award in triplicate -- proof, sign, date, and notarize submission... and... find out if there is such a thing as a pedantry award

I thought of that, but al-Assad would just have to say "Gort, Klaatu barada nikto" and Gort's mission would be over. It'd never work