Moontanman

Not true, you do not get a band with distict colors the colors do indeed merge into each other. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow Colors are labels we give to specific wave lenghts of visable light. The human eye is a very poor judge of light, both color and intensity is effected by the way the eye, all eyes by the way, is built to detect light. For a long time it was assumed that some animals were indeed blind to color and only saw in black and white and shades of grey. The reality is that different eyes see colors differently than we do and some can and do see colors we cannot see. Now having said that, the moon color problem has to do with the sun and the moon and the intristic color of the light being reflected. If the sun and moon are out at the same time the moon should appear more blue (north light) which in the human eye makes us see a whiter light, anyone who washes clothes can tell you why blue make whites look whiter. It is important in this discussion to remember this is all about perception and the Moon at night to "me" appears to be white, not yellow white... the clearer the night the whiter the moon looks, less clear and the moon can appear less white the nearer to the horizon it is but to me it is more of a pinkish cast and yellow never enters into it...

Ok this censorship stuff is getting out of hand. I've been on this forum for several years and so far i have yet to see anyone treated unfairly. In fact I've seen people tolerated that if this was my "toy" they would be given the boot no questions asked. Yes i am aware this sounds like ass kissing but try a forum with little or no moderation if you want to experience frustration. The rules are quite plain and the moderators go way out of their way to give people the benefit of the doubt. I've had my wrist slapped a few times and i grew from the experience. i have learned a great deal on this forum, about science, about life, about how to learn and in a few instances I have managed to teach others a few things. I say stop all the whining read the rules and follow them or go to a forum where chaos rules and see how frustrating it is to have a dumbass spout bullshit and no one can do anything about it... I've seen a really great forum die from lack of moderation, it's sad, you put real effort into teaching and learning and a troll comes along and basically neaner neaner neaners the thread into stupidity, debating is not arguing, you cannot learn by arguing but a moderated debate can be informative and any learning experience is precious to me and all the bitching and whining interferes with that, count your self lucky you have found a forum that is fair and equitable, I have been on many that are not and they are useless... I tried to explain something as simple as crop circles are nothing but woo on face book and got my ass kicked because there was no one to point out real evidence was necessary and that really believing something is meaningless. Count your blessings, you don't have to like like the moderators but falsely accusing them of being unfair because you can't support your brand of horse feathers is just stupid...

You can call me anything you wish just don't call me late for free margaritas.... Your analogy of an explosion is not a bad one but the idea that fitness is definable in anyway via things like size is simplistic at best. Large animals seem to be vulnerable to a double edged sword, too large and nothing can eat them and they destroy the ecology, too large and getting through disasters is more difficult. A better way to put it IMHO is adaptability is the most advantageous trait a life form can have. Being large in some environments is good and bad in others, being small is good in some environments and bad in others. If I had to assert a single defining trait that is most advantageous it would be symbiotic mutualisms. Natural selection is thought by some to be some sort of battle with the strongest surviving but in reality virtually all organisms depend on symbiotic relationships. From elephants to bacterial mats all of life is interdependent and the survival of the fittest is not a battle of the strong over the weak but is more of a battle of who has the best relationships with other animals. Elephants cannot digest their food without bacteria, nor can lions, everything including humans depend on symbiotic organisms to survive....

Thank you for pointing out that it is my opinion... I guess mine is inferior to all the other opinions being asserted in this thread with no support what so ever... http://www.nature.com/news/2006/061113/full/news061113-9.html http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/2009/3/the-origin-of-life/1

Oh... maybe some that would be quite trivial for a god, swap the orbits of Venus and Mars and make both abodes of complex life so we can colonize them... you know trivial stuff for a god...

Actually crop circles was the original topic but the nature of reality eventually became the topic. He was asserting that the double slit experiment showed some evidence of the supernatural, to be honest now that i look at it the comment was close to "the tides go in the tides out, you can't explain that" comment that achieved so much fame...

The double slit experiment was being used to support the existence of the supernatural, does it show some sort of supernatural effects of the mind or is there a more likely explanation?

I disagree, heat shields could be made and lots of really large chunks would only have to be slowed to the point that the contents would not be spread over the earth. it wouldn't be as difficult as bringing back a man alive... as long as it remained relatively intact a chuck of platinum it would be valuable.

To be fare anyone interested should read the entire exchange... http://www.facebook.com/MicheletheRaelian/posts/310399215733622 It was a little embarrassing, I felt like I had stepped into intellectual quicksand...

One way in which you are wrong is assuming that homosexuals cannot procreate, in fact you are assuming that homosexuality is one of two states with heterosexuality being the only other one when in fact humans are sexual along a curve with most people being a combination of both, in other words bi-sexual and some call themselves pan sexual. It is our culture that places limits and labels on sexuality. Humans when denied their main sexual desire can and will substitute the same sex to satisfy their sexual needs, humans in prison area prime example of this. But assuming that being homosexual precludes sex with some one of the opposite sex is simply not true.

Ok this question started from of all things a facebook post that i commented on. The post was about crop circles of all things and I pointed out that crop circles had been shown to be man made. I was answered by a guy who it would appear is some sort of mystic or something but he claimed that my assertion of evidence being required before I would believe such a obviously false thing was flawed because the universe is made up of supernatural "things" and after a few more exchanges where I basically supported science and the scientific method as being the only way to really know what is real he showed me that video as evidence that there is something above our reality, the supernatural and how it has been shown to be real. I guess I should have known better to argue with this guy but I did... I hate getting my ass kicked by woo

All of it is at best second hand accounts, most of was written centuries after the fact, none of it is actual testimony, and at least some of it was actually changed intentionally. Not very credible by any reasonable definition...

This video shows how the double slit experiment is affected simply by observation. Is this true? Does simply observing the experiment show that reality is affected by the mind or does it show something else. 2:45 long video

I'd like to address the fish transition to land part of this thread, is anyone aware that fish that can and do survive on land exist and have evolved from fish that could not do so? Walking catfish for instance can survive for long periods out of water as they use their fins to crawl from one body of water to another. Lung fish have evolved the trait to allow them to survive the complete drying up of their ponds, both of these fish have evolved the very same traits that allowed the ancestors of modern land vertebrates to make the transition to land. Mudskippers are yet another example of fish that have evolved the necessary traits to allow them to make short forays onto land. One catfish only lives on land in the leaf litter on the floor of jungles... Most people who do not understand the concept of evolution think that a fish evolved all the traits necessary to become an amphibian in one fell swoop but the reality is that it happened in small steps over thousands if not millions of generations generally using traits that had evolved for another purpose to their advantage. Eyes are probably the most often evolved trait on animals, eyes have evolved independently in several groups, vertebrates, arthropods, cephalopods, quite possibly more than once in arthropods. Other groups have lost their eyes and re-evolved them, eyes are a huge advantage in most environments but in some they are a disadvantage and so eyes are lost over time. This idea that an animal somehow evolves a particular trait because they need it is totally bogus... And evolution hasn't gotten anything right, everything is a transition to something else, evolution is not only a blind watch maker it has no goal, no direction, and no control...

I would say that yes, if all the atoms in your body did that the chamber would contain either a vacuum or a rarefied mixture of collapsed atoms depending if the atom dust could float around or not.

I've often wondered if ultimately it's spin is what keeps a black hole from collapsing to infinity...

Can you give us a link to that? I'd love to find out how it does it.

I suggest you do a little bit of research and find out what antimatter really is. Millions of dollars in research is not needed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter

Absolutely awesome iNow... I keep looking at this panorama and thinking a lizard should run past or a tuft of grass should appear as the camera sweeps across the Martian surface...

You could give corn the same ability that legumes have so corn could make it's own fertilizer... making it a perennial might be good too, harvest it in the fall cut it down and the next spring it comes back from it's own roots... kind of like asparagus... no seeds needed...

You are confused, mars did not nudge the Earth, a mars sized body hit the earth and merged with it and in the process formed the moon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis That is just nonsense, a planet would have to be many times bigger than Jupiter to be a star, unlit or not. The OP was asking about a hypothetical planet, why is that a problem? No Luna is the fifth largest moon in our solar system... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Solar_System_objects_by_size

either one is ok by me. Who says that, can you show some support for that assertion? Again, it is quite plain that a great many things have hit the Moon, many more have no doubt hit the Earth, what is your point? Straight down has nothing to do with the equator... Again not relevant. What is the relevance of that to the OP?

Again I am not sure how this pertains to the OP.

Some support besides exchanging claims and what you believe would give this thread a bit more accuracy at the very least. I see no support for anyone's assertions here, simply claiming these things gets us no where, if you think a lesbians brain is larger than a heterosexual woman's brain you really need to show some support for it other than your claims. This is not the only assertion that needs to be supported, in fact there is so many i would have to pretty much quote everyone for the last few pages. Come on guys, we can type what we think is true or what we want to be true forever and it shows nothing other than the biases and beliefs of the people making those claims.. Show some support for these assertions, that is the idea of this forum, not just arguing opinions...

Luna... No, Ganymede is the largest moon... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganymede_(moon) Again not true... While Luna might absorb some asteroids it doesn't get them all or just get the large ones. Actually Jupiter just had an asteroid hit it the other day. Two amateur astronomers saw it. Belief doesn't enter into it, a great many large impacts have scarred the Earth over it's 4.5 billion year history. I'm not sure how this is relevant to the OP. Can you elaborate on this, how is it relevant to the OP? Do you have anything to support this assertion? I see no reason why gravity would aim them at the equator. Again some support for this would be nice What Martians?