Macroscopic

How do you know that? I see how it is easy to think that, but we don't know that to be true. We exist in only four dimensions, but scientists think there are many more. If we can exist in less than all of the dimensions, other things could too, but exist in only two dimensions. Assuming their is life on the higher dimensions, they probably wouldn't think it was possible to live in only four dimensions.

The death penalty isn't cheaper, it's a lot more expensive than life in prison. So then it's not worth it. Neither do I. I am against it though because I think life in prison is worse, and because it's expensive.

No. As I have said earlier in this thread, I am against the death penalty. That is different than the example of the killers that kill 'because it's their nature'. I think the schizophrenic would be able to plead insanity, genetic insanity is different than genetic evilness.

4-D. Sometimes people only talk about it as being 3-D though because it is easier without time.

I don't think it would even be possible to understand a fifth dimension. We exist in four dimensions, so wouldn't be able to understand or exist in a fifth one. It might not even be one of time or space, but some other incomprehensible, unimaginable, thing.

I don't understand that last part. Why should killers be considered any less guilty just because they happen to be naturally evil? So they are born killers, and have an evil nature, but I'm somehow supposed to feel sorry for them? Is a monster that was born a monster any better than a human that voluntarily became one? I don't think so, and believe they should be treated equally.

I'm against the death penalty, but not for that reason. It's not that I value there lives at all, I just think life in prison is a worse punishment. Look at it this way; whether you give them life in prison or the death penalty, they still spend the rest of their life in prison! I think a normal prison is a lot worse than death row cells; They are safe in death row, but in prison they have the other inmates to worry about. And their life will be a lot longer and a lot more miserable in a normal prison, so why put them out of their misery?

I don't need to, ANY one will work. What I have said is standard physics, while what you say goes against it. You are the one that needs to cite a source, as your idea goes against the basic understanding of physics.....again.

'During the night, the sunlight passes through the earth ' Through the Earth? You don't mean that literally do you? I hope I'm misenterpreting what you are trying to say. You mean the atmosphere right? 'Darkness is the name given to light that has been shifted out of the visible spectrum.' Where'd you learn that? Can you provide a link to a reliable site? "You say that darkness is an absense of light." That's right, and any physics textbook would agree with me.

Interesting topic, just wanted to see what everyone on here thinks about it.

Darkness isn't light, it is the absence of light. Darkness isn't something that is seen, it means that you can't see anything.

If you are more intrigued by the idea of becoming a chemist than a surgeon, and the job in chemistry pays more, I don't really see what the conflict is unless there are other factors involved.

Could you support that with some reasoning, because I don't see how looking at logic makes us lose.

Does this help?

Are you saying there might be an intelligence test needs to be passed to be a member? I don't see how they could work because intelligence tests aren't really accurate. I doubt anyone without 'Atleast good intelligence' would even want to be on a science forum.

I know what you are saying, but that misses the point of my argument. I'm not saying his life should be placed below any ONE other life, I'm saying his ONE life shouldn't be placed at the same level of worth as the lives of MANY. If you put his life equal to not just one other life, but equal to many lives, that would imply that you're not putting his life at the same level as anybody else's, but putting it above. The fact that it came from Star Trek doesn't make it any less true. If you put the needs of the many below the needs of the few, you are putting the live's of the few at a higher value.

It doesn't have to be done openly. It's not like we would record it, put it on TV, the Internet, send it to the guy's family or anything like that.

In simpler terms, you would fall all the way to the center, then your momentum would carry you further until the the gravity wears away your momentum, then you start going back to the center. This would be repeated until all you lost all your momentum, then you would stay at the center. Assuming the heat doesn't kill you.

If we are willing to place one person's life over the lives of many others, that is sad. I could understand not wanting to torture him to save one life, but it is more than that. The needs of the many should always outweigh the needs of the few.( can't remember where that quote came from. )

If gravity affects time that's right.

They still have that, I think it's called a gravitron.

Relativity. He would only appear to be dead to you because time is moving faster for you. I'm not sure, but I think they would be living in your past, since time is moving slower for them. To your brother, and anyone else on Mars with him, he wouldn't be dead yet. You would be in his future, so it wouldn't be that he didn't notice that he was dead, but that he wasn't dead yet. Time is relative.

I believe it would be more immoral to have life-saving information within our reach, and not use whatever methods are neccesary to get it, then to torture a mass murderer into giving us life-saving information. I believe that in this case torture is the lesser of two evils.

I think it depends on your perspective, if you are on Earth and observe the person on the other planet, they wouldn't appear to live as long, but if you were that person I don't think it would make a difference.