Moontanman

The gravitational pull of the Earth falsifies this assertion.

Ok, one thing needs to be said here, the effects of what is known as spontaneous human combustion can be effectively reproduced in pig corpses and has been seen in action in human bodies as well. Burning a corpse in a crematorium is not the same thing and is not comparable. An effect known as the wicking is what allows human bodies to burn slowly with a small smokey flame. Clothes catch fire, and yes the people are though to have been dead or so far gone they couldn't resist and in most cases it is considered to be evidence of murder not an accident or some sort of supernatural thing. As the clothes burn, usually with an accelerant like alcohol, they begin to wick the fat from the body and much like a human candle over many hours the body slowly burns as the fat is wicked by clothing. Water slowly boils away as the body burns in a low temperature flame via this wicking effect, even bones contain a large amount of fat and will burn up as well due to the wicking effect.. The room is filled with a thick black smoke but no other objects are usually burned. If you try to burn a body fast as they do in crematoriums the body dones not burn as completely, crematoriums do not want to wait many hours and they try to burn the body fast using a hot flame of usually natural gas. This boils away the water and fats and makes the body harder to burn and often leaves behind hardned bones which have to be ground up. Spontaneous human combustion is not spontaneous and has been explained. It is usually murder or an attempt to get rid of a body. No, not if the person was killed and set on fire with in moments of death...

There is nothing arbitrary about the values of mirror matter, they mirror matter, in fact they should be identical in every other way, even to having anti-mirror matter. How can the values of the mass of mirror matter particles be arbitrary when they in fact must by definition be the same as matter?

Women are asking for it? That would be funny if not for the horrific consequences of such thought processes. Men who rape do so out of anger, not sexual need, as long as a man has his fist sex cannot be denied to him by anyone (well hand cuffs behind the back might do it, lol) I think to some extent culture is responsible for the idea of "women asking for it" you don't have to go back very far in western society to find this idea well entrenched, 100 years ago in the USA a raped woman was scorned as a fallen woman who somehow asked for it. If she was in the least bit unconventional this unconventionality was used to blame her in some way, simply being in an area that was considered bad in some way was reason to say she was asking for it and if she wasn't a virgin then she was even further ridiculed. The idea that a hooker cannot be raped is still with us and has even in recent years been used to allow rapists to go free. Woman can force sex on men but it is rare and usually not a violent act and men seldom even consider reporting it. Several years ago a man near where I lived tried to charge two women of raping him. They tied him up and had sex with him repeatedly over a weekend while torturing him as well. It never went to trail because he couldn't prove he didn't enjoy it or some such bag of crazy. They claimed he had paid them to do that to him and while many of us would find that a crazy assertion to begin with others of us know that sort of thing does indeed happen. Men are also programmed by society to think that turning down a woman's sexual advances is some how unmanly and besmirches their manhood in some way, mature adult men know this is not true but younger less mature males sometimes have problems understanding this. Any woman should be safe anywhere in our society, no matter how she is dressed or undressed, if any man cannot control his sexual urges any better than that he needs to go for therapy or be locked up. I live near the beach, i get to regularly see woman dressed in ways that might make a hooker blush but while I enjoy the sight to think they are asking me to have sex with them, even consensual sex would be incredibly egotistical of me not to mention just silly. A psychopath or possibly more accurately a sociopath will use any justification to get what he or she wants, to him or her every one else exists for no other reason than to serve their needs, all the excuses they use are just window dressing to try and convince others they are not doing anything wrong or that they just can't help themselves, this includes many behaviors other than sex as well so we should help them to prison where they can socialize with their peers...

Well Wassermann can assert anything he likes but shadow matter theory postulates that shadow matter is identical to matter in mass, does he show any reasons he has to assert that somehow shadow matter protons neutrons and electrons are lighter in mass than matter? I can assert there are whale corpses on the moon but that doesn't make it true.

I think this video explains why religion does not necessarily make this a better world.

The engineering the vacuum part seemed almost star trek like, making light go faster by using zero point energy fluctuations seems a little unusual...

It's in the same category as the rabbits with antlers you see on the walls of some places, it's a totally made up creature by using taxidermy to put it together.

The first thing to know about shadow matter is that it does not interact with matter except gravitationaly. Any shadow matter on the earth sinks directly to the core, you could not hold a chunk of mirror matter (shadow matter and mirror matter are the same thing, the term mirror matter is more accurate and was coined before the idea of anti-matter being mirror matter was brought into popular culture) nor could you have parts of your body made of mirror matter. "Mirror matter" or "shadow matter" could not interact with matter chemically. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_matter Any mirror matter on the Earth has long since sunk deep into the Earth. Dr. Foot's book http://books.google.com/books/about/Shadowlands.html?id=3evE2K-ylVIC I have read his book and i have exchanged e-mails with Dr, Foot and he has assured me that mirror matter would be short lived on the surface of the earth, tending to sink deep inside the earth. Mirror matter would be invisible, completely invisible, not just transparent. If the sun was a mirror matter star the earth would still orbit the same but we would receive no heat from a mirror star since it gives off nothing but mirror photons, from our stand point we would appear to orbit around a point in empty space. An interesting thought model of mirror matter and matter would be a planet made up of equal parts of mater and mirror matter, from the stand point of anyone on the surface the planet would appear to have twice the gravitational pull it should have by it's apparent make up, the topography of the matter and shadow matter parts would not necessarily coincide with each other so where the matter part had a mountain the mirror part might have a sea basin. It's really an odd thing to think about. Due to their non interaction except by gravity such a planet would be unlikely, matter and mirror matter would not condense the same way out of a gas and dust nebula and would not be associated with each other or interact with each other the way they interact with themselves.

Has any one else seen this? http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA426465&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf Lots of really unusual stuff And the really wild stuff starts at page 58, almost sounds like techobabble from star trek....

Is anyone here familiar with boron chemistry and it's ability to form polymers and compounds similar to carbon? I have read where boron chemistry may exceed carbon chemistry in it's ability to form complex compounds. I have googled this but information about it is less than helpful in this direction.

Lots of things can enhance or trigger symptoms in the mentally ill, I'm not sure that pot is any worse than things like alcohol or even cigarettes in that way but if your pot is very strong then you smoke less of it, one of the most important things you learn as a pot smoker is that strong pot lasts longer than weak pot because you have smoke less of the strong stuff to get your self to the level of "high" you like. The idea that strong pot is somehow worse or more dangerous than weak pot is really a weak argument. Obviously pot is not good for you, no way inhaling smoke can be good for you, lungs are not meant to inhale smoke, period. But for every bad study about pot there is a good one or more likely a neutral one, to me the real idea is how much harm does it cause to others. Once you get the idea of protecting people from themselves by law then do you outlaw cheese burgers? Make real butter illegal? Do you make very one be vegans? If you look at it unemotionally alcohol is far more dangerous than pot and no where near as addictive as cigarettes, I wouldn't suggest anyone use any mind altering drug but pot has to be the least harmful of them, you cannot over dose on pot (or thc) but you can on tobacco (nicotine) and alcohol, both of them can kill you if you use too much, small children are poisoned by the nicotine in tobacco regularly, and people die every day from alcohol poisoning, eat a couple bags of pot and you get dizzy and nauseous but you do not die. And yes pot is somewhat addictive, stop using it (after long term use) and about two weeks after your last joint you will feel a bit agitated for a couple of days, taper off and you don't even get that. The worse thing about pot is that is is illegal and the government, at least in the USA will do their best to ruin your life because you got caught smoking pot especially if you are young and under age so don't do it. My main problem about pot is you don't know how it was grown, under what conditions and if pesticides were used to grow it, makes you pause to think you are smoking pesticides, at least it does me. But that is just part of it being illegal, in the black market anything goes. buyer beware....

People almost never fall down in their tubs and die but it still happens far more often than humans get eaten by wild animals, I'm betting that odds of being killed in your hyper city by another human would be far greater than being eaten by wild animals. As I said, you are in far more danger at home taking a shower than being eaten by wild animals and if you swim in the ocean then you have exposed your self to the danger of being eaten by sharks. No matter if you are in the south of England or any place else, even freshwater rivers are a danger due to cruising bullsharks. You cannot get away from danger no matter where you go or what you do, and in your mega city, yes even there things like accidents would be far more likely than being eaten by wild animals in a wild place. Alligators where I live are shy reclusive animals, not the ravening monsters you see on TV, as long as people don't feed them they do not see humans as a food source, very few animals really do, Tigers would seem to be the worst habitual human hunters or maybe salt water crocs in Australia (i knew there had to be something bad about Australia, lol) but disease is the worst danger and cities with the rats and such are far more dangerous than the wild not to mention human predators who kill in cities all the time. I would feel far safer walking a back trail in the mountains than walking the back streets of a city at night.

And you are aware that those animals almost never attack humans? Lightning is far more of a hazard, gonna stop lightning? Even in the 18th century attacks on humans were very rare, about the same as today, you are afraid of wild animals aren't you? Do you swim in the ocean? Animals, almost every one fear humans, they do their best to not interact with humans, I live near alligators, i have swam with them many times, they try their best to get away from humans, recently a grizzly bear killed man in Yellowstone Park but it was clear she was defending her cubs, not attacking the man to eat him. You are many times more likely to die in a car crash, fall in the bath or be struck by lightning in your own home than be killed by wild animals in the wild. Rats which are a big part of the city you seem to like so much but they are responsable for far more deaths of humans than wild animals. We eleminate snakes becasue we fear them unreasonably but they eat rats, no other animals eats rats as effective as snakes but the rats muliply and bring on diesase that kills millions. Don't fool around with mother nature

I was a safety manager for DuPont for a couple of years, if anyone is more obsessed with safety than DuPont I'd like to see them but this guy is safety OCD, unless the book case is high over head I'd say he's just f-ing with you.

Another good one, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110705211022.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Latest+Science+News%29, BTW, how do you explain there are no fossils of bunnies in the Cambrian era if everything was created all at once? There are no fossils of modern animals out of place in the fossil record, no apes, humans, horses, cows, or bunnies either in the Cretaceous, no out of place animals at all. Do you wonder why if everything was created at once why this is true? He was the one who asked for the trial part and it was deemed not legal to teach because it was dishonest, the Judge himself noted that ID was not supported by any evidence other than lies. He was not only a Federal Judge, appointed by George Bush, he was a conservative Christian Judge, the ID'ers were ecstatic at first when they found out he was the judge, they expected him to rule in their favor because he was a Conservative Christian appointed by George Bush, they are quoted as saying before the trial that this man knows who butters his bread, lucky for us and sadly for them he was also honest.

Actually if you go back far enough man evolved from bacteria, your lack of understanding of the evidence for evolution does not negate the evidence for evolution. BTW, the creatures that both we and modern monkeys evolved from would indeed, if we could go back in time and see them, be called monkeys by us. If the quite extensive fossil evidence doesn't provide evidence of evolution then what would it take to convince you evolution is real? A crocoduck? BTW, evolution and creationism have already been on legal trial and guess what, evolution won, hands down won and the Judge was a Conservative Christian. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

One of my sons went to school for a couple of semesters in Germany and then went there as part of back packing across Europe, he said Germany was a very friendly place.

No, the evolution of the eye from a simple light sensitive cell to eyes better than human eyes can be seen in nature, this one at least is not a thought experiment. The theory of evolution has "evolved" so far past Darwin his name is used only because he first thought up the process of natural selection, it is no longer Darwin's theory and evoking his name to try and refute evolution is silly. How about you go pound sand... And this make him an expert on evolution why? Of course it did, comparing you to a lying charlatan made your day? Hmm .... So now you are questioning radiometric data? Does it make any sense to you that multiple radiometric methods agree with not only each other but with other methods based on other techniques? No of course not, all you need is one unusual data set and you assume all the rest are incorrect as well but I see nothing to suggest a 6,000 year old earth. While everyone lies creationists have to lie to support their assertion of created young earth, not only do they lie your friend does as well, and as I suspect you know he is spouting bullshit so the lie becomes yours. BTW, abiogenesis is not part of evolution, evolution only explains the diversity of life not how life started, get your facts lined up sparky. You are correct is wasn't all day, "science" class wasn't till after recess so it was the rest of the day, I apologize. The beating how ever was real, in the early 1960's in WV evolution didn't get much support but genisis was pretty much the absolute truth The flag only had 48 stars too, I guess they didn't believe in Alaska or Hawaii BTW, I was known as an very well behaved child, i just wasn't gullible or stupid enough to believe bible verses as science. . Now, I gave you neg rep for suggesting I was lying, of course I am sure it is easy to project your faults on me, and again so far your evidence is in sever doubt and easily refuted by simply reading other threads on sfn, until you come up with something new or not easily refuted i am done with this conversation, i see no reason for me to go back and repeat over and over the same stuff just to satisfy you because you are too lazy to read them, if you come up with something new I'll be glad to either applaud you or debate you BTW, are you aware of the Verdict in the trial of ID a few years ago? Yes an actual trial with a Conservative Christian Judge and he struck down ID as nothing but lies being used to support religion. Yes, a Conservative Christian Judge actually agreed after hearing days of testimony that ID was just lies being used to support religion and that ID had no factual support what so ever. And yes the ID people used all the same arguments and examples you are currently using, you have come up with nothing new.

I've never actually lived in a city environment as you describe, i have lived inside city limits but then deer and even alligators were less than 1/4 mile away and wild animals were common even in my yard, that is not the same as the concrete jungle you seem to want. Right now I live outside the city limits in a more suburban area, I would never choose to actually live in a city as you describe.

This is totally a strawman argument and belongs in the religious forum not chemistry. NS is not necessarily those things, often cooperation and and simply adapting to change is a big part of NS but I agree that a kind loving benevolent god would have thought of a different system but again as god is demonstrably not a benign loving God or at least the one portrayed in the bible is not then i see no reason to assert God is such a being. Also how is any death not cruel and unpleasant? I don't see anything in your assertion to assume that either Evolution by NS or even creation by a God is in any way kinder than any other system.

Thanks for answering jackson, i do admit to a bias but I shy away from the extreme of either side but it always seems the extremes are the ones who get the sound bites. It would be much easier for me to get closer to the right if they would get out of bed with the religious right but that seems unlikely any time soon. It seems a shame to me that our country is basically run by the extremes and moderates are ignored, possibly their sound bites are not exciting enough.

jackson33 you seem to have a pretty good, if biased, grip on politics, it bothers me quite a bit i do not seem to have the ability to wrap my mind around the complexity of what is really going on. Can you step outside the bias of your views and help me understand? To me the more I know the less difference there seems to actually be between the different parties. To me it seems to have disintegrated into child like squabbling over sound bites as well. It is very frustrating to hear so many things asserted as truth that are self contradictory, it has almost fallen to the level of religion in my perception so a great degree. many politicians on both sides appear to actually be stupid, often claiming things that are either lies or totally misrepresenting reality in some profound manner but still asserting it like their belief in reality is somehow more significant than the actual reality of the situation and people just suck it up like air. It seems to be a two large groups of people who claim to support the population but claim the other side is biased against the population, it's very frustrating, is my perception closer to the truth or is it more of one side is correct and the other wrong depending on if you are rich or poor or some other perceptual bias?