Highest Reputation Content

This is intended to be a thread that is a guide for folks on how to act and post on SFN.

Contents
i. General Information
ii. Replying to Threads
iii. Posting New Threads


I. General Information


Know the Rules
Read the rules before you post.

Grammar and Punctuation
Please try to use proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation when you post. It is much easier to understand a post when it is not full of run-on sentences and such. Sure, this may add a few seconds to the time it takes to post, but are you in that much of a hurry?
If English is not your native language, and you don't have good grammar, that's fine; we don't bite. Just try to do your best.

Spell Check
Eloquence can be severely hampered by words that don't exist. If you are on the Internet, use spell-checkers or reread your posts to make sure you don't have errors. You can also use the Preview Post function to see what your post will look like, before you submit it.

Emphasis Features
The different fonts, sizes, colors, bold, italic, underline and CAPITALIZATION features are there for EMPHASIS.  Please avoid using them for entire posts.  Let your ideas make you stand out instead of these features.  Whole posts using different fonts and colors are very annoying and may decrease the likelihood of it being read.  The Emphasis Features can also imply emotions you may not want, such as angry shouting from ALL CAPS.  Remember that emphasis is best when used sparingly.

Don't know how to use the features? There's a tutorial.

Contact Information
Need to talk to a moderator? Private message them if it is something important. If you want to report a post that is against the forum rules, use the Report This Post function, which is visible as "Report" with a small warning icon in the bottom left of each post.


II. Replying to Threads


Don't Flame
Just because someone doesn't agree with you, doesn't mean you need to insult them. They may be ignorant, but try not to flame them out of the forum. If they're intentionally insulting people, don't reply--just use the Report Post function to let the moderators know about it. They can deal with insult wars and rule-breakers more efficiently than regular users.

Be Coherent
When you reply, try to make as much sense as possible. Organize your post into paragraphs or sections as to make it easier to understand. If nobody knows what you're saying, they aren't going to learn anything from it, or try to reply to it.
If you are going to say "it" or "one" or "they" then make sure we know what you are talking about. "It" is not a very descriptive word and people may get confused as to what you are trying to say.

Don't Spam
Make your replies relevant to the topic. If there is a side conversation going on that is not related to the original post, don't reply to it. Keep everything spam-free.
If you see someone spamming, don't try to deal with it yourself: you can't. Instead, click the "Report This Post" icon (an exclamation mark in a triangle) in the bottom left of their post and let the moderators know what the problem is.

Give Sources
If you're telling us about a study or a theory that you've heard of, try to give links to a web site about it. If you're the only person saying it, not many people are going to believe you (many scientists are skeptics). Try to provide good links which support your point, and remember, dictionary.com is not a technical resource.

Linking
When you link to another website, don't do the "Click Here" gimmick. It gives people no idea what you're linking to. Rather, you should make the link text descriptive of what the link actually is about.

Use Quotes
If you want to reply to a specific post, press the "Quote" button on that post. This will make your reply include the quoted text, so users will know who you are replying to.

Don't Strawman
Don't strawman. It is quite annoying and you will lose your credibility, and seriously undermines any argument.

Read Links
If a user provides a link for more information, and you don't believe them, read the link. It may provide better information for you; if you ignore it, you may be missing vital information that supports their point. Purposefully ignoring it is strawmanning, and nobody likes that.

Don't be Mean
If you don't agree with someone, don't attack them. Tell them politely why you think they're wrong, and give them evidence. Insulting people won't get you anywhere but suspended.

I Hate You
Not everyone will agree with you, no matter how supergreat you are. Understand this, plus the difficulties involved in altering someone's deep-felt views over a text-only forum, and accept it. Don't try to force them into other beliefs.

One Source Arguments
If you can't provide more than one source, don't try to argue that position. Substantiating an event/opinion/theory requires more than just one source, even if the source happens to be the President/Prime Minister.

Me So Great
You may be intending to become a moderator by impressing the forum staff your superb skills, impressive vocabulary, witty sense of humor and ability to make derogatory comments to newbies. That's all fine and good, but do it quietly and don't annoy the rest of the forum members.

Hijacking
Try not to hijack a thread and bend the topic to your will. Nobody likes a megalomaniac. Try to stay on topic and keep to what the original poster said.

Converting the Heathens
Don't try to convert people to your religion. Leave them alone. If you try, you'll find yourself banned.

Pointing Out the Obvious
If you don't think anyone will care, why not keep it to yourself? Posting just for the postcount and not for actual content annoys people.

Acronyms
Try not to use too many acronyms in your posts. Not all of us know what they mean, so be sure to provide the full text the first time, to avoid confusing people.
Also, you can use BBCode tags such as the following
[acr=Laughing Out Loud]LOL[/acr]
to get
[acr=Laughing Out Loud]LOL[/acr]
Hover your mouse over it to see the effect.
There is also a list of common acronyms pinned in the general discussion forum.


III. Posting New Threads


Use the Search Function
Before you post a thread, use the search function to see if anyone else has posted the same topic. It's better to post in an existing thread than to start a new one.

Give Sources
If you are asking a question or making a point, give references and links so users can see what you are talking about. If they have context, they can better understand you.

Give Details
When you're asking a question, give plenty of details. Don't just say "my computer crashed, what do I do?" Give use details about what you're asking that will help us answer the question well.

Use a Descriptive Title
When you title your thread, give it a good title that will catch users' eyes and give them an idea of what it is about.
Bad title:
"Help!"
Good title:
"Computer virus. Help!"

Allow Comment
If you're posting an idea, be receptive to comments. If someone criticizes you, don't get mad at them. Take the comment well and, if necessary, reply to them to defend yourself (without being mean or nasty).

Homework
We will not do it for you. If you have someone else do it for you, you're not learning anything, and it's not fair that a lazy person with an Internet connection gets a better mark than someone who put the effort in himself.
Disguising your homework as a curiosity-based question doesn't work. We will probably figure it out, and we don't like people trying to fool us into doing their work.
Of course, we'd be glad to help you to finish your homework. Just not do it entirely.

Einstein is Wrong!
If you're going to try to disprove a major theory, or at least propose something that most people would never believe (there are a lot of sceptics on this forum), try to provide large amounts of evidence. Just because it "makes sense" doesn't mean it has to be right--much of science doesn't "make sense" to some people, but it has proved accurate.


I'm welcome to suggestions as to what else to add.

I think this answers the question:



http://xkcd.com/638/

All of this mutual admiration and complaining is starting to make me ill. Starting your own forum would allow you to set up the rules you like.

Considering this forum is free to you, the moderators work for free, the rules were set up in good faith in order to make the use of this forum enjoyable and educational for the majority, you might want to consider backing off a wee bit.

Alternatively there is one action you can take which will guarantee you do not have to deal with the people here. I'm sure no one would object.

For those who are atheists, what is it that makes you believe there is no God?

Same reason I don't believe in Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy, leprechauns, unicorns, Thor, etc... there's no evidence for their existence, and so I assume they are irrelevant, which means they can be treated as non-existent. I can't prove they don't exist, sure, but believing in their existence provides no benefits, no predictive power, nothing.

If you are an atheist, what are your reasons for becoming one?

I used to believe in the Bible, used to be a Young Earth Creationist even. Then, I realized that that was a bunch of lies. Although I could have switched to considering the entire creation account metaphorical, I felt that this would make the whole Bible entirely worthless, especially considering that things like genealogies are not supposed to be metaphorical.

Since then I've also come to believe that the God of the Bible is immoral and unworthy of worship even if he did exist. Even I could do a better job morally, and also if I had enough time from an engineering standpoint.

If atheism is wrong however, you'd be risking your whole after-life in the Hell-fire, according to some religions, so my question is why take the risk in not believing in God? The rewards for believing in a God in some religions are infinite happiness (and other positive feelings that we are unable to comprehend in this life) and the punishment is infinite pain (and other negative feelings that we are unable to comprehend in this life). If atheism is right, then we all just die. In either case, the atheist is in a lose-lose situation. I think it's also rather pessimistic to not believe in an after-life. So, my question stands, why do atheists choose not to believe in God/s? And are you an atheist?

So then I take it that you believe in Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, the Greek Pantheon, and all the other religions too, just in case they are right? Do you also believe that you have some very rich relative that you don't know about and that you'll inherit millions of dollars from him when he dies, because just think how cool that would be? Of course not! It makes no sense to believe things because it would be cool if it were true, and in any case most of those gods wouldn't accept you worshiping other gods so you're from a statistical standpoint almost certainly worshiping the wrong one.

As for the silly idea that there is nothing to lose by believing in any particular god if they don't exist, that is blatantly false. For one thing, many of the gods require some kind of worship or sacrifice or that you live your life a certain way. Some of the followers of the enemy of Christianity, Paul, believe that simple belief is enough for salvation, but this is repeatedly contradicted by the words of Jesus and the other apostles. Even if it were not, actually believing in that sort of thing entails certain actions, just like believing cars can kill you entails looking before crossing the street, wearing a seatbelt, etc... ask yourself, do you truly believe as Jesus said that giving even a glass of water to someone entails a reward in heaven? Because if you really believed that sort of thing, would you not give away all your stuff to help the poor, like Jesus asked a certain young man to do?

Oh, and for extra amusement, I'm an atheist that is going to heaven. The sect of Christianity that I used to believe in was that all that was required for salvation is believing and accepting Jesus Christ as my savior, which I did, and also that once saved you cannot lose your salvation. So I am a saved, born-again atheist who is going to a heaven I no longer believe in.

As for you, if you really believed the argument you just made, you should convert to  Hinduism, that way you can worship the most gods without fear of going  to hell in case you are wrong, to maximize your chances. Why stick with  just one of the many gods, think of the risk you're taking! And as for your so-called belief, it is quite clear to anyone who's paying attention to your actions, and in particular to God, that you don't really believe. Think carefully about what your beliefs entail, and then consider -- your actions don't match those so-called beliefs you claim to have.

I don't recall when I was named an expert, but it was some time after I started posting.  As I recall there were no actual physicists on the site posting regularly when I showed up, and it took a little time for people to accept that I knew what I was talking about, which is entirely reasonable IMO.  Credibility is earned.

 

As to the proposal we have more experts, the first step is getting more people with expertise to show up and holding their interest.  There's a divide between giving help to people who know only a little physics, and talking physics with people who do it for a living.  Our emphasis is on the former.  People who do that professionally often teach, so what's their motivation to do even more of the same?  So you're limited to people like me, who like the teaching interaction but don't do it for a living (or do it anymore, as in my case).  Also, a fair amount of the posts here are debunking purveyors of alternative ideas, held by people who generally present little deference to established science, which means it's not so much teaching as arguing.    Meaning you have to get people here that like to do that, at least on occasion.  Otherwise they'll get bored and leave.  This is a hobby of sorts.  One does it out of enjoyment.  Not many scientists really enjoy arguing with crackpots.

When you see blind eyes open, you see the cripples walk, you see the leprosy cleansed, and you see them with your own eyes, then it doesn't take a rocket science to figure out that Bible is true.

When you see hundreds of thousands of amputee's prayers go unanswered, and not a single limb is miraculously regrown, then it doesn't take a Christian Scientist to figure out that God isn't healing anybody.

Staff consensus is that the week of July 9 be deemed to be abuse-from-Aethelwulf free.  Suspended.

Yes, I have now the rather significant number of "unfavourables" attached to my profile. Some of which are due to computer malfunctions { double entries.} but mostly due to posts that are discordant to established contemporary views. Those I view with an honour. I want others to think,to contemplate.

I'll save you all the time reading that long text.

(Summary of the text above):
After a huge intro, it's yet another complaint that "We, the Scientists" are united against those who try to make new discoveries that would overturn the established theories. We are all "patting each other on the back". And the REAL great names also had to fight the establishment, ergo, anyone fighting the establishment deserves kudos.
(end of summary)

Divagating the Future, Ushie, or Queen of Wands - a Forum is a place where people have a discussion, and listen to each other. You're a one-way speech, and you are proud that nobody agrees with your points. You're a monologue. That's not what a forum is meant to be like... There are millions of people that nobody agrees with. Only 1 might be the next Copernicus. All other 999,999 are simply wrong. If you do not even try to understand why you might be wrong, your scientific career is over before it even started.

It's completely acceptable if we discuss on this forum, and the conclusion is only that we agree to disagree. That's very common in science. The only way forward from there is experimentation. Not writing lengthy posts. Complaining doesn't help. And posts like this are not going to convince us that you're the next Copernicus. A working and tested theory (with experimental results) will convince us, nothing else.

Well before you guys start ignoring me, let me know about the electrons protons and neutrons

 

I've found them to be untrustworthy, mostly because they make up everything.

Athena has been suspended for continued personal attacks after several warnings to change the way they post.

I wanted to vent a little in response to events, some recent, some not, and some recurring, in light of my role as a moderator.  This is not any kind of official declaration of the rules, merely my interpretation and approach to enforcing them.  It just seems like I've been spending more effort lately, and getting a lot more pushback, from being a mod.

Moderator actions are not personal.  The role of the mods is to enforce the rules and keep discussions reasonably on-track (which is a bit redundant, because staying on-topic is one of the rules).  And the reason for having the rules is that IMO unmoderated forums pretty much suck — when there is no law, discussions devolve into flame wars and valid science gets overwhelmed by crackpottery.  Rebuttal is not the same thing as shouting someone down, which is why "you're an idiot" is not considered a viable response.   So we have rules.  

On the flip side of that is that I, like the other mods here, volunteer my time.  I would much rather spend it discussing physics and other topics of interest than doing moderator-related duties.  So I will admit that it cheeses me off when there are some who continue refuse to follow the rules after being warned.  You may have noticed that my modnotes now often contain a disclaimer not to respond to them.  Quite frankly, it reminds me of a six-year old justifying playing with a ball inside the house despite there being a clear rule against it, and how the broken vase isn't really his fault. I don't need to hear an apology, but if your attitude isn't one of "Sorry, I'll do my best to see that it won't happen again," I really don't want to hear it.  You aren't talking your way out of the ticket.  If you want to appeal, take it up with another member of the staff.  If they tell me they think I was wrong, I'll listen.  But if your argument is based on how the rules shouldn't apply to you, don't expect a lot of sympathy.

I don't actually have a license to kill.  I've seen posts over the years with the sentiment that the poster expects me to ban them for having said something.  Which is pretty clueless, IMO.  People get banned for breaking the rules.  There are a few violations that are what I personally refer to as the unforgivables, such as posting spam or porn, which result in an immediate ban.  For other violations, suspensions and bans do not occur without agreement among the staff.  The picture that some have painted is that I run the place, ban people at will and everybody else is afraid to contradict me, which was pretty funny at first but it's gotten old and has gotten to the point where the insinuation feels insulting.  It's one thing for some new crackpot or troll to say that, but for it to come from long-term members is far less tolerable.  We log bans and suspensions, and nobody on that list was banned based on a single person's decision.  Even more mundane things like warnings happen at the request of others a lot of the time.  If I carry out moderator actions it's because I'm around to do so, not because I'm some loose cannon.

When I am not acting as a moderator, I am a regular poster.  In most cases (outside of some instances in Speculations, where it's  less avoidable), these will not not mix.  That's the policy here.  If you think I have facts wrong, point out the error and give me link to your source.  If you think my argument is weak, by all means attack it — but not me.  Just as I hope you would do with anyone else, or I would do with you.

Well, I never thought the day would come that I'd be writing my last goodbyes from SFN. The past few months of my life have been times of great change, and for better or worse, that change has spread to SFN.

Beginning in just a few weeks I'll be moving to Clearwater, Florida to train to become an Operating Thetan. After my recent conversion to Scientology, I have given ownership of SFN to the Church of Scientology so that they may use its vast public reach to clear negative engrams from people around the world, and to spread the word of Scientology and Dianetics far and wide.

Beginning next Monday, SFN will become ScientologyForums.Net. We'll largely keep the current discussion format, although of course the Psychiatry and Psychology forum will have to go.

I truly apologize for the short notice, but I believe this is all for the best. I hope SFN can join me on the path to spiritual freedom.

immortal has been banned due to persistent use of various logical fallacies and being a general annoyance.

A few thoughts:

 

First, and maybe I'm being a bit silly here, a website with a requirement that new experts be vetted by existing experts may run into a bootstrapping problem. Putting into place a seed population of experts may help with that, of course, but then some or all of that seed population may need to be removed later for the sake of consistency.

 

Second (and forgive me if I'm wrong, as I've not been active for most of SFN's life), it's my understanding that Resident Expert status is an honor rather than an occupation. The system stems from a desire to recognize those who have demonstrated knowledge with informative and helpful posts, not from a desire to fill those pesky vacant "Resident Expert" positions the admins just refuse to list on Monster. Of course, experts are given some limited powers of moderation, but that strikes me as being a perk more than an obligation.

 

Third, this place is a science forum, not a free university. Experts, and anyone else, are free to say what they like, within the established rules, based on their best understanding of the topics at hand. Even in a university, it's not as if professors refuse to provide insight or share opinions and speculations during lectures. This is one of the primary advantages of having a knowledgeable person available to assist with learning. As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, a textbook (or, dare I say, a well-cited Wikipedia article) is sufficient if dry information is all that's desired. In any case, I'd trust the powers that be to remove an expert whose posts fell dramatically in quality over time.

 

Fourth, there are members who, despite having not yet been recognized as Resident Experts, generally make useful posts on a variety of topics. Perhaps more Experts would be nice, but they aren't the only sources of good information here.

 

Fifth, this thread seems to be getting needlessly hostile.

 

SamBridge, in light of all that's been said, do you still hold the same views you did in your original post? And if not, what still bothers you about the way SFN is set up currently?

 I would think that the loss of solar mass you reference might make planets fall inward more slowly, but surely not move away as you've suggested.

 

You can't just think in physics. You have to do the math. So, do the math. Assume a body is orbiting circularly and the Sun loses a tiny bit of mass. I'll use the Sun's standard gravitational parameter  instead of mass; it makes the math easier and it's what is observable. Initially, the relation between velocity, the Sun's mass, and orbital radius is given by

 

 

Now suppose the Sun gains or loses a bit of mass: . Note that the increment here is positive; losing mass means .

 

Per the vis-visa equation,

 

 

where is the semi-major axis length after the mass loss. Denoting this as with yields

 

 

Grind this through and you'll get

 

 

In other words, a loss of mass () causes the orbit to expand.

 

There are other effects besides mass loss from solar wind on a planet's orbit. There's also mass loss from radiation. This currently dominates over mass loss from the solar wind. When the Sun was young it was the other way around. However, mass loss is mass loss. It doesn't matter how the Sun is losing mass. Mass loss causes orbits to expand. Effects other than addition to mass loss include

• Radiation pressure (radial component)

  The radial component of radiation pressure exerts an anti-sunward force on objects. Gravitation is of course inward; both are inverse square law forces. Define as the ratio of the outward force from radiation pressure to the inward gravitational force. for extremely small particles. Radiation pressure ejects very small particles from the solar system. deceases as particle size increases assuming constant density. Eventually increasing particle size will make the inward gravitational force dominate over the outward radiation pressure force. At this stage, the radial component of radiation pressure becomes a no-op. The anti-sunward component of solar radiation pressure merely makes the Sun appear less massive.

   

• Radiation pressure (tangential component)

  Thanks to the finite speed of light, sunlight hits an orbiting body with a non-zero tangential component directed against the body's velocity vector. This creates a drag on the body called Poynting-Robertson drag. This causes small particles (but not so small as to be ejected by the radial component of radiation pressure) to spiral inward toward the Sun. Because radiation pressure increases with the square of radius while mass increases with the cube, this Poynting-Robertson drag becomes smaller and smaller as body size increases. It is incredibly small for planet-sized bodies.

   

• Solar wind drag

  The solar wind, like radiation pressure, has both radial and tangential components. The effects of each component are very similar to those of radiation pressure.

   

• Yarkovsky effect

  The Sun warms the sunward facing side of an orbiting body. This results in an anisotropic distribution of the thermal radiation from the orbiting body. If the body rotates, the outgoing radiation is more intense on the dusk side of the planet than the dawn side. This results in an acceleration in the dawn direction. The Yarkovsky effect mades a body with a prograde rotation spiral outward from the Sun; a body with a retrograde rotation with spiral inward.

   

• Gravitational radiation

  Per general relativity, an accelerating object will radiate energy in the form of gravity waves. This makes very massive objects orbiting very close to one another spiral inward. (1993 Nobel Prize in Physics). In our solar system, this is essentially a non-effect. The effect on the Earth, for example, is to cause it to spiral inward at about 10^-15 meters per day.

 

For planetary sized objects, all of the above are essentially non-effects, completely dominated by the spiraling out due to solar mass loss.

Well you're probably lying about over hearing this, since this exact text shows up all over the internet.

But anyway, I fixed the story for you:

Professor : You are a Christian, aren’t you, son ?
Student : Yes, sir.
Professor: So, you believe in Fluffy pink elephants ?
Student : Absolutely, sir.
Professor : Are Fluffy pink elephants good ?
Student : Sure.
Professor: Are Fluffy pink elephants all powerful ?
Student : Yes.
Professor: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to Fluffy pink elephants to heal him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But Fluffy pink elephants didn’t. How is thAre Fluffy pink elephants good then? Hmm?
(Student was silent.)
Professor: You can’t answer, can you ? Let’s start again, young fella. Are Fluffy pink elephants good?
Student : Yes.
Professor: Is the Easter Bunny good ?
Student : No.
Professor: Where does the Easter Bunny come from ?
Student : From … Fluffy pink elephants …
Professor: That’s right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?
Student : Yes.
Professor: Evil is everywhere, isn’t it ? And Fluffy pink elephants did make everything. Correct?
Student : Yes.
Professor: So who created evil ?
(Student did not answer.)
Professor: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world, don’t they?
Student : Yes, sir.
Professor: So, who created them ?
(Student had no answer.)
Professor: Science says you have 5 Senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Tell me, son, have you ever seen Fluffy pink elephants?
Student : No, sir.
Professor: Tell us if you have ever heard your Fluffy pink elephants?
Student : No , sir.
Professor: Have you ever felt your Fluffy pink elephants, tasted your Fluffy pink elephants, smelt your Fluffy pink elephants? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Fluffy pink elephants for that matter?
Student : No, sir. I’m afraid I haven’t.
Professor: Yet you still believe in Him?
Student : Yes.
Professor : According to Empirical, Testable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says your Fluffy pink elephants doesn’t exist. What do you say to that, son?
Student : Nothing. I only have my faith.
Professor: Yes, faith. And that is the problem Science has.
Student : Professor, is there such a thing as heat?
Professor: Yes.
Student : And is there such a thing as cold?
Professor: Yes.
Student : No, sir. There isn’t.
(The lecture theater became very quiet with this turn of events.)
Student : Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don’t have anything called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we can’t go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.
(There was pin-drop silence in the lecture theater.)
Student : What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?
Professor: Yes. What is night if there isn’t darkness?
Student : You’re wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light. But if you have no light constantly, you have nothing and its called darkness, isn’t it? In reality, darkness isn’t. If it is, well you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn’t you?
Professor: So what is the point you are making, young man ?
Student : Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.
Professor: Flawed ? Can you explain how?
Student : Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is life and then there is death, a good Fluffy pink elephants and a bad Fluffy pink elephants. You are viewing the concept of Fluffy pink elephants as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, Science can’t even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing.
Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it. Now tell me, Professor, do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?

Professor: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course, I do.
Student : Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?
(The Professor shook his head with a smile, beginning to realize where the argument was going.)
Student : Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor. Are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher?
(The class was in uproar.)

Student : Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor’s brain?
(The class broke out into laughter. )
Student : Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor’s brain, felt it, touched or smelt it? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established Rules of Empirical, Stable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says that you have no brain, sir. With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?
(The room was silent. The Professor stared at the student, his face unfathomable.)
Professor: I guess you’ll have to take them on science, son.
Student : That is it sir … Exactly ! The link between man & Fluffy pink elephants is FAITH. That is all that keeps things alive and moving.  

The MMR vaccine/autism link has been debunked countless times including articles in the peer reviewed literature. The original paper that attempted to establish the link had been retracted. What new evidence do you bring to the table?

Just to add some links for mississippichem:

http://www.bmj.com/c...2/7284/460.full
"the data provide evidence that no correlation exists between the  prevalence of MMR vaccination and the rapid increase in the risk of  autism over time"

http://jama.jamanetw...rticleid=193604
"Essentially no correlation was observed between the secular trend of early childhood MMR immunization rates in California and the secular trend in numbers of children with autism enrolled in California's regional service center system"

http://www.nejm.org/...56/NEJMoa021134
"There was no association between the age at the time of vaccination, the  time since vaccination, or the date of vaccination and the development  of autistic disorder."

http://www.sciencedi...140673699012398
"Our analyses do not support a causal association between MMR vaccine and autism. If such an association occurs, it is so rare that it could not be identified in this large regional sample."

http://www.bmj.com/c...4/7334/393.full
"These findings provide no support for an MMR associated "new variant" form of autism"

http://jama.jamanetw...rticleid=197365
               "The results do not support a causal relationship between childhood vaccination with thimerosal-containing vaccines and development of autistic-spectrum disorders."

Oh? Let's look:

[...]
Throughout all of chapter 7, it keeps using הארץ instead of  ארץ. I'll have to call in mooeypoo on this one.

The signal in the clouds was intercepted, and the moo was dispatched!

Anyways, so, anyone who wonders why I was dispatched, I happen to know hebrew/aramaic, and spent 12 years studying the original language of the old testament, so I can read it.

I was asked to try and translate the original, which is always a challenge. A translation is *never* a good one when it comes to the bible, because the meaning of the biblical verses depends a *lot* on context. Half the time even when you understand the original you need to cross-reference words and read the entire chapter (and sometimes the ones before/after) to understand the context.

That said, this is a relatively simple verse about Noah's plans in the arc.

2 מִכֹּ֣ל ׀ הַבְּהֵמָ֣ה הַטְּהֹורָ֗ה תִּֽקַּח־לְךָ֛ שִׁבְעָ֥ה שִׁבְעָ֖ה אִ֣ישׁ וְאִשְׁתֹּ֑ו וּמִן־הַבְּהֵמָ֡ה אֲ֠שֶׁר לֹ֣א טְהֹרָ֥ה הִ֛וא שְׁנַ֖יִם אִ֥ישׁ וְאִשְׁתֹּֽו׃
3 גַּ֣ם מֵעֹ֧וף הַשָּׁמַ֛יִם שִׁבְעָ֥ה שִׁבְעָ֖ה זָכָ֣ר וּנְקֵבָ֑ה לְחַיֹּ֥ות זֶ֖רַע עַל־פְּנֵ֥י כָל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃
4 כִּי֩ לְיָמִ֨ים עֹ֜וד שִׁבְעָ֗ה אָֽנֹכִי֙ מַמְטִ֣יר עַל־הָאָ֔רֶץ אַרְבָּעִ֣ים יֹ֔ום וְאַרְבָּעִ֖ים לָ֑יְלָה וּמָחִ֗יתִי אֶֽת־כָּל־הַיְקוּם֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר עָשִׂ֔יתִי מֵעַ֖ל פְּנֵ֥י הָֽאֲדָמָֽה

This is a good reference for hebrew/english bible text that tends to be relatively accurate: http://www.mechon-ma...p/pt/pt0107.htm

2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee seven and seven, each with his mate; and of the beasts that are not clean two [and two], each with his mate;

3 of the fowl also of the air, seven and seven, male and female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.
4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I blot out from off the face of the earth.'

The only caviat I can give here is that on the 4th verse, the English version says "every living substance" while the original hebrew/aramaic uses the word for "universe". As in, "the entire universe". It makes no distinction about living.
In fact, God quite clearly states that he will erase the entire universe that he created.

The distinction about 'living' substances is in the translation only.



~mooey

There's another issue I wanted to particularly answer to regarding the word "Eretz".

b. For example:
-God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah and Lot's daughters said "there's not a man in the earth #776 Strong's Concordance (erets) to come in unto us" (Genesis 19:31) Not every man in the world was killed ... only those in the area of the destruction.

-Exodus 9:33 "the rain was not poured upon the earth" #776 Strong's Concordance (erets)... Of course we understand it is just speaking about a certain area in Egypt.

-Genesis 7, "Noah's flood": the flood covered "the earth", the Hebrew word used in the original writing by Moses was #776 Strong's Concordance "erets", meaning "the land" (see above). The flood cover a particular region, not the whole earth.

This is a problem a BROKEN translation and our BROKEN interpretation of the translation. Not with the story itself.

The word "Eretz" is used in Genesis 1:1 "רֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ"
(1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.)

Unless we want to claim that God created only a segment of a land, the word means the entire bulk of the earth.

Your example about Sodom and Gomorrah is a bit odd, DrDNA. The quote from Genesis 19:31 is this:

לא  וַתֹּאמֶר הַבְּכִירָה אֶל-הַצְּעִירָה, אָבִינוּ זָקֵן; וְאִישׁ אֵין בָּאָרֶץ לָבוֹא עָלֵינוּ, כְּדֶרֶךְ כָּל-הָאָרֶץ. 31

And the first-born said unto the younger: 'Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth.

This can either mean "a land" (limited to the city) or "the entire world". Either the older daughter tells her younger sister "omg girl, our dad's old and there's no one in this country that can come to us!" or she says "omg, girl, our dad's old and there's no one in the entire WORLD to come to us!".

Either way works, which means that this example is bad to measure context. In fact, the second translation (which fits Genesis 1:1 and the Noah flood "universe" context) seems a bit more "dramatic" which fits the context of the entire chapter.

And that is regardless of the fact that God states clearly that he intends to destroy *the universe* that he created during the flood.

"Universe" seems to include the earth (our lovely earth which he created in genesis), the heavens, the light, etc etc. His universe. Everything.

And then water drops onto the earth. *The* Earth. It's a bit of a twist to insist that the meaning is "part" of the land, when this word is consistently used to describe God's creation of the earth versus the heavens.

Another example is the ending of the flood story in Genesis 8:22

כב  עֹד, כָּל-יְמֵי הָאָרֶץ:  זֶרַע וְקָצִיר וְקֹר וָחֹם וְקַיִץ וָחֹרֶף, וְיוֹם וָלַיְלָה--לֹא יִשְׁבֹּתוּ.
22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.'

God regrets the flood (which is a separate issue, but nevermind that now) and states that as long as the earth remains (Eretz) then summer/winter day/night will always continue. Those don't happen on a single land, they happen everywhere.

It seems all context of the word "Eretz" -- from the creation of the world to the flood to the end of the flood -- are consistently the same meaning:  THE Earth. It's everything on the ground, not just one particular land.

"Eretz" vs "Shamayim"
Earth vs Sky/Heavens.

The distinction and meaning seem quite clear.

~mooey

Phi for All is an illuminati and would not like the secret to be revealed.