forufes

this kind of unbiased advice is what he needed.

whatever device you use, include flywheels in them, they're good for storing mechanical energy for long periods, usually used when the input is of high density and short time(paddling man) and the required output is of low density and for long periods(generator). i'm also all for solar energy, they got a lot of sun in africa.

because you're asking that question?

we're not in a scientific subfora. we're in philosophy. and that^, is his philosophy.. learn to accept others' philosophies, as there is no objectively right outtake of life, like in science. and take lessons from your failures, then let them go.

-ripped off jimmy's well formatted post- Most Helpful Member: who gives the best answers in the nicest way? insane alien(but replace "nicest" with "shortest + rudest" in the criteria) Most Knowledgeable Member: who displays the most consistent knowledge in any (or many) fields? insane alien:mad: Most Interesting Member: who's posts are a must read for their diverse content? tar Best Debater: the member who you think uses the best debating techniques on the forums. the guy with the monitor for an avatar Most Enjoyable Member: this is a fun category; who makes you laugh the most? buttacup Most Improved Member: who has improved their quality of posts the most in the past twelve months? i-now(he's acting less like he owns the place:D)

so i "heavily" researched the subject a bit, these forums were a valuable source of input, so i'm thinking of sharing some of the cool things i found:-) a nice round up of the demons of classical physics, one of which reversed entropy for some decades, before having his dirty trick exposed, as explained here in a more open minded article of entropy. here are some Briar patches for FAQs about entropy(only in the beginning, the rest is more boringly detailed). here is a mod in some space junkies forum smashing light bulbs as they turn on over newbies' heads before they give birth to the ingenuous discovery of using thermo couples to bypass entropy and "get rid of heat", so they can fly their spaceships in total stealth. and gives a funny version of the three laws of thermodynamics. and, a little good article, one size fits all. [didn't know how to embed this] and finally, i saved the best for last. this'll blow your mind away!! they have an audio version and a graphic novel btw hope you enjoy:-)

live unedited media feed was casually jammed by the IDF before their "self defense" operation was carried out. they definitely didn't have anything to hide. http://www.news24.com/World/News/Journalists-on-Gaza-flotilla-safe-20100531 journalists keep memos and videos, they were confiscated (apparently for bombs and explosives) http://en.ammonnews.net/article.aspx?articleNO=8314 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105384977 the testimonies of the passengers, the journalists(whose job IS to report news), Israelites, hell, even a a member of the Israeli parliament!!!, and their testimonies, are all rejected, what's left? you want the head of the IDF to be on the boat and tell you what happen, and even then you won't take his testimony? http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/06/01/gaza.raid.eyewitnesses/index.html shots are shot, people die, others survive to testify, the world ups in rage, and yet; why? because the killer's and the victim's testimonies conflicted:rolleyes: the world condemns, europe, the US, the UN, austrailia, i'm sure even people on the arctic or any aliens in space would, even israeli ambassadors are condemning, demonstrators are filling the streets in athens, clashing with riot police, the embassy in the uk is under siege, the freaking world is on fire!!.. and here we are sipping coffee and "dealing with facts- preferably objective", when that's the last thing that is done here every time i open this thread, i get overwhelmed by the dumbfounding arguments going around here i don't even know where the heck to start!, as if nobody can watch tv or search the internet. i can say mooy, that your contribution especially to this thread has been very negative. and very nonfactual, mostly misleading. this thread is very very sad, one which would take a century to deal with properly.

oh come on i didn't say that.. ok. um, morality is simply to define right and wrong, and give reasons or incentives to do right and not wrong. speaking broadly, atheism and theism share the same definition of right and wrong (although i think this is mainly because atheism is still in an early minority stage, let theisms be part of history and raping a child may be normal) but when we come to incentives, atheism is not satisfactory yet theism is. imho, no incentives = broken ethical code. simple as that. i guess wanting to feel good is where it comes from? and you can't outdo heaven and hell and you can (or more importantly, you THINK you can) outdo anything else:-) in which case your morality if it is coined somehow to do good and not evil(however you coined either if you did) is well, a leap of faith, as that video inow posted showed. atheists can be moral, as a matter of fact, the majority are peaceful and intelligent(once again maybe because atheism is still young), and many theists are immoral and unethical. but those theists are simply not following theism when acting unethically, and atheists are not strictly following atheism if they act ethically. we're discussing the system, not the adherents. trolling. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged yes, at least not a logically valid one. and if i can do something to you and you can't do anything about it? 2+2=4??? "evolutionary origins of morals"? WHAT morals? you mean packhood? why wouldn't we choose what made sense in the first place and REMAIN religious? here, social darwinism; creationist site: http://creation.com/darwins-critical-influence-on-the-ruthless-extremes-of-capitalism atheistic site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism the difference between the prisoners dilemma and its application to the "do unto others.." thingie, is that the dilemma puts overpowering the guards out of the question to begin with, where in real life many situations square A has "bad for HIM only" and D has "good for HIM only". in essence you are over-oversimplifying reality and ethical choices. well...not so bad of a try..keep it up..

that is NOT what i had in mind. what's up with all the flips? is he mad? AND he actually pulled it off, all the acrobatics then a perfect hit, you can't do that without serious calculations and immense training and.... i just can't in hell see how he did it!!

where on earth DID he claim moral superiority? athiesim's morals are under the scope, not him nor his morals, don't shift the goal posts. this is freaking obvious, what authority is governing man who is practicin the authority of man? -the man in authority, who's authority does HE follow? -if man is strong enough to practice a certain authority, another man is able to break the first's authority. utter nonesense, what logic are you following? we evolved to social animals, SO WHAT? we also evolved intelligence to realize our immortality and the ability to realize our benifits on the expense of others. we also evolved the brainpower to break that contract, that's the whole point, so better try next time.

Fall flat like a pancake, that way you'll die quick. but if you insist on atleast attempting survival, the points mentioned above are right, you abo also like to try to spin over yourself like a drill, that way you'll distribute the reaction forces of the lake into your joints more evenly(not all will be linear, as there will be torque)...you may also try to decelerate as soon as you start absorbing the impact, maybe something like spreading your legs might pull your gravitational center back to reduce you velocity as you penetrate the surface. You may also want to spread out after penetration so to slow your speed and hence your depth which you'll have to swim up from. But this is seriously highly hypothetical and mostly inapplicable by even the best divers. You may just wanna do some stunts in the air, enjoy the scenery, and aim at land if possible :-D

your last answers would require me to sit quietly and tackle them, by now i remembered some other questions; but not all carcasses turn into coal, neither do they to oil. besides, can't the bio mass contain very low entropy(as in highly complex structure, which is the case) enough to make up and even surpass the increase in the rest of the earth, even though the volume of the latter is bigger? it's like a paper with a word written on it has less entropy than a paper soaked in ink...[?] isn't there something like, "entropy quality", which would be a measure of the density of irreversibility and complexity? [ i just thought of irreducible complexity, and how some people assert that "there is no being that is more advanced than another, each to his own needs is most advanced", but i think we can introduce entropy as a gauge for that, no?] also upon re-reading answer 1, you're saying that S = dQ/T is actually a special formula for only one type of measurement to a system's set of possible states?? would that make Boltzmann's equation more general? guess that leaves me with a biology review for the earth part in the 2nd question, but for the sun part, you're saying the sun releases a highly "ordered" form of energy(meaning low in entropy, meaning it will decrease the sun's entropy when it leaves it) which turns into common heat high in entropy ONLY when it bounces off/gets absorbed by an atom or molecule? can i say that light is more organized than heat, and that the sun deposits low entropy (or sucks high entropy) from earth by sending electromagnetic waves to it? which earth then turns into "chaotic" heat and saves and builds up the "organization" into life forms? kinda reminds me of uranium refinement, you get impure uranium(sunlight) and you separate it into pure uranium(organization/life) and crap(heat). and every LOT of crap comes with every small bit of uranium.. i think this's pure genius. certainly was one of those "enlightenment" moments. but, what difference would there be whether the thermocouple was there or not, heat is flowing anyways, so where does the electric energy come from? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged ok, this suddenly comes across as a great answer. and it makes perfect sense, but only for "completable" changes. gas expanding, how do you measure how far it proceeded into completion? regardless of whether this's a natural change or not (closed system), but i'm really interested in seeing what it's entropy mathematical computation formula would look like. and of course, before the game the stadium would be at max entropy when full, as that is its inevitable end, also it is a fixed one which doesn't allow many arrangements (all seats have to be full, while a half full stadium could be half filled in many ways and arrangements). and after the game it would be at max entropy when empty. is this scientific entropy?(apparently yes, albeit not a thermodynamic one). so how can this kind of entropy never decrease in total? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged3) after maxwell screwed up entropy for some time by showing how his scarce demon can reverse it, scientists after squeezing their brains for some decades recognized information as a form of energy the demon had to sacrifice as to exceed or equal the entropy he was decreasing, ~~and entropy had its mischievous way in the universe again. now how the FUDGE can i account for information in my(or any) entropy analysis??? i'm having a real hard time combining the easy to understand general meaning of entropy, and its scientific calculable form.

Ok!! I'm back, with more contradictions than ever(otherwise called questions) : 1- how does somebody make go between the first and second definitions to entropy i gave previously (which are both valid)? In other words, entropy is defined by the heat transfer crossing a system's boundery divided by the temperature of either the system or the surroundings. Now for the adiabatic container partitioned into vacuum and gas halves. It has low entropy, when we remove the partition the entropy or disorder will increase, EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS NO HEAT TRANSFER, so the entropy according to the formula should equal zero, yet it is not, i know the other formulas which are used to compute the entropy in this situation, but i still think it should equal zero, because that's what the first and most basic formula would yield. In other words yet, how is the disorder nature of entropy expressed in terms of the first heat formula?(which i finally got to grasp).. And i'm not talking about the ideal gas entropy derivations nor the statistical or information entropy(which all are logical but not supported with solid enough math to be considered science imo). 2-when heat leaves a system its entropy decreases, and vice versa. Then how is the sun sending off heat to earth supposed to compensate for the decrease by evolution of living beings? In other words heat should be crossing earth's boundery out for entropy to decrease, and not freaking vice versa. Same goes to the sun, it's getting rid of its heat, so shouldn't its entropy decrease as well? that's it for now, i'll be back later:-)

thanks bob. and mr skeptic, while you have a point, i'm not sure that entropy is decreasing on earth, but i think it's fairly reasonable if not obvious that with the development of all lifeforms on earth, bacteria alone, would make up for any heat generation and energy consumption earth is undergoing. entropy is the availability of unusable energy, with the simple realization that life forms start as unusable or limitedly usable forms of energy (mass), and turn into highly efficient energy forms that can produce lots of work and can supply other forms of energy other than heat(the least usable), is a big decrease in entropy. think of all the animals, insects and fish, account for the decrease in entropy per each one, and i think it would be clear. but here i have another fundamental question about entropy, it's as wiki says they keep stating that unusable energy is synonymous with heat, but can't that be turned into electricity for example? http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/silicon-nanowires-turn-heat-to-electricity http://www.rvmobile.com/TECH/TROUBLE/Tcouple.htm

well-doing people in the street inside out using white phosphorous. ISRAEL-OPT: Israel denies using white phosphorus in Gaza BBC-Israel denies banned weapons use more and more picture http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2009/jan/21/gaza-israelandthepalestinians then, well, they admitted that they may have used them, but then also may not. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/21/gaza-phosphorus-shells and then..finally; http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=83315&sectionid=351020202 the evidence is overwhelming for this, the attitude of israel mind boggling; the bombs are pictured exploding in the sky, pictured falling on people, buildings, homes,schools. the burns were reported,the clouds examined and pictured, the unique fires extinguished, and to all this israel denies:doh: that's why till now i'm not 100% sure of what happened, not even the video.

actually i was wondering why they'd not let them in to begin with, but that wasn't interesting since no people have died yet.. if the blockade was for three years on people starving and missing basic life supports, then to hell with what happens, some people just can't shush their consciousness and have the balls to do something about it. true:-( but that makes you wonder if you'll EVER know what happened. an exposed lie isn't necessarily followed by a truth, it just could be a better concealed lie. the first lie may even be the truth:confused: so we should ticket cars approaching the speed limit? what constitutes a defensive weapon then? you even can beat a person to death with a shield. THAT, was what made me think the video was faked (the first time i saw it), they totally didn't behave like special ops. absolutly not, wasn't anywhere near what you expect of a prepared soldier. they were determined. many flotillas have been sent back home, many trucks with food and medicine waited for days if not weeks on the borders then returned home, they didn't cross all those miles to be handcuffed and sent back home, you heard IA, you can reason that clubs and bars are weapons sent for the Palestinians, the video you posted even shows kitchen knives! and in my other thread i linked to how even chocolate and other stupid stuff wasn't let through. humanitarians and activists can come in peace, but they get fed up and frustrated too. not that my account is supposed to be more accurate, but i read somewhere that the guns they used were two rifles captured from the soldiers. i'm sorry, i really can't digest the wording here. they were DEFENDING themselves? they rappel down from helicopters to DEFEND themselves? you can storm a castle. or you can claim it yours and "defend" it. btw moo, i really admire your clear and reasonable attitude here, let's not clash unless it's really necessary. lol, ok? exactly what i thought when i saw the video, idk it just didn't make sense. http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=80268&sectionid=3510303

have i EVER, been as confused as after watching this? i don't think so:-( what the F*** can anybody believe these days?

weapons???? ...... ohh i know what you mean(had to research it) source sorry, ak-47s and rocket launchers and explosive belts came to mind..

why would israel stop relief convoys from getting in?

first George Galloway, and now this? i mean wtf? and btw, it's been quite some time since i was planning to post this, it's not something that just turned up;)

Good recollection captain. and mooey, the inability of inability is complete ability, the vulnerability to vulnerability is invulnerability. You can only argue that with a play of words, as the initial argument was. for what i say makes perfect philosophical sense too. Which doesn't work by isolating a chosen part and nit picking on it. .

i'm not sure it IS a philosophical contradiction. because then the word "omnipotent" has no meaning.. if you can't be unable to do something, then you're not omnipotent, and if you can be unable to do something, then you're also not omnipotent.. i think such redundant conflicts are ignored. because otherwise, almost every sound philosophical statement can be bent to be wrong, especially when when you apply it to itself.. for example, the good o'l "you can't prove a negative" statement would turn out to be wrong too, because i DID prove a negative once, but it twisted the argument from the inside out, the negative i proved was: there isn't a negative to be proven that past sentence, states that there is NOT...etc, so it's a negative statement.. and it's also right in what it claims, that there is no proved negative...lol, except for itself! so mooy, is there a proven negative or not? you either answer "no" and then you're answer itself is a negative. or you answer yes, and the example you'll give is "there is no proven negative" which contradicts the statement it's supplied for. however, as for the omnipotence issue, i see it a matter of phrasing, if you define a mathematical space where only positive operations and numbers can be used, and i subtract a negative, am i violating the mathematical space's rules or not? i say no. you say yes. yeah.. sometimes i don't know what i mean when i read older posts of mine.. but if i try making a perfect post i'll never post it(and i've tried), i find myself the most productive when i'm the most casual and carefree. you know? i had a looong reply there, but i'll just keep it at "no comment":rolleyes:

god's omnipotence is not contradictory. you make it contradictory because you want it to be contradictory. can god heat a burrito that'll burn him? if he can, then he's burned, not omnipotent. if he can't then he's not omnipotent. what a word play.. the question is phrased to have only one answer.. actually, to appear to have only one answer. but lets analyze that question a bit shall we? can god do something (heat a burrito) that will contradict/take away his omnipotence? (getting damaged-burned) no he can't. thus, he's omnipotent. but you just said he CAN'T do something!!? well actually to be truly omnipotent, you should be unable to be otherwise. lol it's like; is one who is "ultimately able" able to be unable? well nope, sorry, he's unable to be unable-----> meaning he's ultimately able.. he's Omnipotent. lol you and your silly games:D

ok, this unfinished post has sat around in my browser long enough, i'm just posting it. oh come ON..and how much would it take for the first E.coli to come about? and the time for the circumstances the first E.coli needed to turn up? all of that in 12 mins? i still say that it is possible that if the world we're living in is a slot machine that scored a jackpot, there is a possibility that the time we've been around isn't enough for the different successive slots to even line up. well i don't see the publishing of science books containing new variables going to stop any where on time's infinite line. we keep discovering new variables life had to beat to come out, at one point they'd just be too much. so i took the shortcut and said they were infinity. nope, the interval between -1 to 1 contains infinite numbers, but R-[-1,1] contains more numbers, even though both contain infinity numbers. you referring to this: ? glad to see you've got the qualities to reach that. however, if one proves that(and this is the best wording i could come up with): -the infinity that continuously spews or/and discovers conditions needed to be met for life's existence(ex:physical, chemical, astronomical etc..), actually, swallows the infinity which provides opportunity for life to come as a product of chance(ex: time and space)... he can give a fraction depicting the possibility of life emerging by chance, which could also be infinity or zero; example A Shakespeare's play consists of a 1000 letters, each letter is an element of the alphabetic set, consisting of 26 letters, there's the possibility of getting one letter correctly individually,then that of getting them all correct separately(the whole play), then of getting them all correct and ordered (which would amount to a big number i forgot how to compute, the nPr and nCr thingies) and let's call it X. the possibility of the monkey producing the play is 1/X... if the monkey tries again, the possibility would be 2/X, if he tried X/2 times, the possibility of him getting it right would be 0.5, if he tried X times or more, the possibility of him getting it right would be 100%. this is all assuming he doesn't use the same combination of letters more than once, otherwise he could be pressing the space bar all the time. wait a sec... WHAT!!?..(i never thought of that last bit before:eek:) so it is necessary for the world to have a serious meaningful chance at introducing life is for it to continuously change, otherwise all it's parts could just reach different states of equilibrium and the universe would keep still for eternity.(of course nothing can disturb its equilibrium cuz everything is INSIDE it). as a matter of fact, isn't that the inevitable end of the universe? everything will collide and react until they all dissolve into their basic lowest energy forms, IOW, rubble, with the highest entropy levels possible. and just sit like that for eternity. but hypothetically, there could also be some portions of the universe with potential action, but would slumber undisturbed because the rest of the universe is in equilibrium (or dead) to ignite that potential? imagine, for the sake of simplicity, that the big bang resulted in two big identical masses, which were launched in lines of motion which would cause them to circle each other uniformly for eternity. anyway, so not to deviate from the main point, something similar can happen, (equilibrium throughout the whole system) in infinitely numerous ways. and that equilibrium means that all parts of the system are doing nothing, or doing the same thing repeatedly. and if life didn't emerge in the time of one cycle, then time being infinite in general terms means nothing to the possibility of life emerging. so back to the type writer, we'll assume the monkey types in a pattern that keeps changing without repeating for eternity. yeah, then what?

hmm.. scientific lawyers.. but hey, at least no criminal is turned loose:D