LazerFazer

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like 'inverted light' is the reverse of 'converting mass to light'. So basically the blackhole would be absorbing light and converting it into mass.

@5164

Nothing WITH MASS is faster than than light. I think theres one example (at least) where light exceeded its own speed limit. I'll try to get the exact details tomorrow (its in in article on my physics teacher's desk)

As I said, correct me if I'm wrong.

LazerFazer

@Pentcho

Velocity and speed do indeed have different meanings in today's physics and this has been used by relativists for confusing the problem. Yet the problem is easy to solve. According to Einstein's second postulate' date=' some X is independent of the speed of the light source or observer. Also, this X has a constant value of c=300000 km/s in vacuum. Finally, Einstein says in Chapter 22 that the second postulate is invalid in a gravitational field and the same X VARIES WITH POSITION. Clearly, X is the SCALAR, the speed. "Velocity" is a bad term in this case: Einstein's second postulate is about the SCALAR, not about the vector.

[/quote']

 

velocity of propagation of light VARIES WITH POSITION.

 

Here is a contradiction in your argument. In your first post' date=' it states VELOCITY, and yet here you claim that its SPEED thats being discussed here. You are aware that when anything is accelerating, it's velocity is changing. Also, when said object is 'in orbit' or going in a circlular path, its velocity is definately changing, while the speed could be staying the same?

 

@Atheist

LazerFazer: Honestly, I´ve never heard of the term "lineare Geschwindikeit" before. This doesn´t nessecarily mean that this term doesn´t exist but it´s most certainly not widely used, nowadays. Well, perhaps it was during Einstein´s times.

 

I also have not completed physics education in Germany, however, a friend of mine has heard this term during the mechanics section. Also, this term kan be found in the "Duden", so if you hesitate to believe, please take a look. Other than that I do agree with you so far, that it is mostly apparent from the context what is meant when a German says "Geschwindigkeit". Or, direction and speed are just referred to as seperate entities, if velocity is not to be used at all.

 

Cheers,

LazerFazer

> AFAIK Einstein basically thought in German' date=' which does not have

> different words for "speed" and "velocity" ("die Geschwindigkeit" is

> used for both). Certainly his "velocity of propagation" could be phrased

> as "speed of propagation" without changing the underlying physics.

[/quote']

 

for the general information of the public, there are two distint terms for speed and velocity. speed is indeed translated with "Geschwindigkeit". however, the small distinction if direction matters is put by "lineare Geschwindigkeit".

finally, how do you know that he (Einstein) did not use "lineare Geschwindigkeit" in his papers? did you actually read the original thesis? f yes please inform me as i would like to know more about the original.

 

PS: please capitalize nouns when you use german.

 

Cheers,

LF

I do agree with you regarding Jordan' date=' and I think you can make a valid case for the position that we're being selective in the "war on terror". But I don't know that that's necessarily a bad thing, or that it is evidence of ulterior motives.

[/quote']

 

Well, if you're going to be selective, that shows evidence of double standards. Then people get the idea of ulterior motives. It isn't really an issue whether there ARE ulterior motives or not, but rather whethere the PERCEPTION of ulterior motives is there. If the world THINKS you have a hidden agenda, it doesn't really matter if they're right or wrong, they're still going to second guess you.

 

I don't see how you can say that there was no threat from Saddam. If you just mean there was no existing or immediate threat' date=' I agree. But he was rogue, and the UN should have taken him down based solely on the non-compliance issue.

[/quote']

 

Well, I was talking about the immediate threat that the US and its allies presented as evidence for the need to remove him from power. Obviously there was no immediate threat, but even if he was a 'rogue', since there was no threat, the international community should have just left him alone. There was no evidence that he was, at that time, comitting crimes against humanity, and thus there was no reason for the international community to interfere in the affairs of a sovereign nation.

 

Not doing so declared to the world how unwilling the UN is to enforce its own decisions

 

I'm a little unclear on how not attacking Iraq portrayed the UN in that manner. Could you please clarify that? Thanks

 

(IMO the US should have stood back and let the world discover its mistake. It's called "picking your battles carefully". We don't seem to be very good at it' date=' but we're going to need to learn, and learn fast.)

[/quote']

 

Good point. yes, they need to learn when to keep their noses out of things, and when to intervene. If its a matter of internal security, as long as there's no evidence of a breach of the Geneva Convention or other human rights conventions, then the country in question should be allowed to deal with it themselves. Unless of course they appeal for military aid, then its a different question.

 

Well put. I hope the arab world figures that out.

 

Thanks. I hope so too. And it seems like they are figuring it out, slowly but surely.

 

LazerFazer

For two and three, just draw a free body diagram for each situation, and then do a sum of the forces in the x- and y-. It should be simple after that.

LazerFazer

@ Pangloss

Actually Al Qaeda has declared war on Muslims as well' date=' and the US Government hasn't declared war on Muslims at all -- they're at war against terrorists who happen to be Muslims.

[/quote']

 

Yes, its now seems that AlQaeda is prepared to do achieve their goals through any means. Even if that means the destruction of what they are fighting for. As for the US, can you really say they are only at war with terrorists? Perhaps thats true, but it seems to me that they have yet to make a distinction between terrorists and Muslims. Do you see them going after North Korea? NO. They go after Iraq instead, when there was absolutely no threat from Saddam Husseins regime. You have to question the motives of the 'Coalition of the Willing'. But I'm actually pleased by the success of US-Jordanian and US-Egyptian relations. Over the years they've strengthened, and hopefully the general population can realise that.

 

And if there's one thing that's certain about these bombings in Jordan' date=' it's that this fact has now been graphically demonstrated to an Arab world that was not previously very interested in the anti-terrorism side of the argument.

[/quote']

 

Yup, and that brings back the point that this could quite well be the beginning of the end for AlQaeda. Seriously, what were they thinking. Do they want the entire Arab world to collapse economically? Because it sure seems that way.

 

@Douglas

If you assume that Zarqawi isn't stupid (and I do)' date=' you have to wonder what his stategy is.

[/quote']

 

Well, it seems like his aim at least is to get all the foreigners out of there no matter what. Strategy... Not so clear.

 

@Skye

Care to clarify please?

 

LazerFazer

Interesting comparisons there. I too wonder about the relevance of both Jordan and Egypt being strong supporters of the United States. It does seem like US allies are being targeted, but as Tiger's Eye acknowledged, Jordanian youths are protesting against the attacks. Could this be the beginning of the end of AlQaeda? Also, this further prooves a statement that I made in a different thread about Islam not being a religion of intolerance and militarism. It IS a religion of peace, something that collectively we all want.

Another thing... Not only is this a "logistical nightmare" in terms of the dead and injured, but also the long-term effects of these bombings. Living in Egypt, we see first-hand the economic effects of terrorist bombings, and I tell you they're not pleasent. Firstly Jordan has closed its land borders, so theres already a drop in trade with other nations. Then the tourism industry is going to suffer a major decline due to security fears. Much like the airline industry declined after September 11, so will the tourism industry in Jordan. It's a good thing Jordan has other means of foreign income, unlike Egypt which relies heavily on tourism income. Overall, I think this plan is initially going to get AlQaeda what they want (Foreigners leaving the region), but then it's going to turn back and haunt them. Who knows, maybe the world will finally realize that uniting is the only way to eradicate this foe.

Now one thing that I noticed is that the policies of AlQaeda and that of the US government are similar ideologically. AlQaeda has basically declared a war against non-Muslims, while the US government has declared war on Muslims. If they work together, who knows, they might be able to destroy the entire world. Wonder who would be happy then.

LazerFazer

Alright, people have repeatedly asked me to provide evidence for many of my claims, primarily the one that Islam is a religion of peace. Well, I have finally found concrete evidence that I hope will convince the many skeptics around here that Islam does not preach death, destruction, and terrorism.

[Quran 7:28] They commit a gross sin' date=' then say,

"We found our parents doing this, and GOD

has commanded us to do it." Say,

"GOD never advocates sin.

Are you saying about GOD

what you do not know?"

[/quote']

 

And also an echo of sorts of what I said a couple of posts ago:

 

Like all the other religions of God' date=' Islam (Submission in English) promotes peace, love and harmony among the people. Actually the word "Islam" in addition to meaning submission (to God), is also derived from the Arabic word Salam (peace). The Muslims (Submitters) greet other people by saying Salaam (Peace be upon you).

[/quote']

 

And another quote, this time advocating peace with Quraanic backing:

 

[Quran 5:87] ... and do not aggress; GOD dislikes the aggressors.

 

[Quran: 7:199] ......You shall resort to pardon' date=' advocate tolerance, and disregard the ignorant.

[/quote']

 

And now taking a stance on killing:

[Quran 6:151] "...... You shall not kill - GOD has made life sacred - except in the course of justice. These are His commandments to you' date=' that you may understand."

 

[Quran17:33'] "You shall not kill any person - for GOD has made life sacred - except in the course of justice. ....."

 

Just some proof, as I said, that Islam is a peacefull religion. The actual article is really long, so here is the link to it.

 

Cheers,

LazerFazer

@aommaster

Not sure what the full title is... but its by Brian Greene.

As for the falling apart of QM and GR, I was under the impression that it's when you use BOTH together that you get nonsense values. Such as infinite probabilities, and things like that. And yes, combining the two would be required in the case of a black hole, which is both massive (gravitationally) and miniscule (spatially).

LF

I think the half-equations for the formation of NaCl would be:

Na --> Na+ + e-

Cl + e- --> Cl-

And the same for the others. (I might be wrong tho... havent taken chem now for about half a year)

cheers,

LF

Well, you could evaluate whats in the limit for successively smaller values of x, thereby determining the limit. That's the brute-force method.

There is another, more 'mathematical' method, which is basically multiplying the top and bottom by the conjugate of the top. So multiply the entire thing by

[math]

((x+27)^{1/3}+3)

[/math]

on the top and bottom. Then factor out any common factors, and substitute 0 for x and solve.

Cheers,

LF

Have you ever heard of circular functions? They consist of many points, which have no dimension, therefore yes, it is possible.

it`s USUALY understood that the LEADER has taken this position and not the whole country' date=' there were millions of people here against the war in Iraq for example. so I think she understands this

[/quote']

 

While I know this, and obviously so do you, it appears that bettina doesn't. SHe seems to be making most or all of her inferences about Islam based on the comments of one person, and she is rejecting any other evidence that we've proposed contradicting her claims. So I just want to clarify that for her.

 

LazerFazer

Alright, I don't have much time, so I'll try to be quick.

Well, I don't think it should be ignored. While these comments may demonstrate immaturity on the parts of the leadrs, the same comments sometimes betray their intentions of the leader. Although in this case, I question the ability of Iran to invade, and hold control of, Israel. Also, Mr. Ahmadinejad's comments MIGHT be hinting at a possible nuclear strike, assuming they DO acquire at least one nuclear warhead. In any case, I doubt the Iranian president is so blind to the facts that he would even CONSIDER an attack on a staunch ally of the US. It would be suicide, in all senses of the word.

@JohnB

Cheers for the vote of approval

@skye

I don't quite get your point. How would the Palestinian Authority fit in to the equation with Iran and Israel?

@Tiger's Eye

Cheers also for the vote of approval. Hope there's many more threads like this that are 'worth reading' . You also made some excellent posts there and contributed to the discussion. I'm in agreement with all your points, except one... but I'll address that later.

@bettina

Thanks for bringing in that news article. See, you found your own evidence of so-called 'terrorist' nations actually condemning the comments made by Mr. Ahmadinejad. As for me not being a moderator, thats true, but I was just recommending that you do a bit of research on Islam before making certain comments that you HAVE made over the past few days. The only thing I can tell you is that the leader of Iran does not represent the views all Muslims around the world. Don't take the comments of one man as your base for judging all Muslims, because it just isn't true.

LazerFazer

That is sort of what a black hole is considered to be. Its a hole in space time - I'd just like to know how string theory would explain this.

Heres how I understand it. String theory allows for these 'tears' in space-time, because it states that little strings would 'wrap' around the tears, at the time of forming, and thus prevent the entire universe from collapsing. The key is that without strings, tears would not be possible because the universe would collapse (or a string of catastrophic events would be set off, eventually destroying the universe). Also, when these tears and re-stitchings of space-time are applied to certain Calabi-Yau spaces (the descriptions for the 6 curled-up dimensions), they re-form into a different Calabi-Yau space with the exact same physical properties as the original. This also explains worm-holes within the context of string theory.

Oh, and if I'm wrong, please correct me. I'm kinda new to string theory.

Cheers,

LazerFazer

@ecoli:

Very valid points you've made there. I just need to clarify a few of my unclear points.

I've mentioned 'you' quite a few times, especially with relation to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I didn't mean YOU personally, but rather I meant, for example, that the Israeli civilians haven't done anything to wrong the Palestinians, and as such they should not be made to suffer because of the actions of their governments.

Excuse me' date=' but I didn't mean to make it sound like I'm making fun of the Islamic faith.

[/quote']

 

Oh, sorry. I guess I was worked up and took it the wrong way. *blushes*

 

I wish they authorities of the religion were more vocal and adament about condemming the actions of the terrorist. From what I hear on the news' date=' it sounds like the leaders of the Muslim world (at least in the Middle East) are all leaders of the terrorist organizations. I hope this is not true.

[/quote']

 

Well, that’s a problem. Islam, unlike other religions, does not have a set hierarchy of religious leaders. In effect, everybody is on the same religious leaders, so it's difficult to get a 'leader' to condemn the attacks. I'm assuming you meant a leader of a Muslim nation should condemn the attacks, so I'll respond with that in mind. As far as I know, Muslim leaders have condemned suicide attacks every time they've occurred. I'll try to find some proof of this, but it might take some time.

 

I think outsiders should get involved with rebuilding' date=' but I don't think too many people are trying to move on this one... maybe they think it'll promote bad relations with Israel... I'm just not sure.

[/quote']

 

Very valid point there. The international community needs to take action to help the people of Palestine. How can a nation with 50% of the population living under the poverty line be expected to help themselves out of 'the hole' so to speak. But yes, perhaps they are afraid of provoking not only Israel, but also their staunch ally, the US. And since the US apparently doesn't need approval for anything it does, they could be afraid that they'll be next on the 'To Do' list.

 

The problem is that if Israel takes the initiative and stop responding to terrorist attacks' date=' then many people will die before the terrorists get the message... if they get the message at all.

[/quote']

 

Yup, agreed. What I propose is that an international peace keeping force be established and sent to the region, acting as a buffer and thereby ensuring that a) Israeli forces do not continue with their policy of collective punishment and b) Palestinian suicide bombers do not kill innocent civilians.

 

I'm not making this up' date=' if that's what you're thinking.

[/quote']

 

Oh, don't worry. I also studied the history of the conflict, and I know this did in fact happen.

 

The nation of Israel IS the people of Israel.

 

Well' date=' what I meant was at least he hasn't proposed that the world kill off every single Israeli or Jew. Now THAT would definitely be cause for concern. More so than just calling for the eradication of a state. And yes, I agree that they Israeli people will not be content living under a foreign power, but at least they'll still be alive.

 

But overall, I do agree with most of your points. You're an interesting debate partner. Rational, open-minded, and at least you don't hold any prejudice towards Muslims, Arabs, etc.

 

And yes, if there was a distinct, direct, and certain threat, then I would support the use of either force or economic sanctions to diffuse the situation. The thing with sanctions though is that the local population is also harmed in the process, so more focused economic sanctions are required, rather than the Oil embargo that was placed on Iraq, for example.

 

@bettina

 

Now you are proving to be a tough nut to crack. It seems that your hatred for terrorists has exploded into a blind hatred of all Muslims. You fail to realize that those people calling for the eradication of Israel and of the West are a very small minority within Islam. I wonder if they would even be considered Muslims, considering they are not exactly preaching the ideal form of Islam. You want evidence? Fine, I'll give it to you.

 

Exhibit 1

 

If you want more evidence, check out my previous posts. Or you could read a translation of the Quraan (as I suggested earlier) so that you see first-hand what Islam really teaches. Once again, don't bring your unwarranted, misinformed, sophomoric prejudices where they are not welcome. First get a clue, and then make an INFORMED decision. And no, CNN and FOX news don't count.

 

@Pangloss

 

Some well-thought-out posts there' date=' Lazer.

[/quote']

 

Thanks.

 

I don't mena to put words in your mouth' date=' because you haven't actually said this (so please straighten me out if this isn't what you meant), but why would it be okay to say that we should have stopped Germany before WW2, but it's not okay to stop Iran before they get the bomb? Aren't the two situations roughly and reasonably analogous?

[/quote']

 

Well, I stand corrected. Yes, the situations are analogous. I guess if Iran were to acquire/produce a nuclear weapon, they would probably not hesitate to use it. But what I'm saying is, don't just assume they're making weapons. Give them the benefit of the doubt, at least until there's solid evidence. I would assume that it’s not easy to hide an assembly site for a nuclear weapon. As I said, the enrichment could be for peaceful purposes, such as fuel for power stations.

 

I'm not really taking major issue with you' date=' by the way. I'm enjoying the discussion. I feel like I have to say that, feeling somewhat responsible for raising the Nazi thread-killing spectre, for which I hope I will be forgiven.

[/quote']

 

Oh, don't worry. No hard feelings. I enjoy the debate as well, but I tend to get frustrated when people call Islam a religion of warmongers. And no forgiveness required for inserting the Nazi thread in here. I guess it made me see some sense.

 

Oh, and by the way, I was just wondering. Anybody here living in/lived in the Middle East before? What's your thoughts on Islam, and how do you perceive it?

 

Cheers,

LazerFazer

@skye:

Good point there. See, there is an alternative to war... DIALOGUE AND DIPLOMACY

@ ecoli:

Well, here goes...

what you see as desperation I see as mis-education.

Perhaps miseducation' date=' but miseducation arising out of desperation. Once again, look at those economic figures I posted. We always hear about the level of poverty in Africa, but nobody stands up for the Palestinians. But still, miseducation nonetheless. Another reason why we should focus our efforts on things other than basic humanitarian relief.

Why would a person kill themselves despite not seeing the benefits (if you can call the death of innocent benefits), it's because these people think that they are doing an act so righteous that they can go to heaven and party with Allah and the 70 virgins that their do. Killing Israeli's and Westerners is considered a holy act.

No, I didn't mean killing the innocents as the benefit. Obviously they think that killing the innocents will have some OTHER effect, which is what I was referring to with that. I definitely do not believe that the death of an innocent is something to celebrate about. "Go to heaven and party with Allah". Excuse me, but to borrow a term from Tiger's Eye, that’s a low blow. That is not the case, and do not try to degrade beliefs in a religion simply because you do not agree with them. Yes, dying in the service of your religion is rewarded with instant admission to Heaven, but killing women and children is NOT considered in the service of religion. They haven't done anything wrong to you, and as such they shouldn't have to suffer. And no, killing Israeli's and Westerners isn’t considered a holy act, otherwise all the Muslims in the Western world would be out killing their neighbours. It just shows that there are a few people (relative) who are misguided, and that the entire religion does not support them.

And I know that the Palestinians are poor' date=' but there don't seem to be trying to help themselves out of that one.

[/quote']

 

On the contrary, they are not ALLOWED to help themselves out of it. The Israeli army has repeatedly destroyed Palestinian businesses, and has effectively sealed off their connections with the rest of the world. When the Israeli's left, they destroyed everything, so no, there wasn't much, if anything, left for the Palestinians to use. And even so, you've got to give them time. You can't expect them to bounce back from decades of occupation in a single night, week, month, or even a year. It will surely take years for the reconstruction and re-development to become effective, and we just have to wait patiently.

 

Maybe if the the terrorist stop trying to blow the Israeli's up' date=' then they'd realize that they could have that to.

[/quote']

 

Good point there. Yes, the suicide bombings need to stop. There can be no negotiations when the two sides are killing each other. But one side has to take the initiative, and sadly I don't see the Palestinian militants doing that. They are too blinded by their own agendas to realise what needs to be done.

 

Israel has pulled out of Gaza' date=' what are the Palestinians doing?

[/quote']

 

Again, the Palestinians do not have the capability to take matters into their own hands. The Israelis have destroyed almost every correctional facility they had, and they've also all but destroyed the law enforcement capabilities of the Palestinian people. So I ask again, how can a nation that can barely afford to prevent anarchy stop militants?

 

Israel won that peace treaty through war. Egypt wanted the Sinai Desert back and Israel wanted peace. But don't forget who attacked who in the first place.

 

Yes' date=' but there's still peace, even now, decades after the conflict. That's what I was hinting at... that Arab states CAN live with Israel.

 

And since when do the surrounding Arab nations care about their "Palestinian brothers." As I said before, the Palestinians tried to seek refuge when Israel was created, and they were turned away at the borders.

 

Do you think that if the Palestinians had left they would have had anywhere to go back to? Israel would have seized that land, claiming it's unused, and then where would we have been? I'd rather not think about that, but its a fact that cannot be ignored.

 

They just said that they want to wipe Israel off the map... what do you think there going to do this by peaceful negotiaitons? What constitutes as a crime against humanity for you? How many people have to die before you consider it a crime against humanity?

 

Well' date=' I'm assuming they referred to the nation of Israel, not necessarily the people of Israel, so no crime against humanity there. Although I do believe that would be against the UN charter, not sure though. I adhere to the Geneva convention, so what that says is a crime against humanity so do I.

 

Right, because the Ottoman Empire was able to take over the entire Bysantium empire and much of Asia by asking nicely.

 

Your point? And do we REALLY want to go into the numerous military conquests over the centuries? Again, my main point here was that even when Muslims do go to war, they don't attempt to eradicate the conquered people.

 

Yes' date=' but unfortunately, those are the people who hold the most sway. It only takes one person to be a suicide bomber. Perhaps not the entire population agrees with what they're doing, but it only takes one organization to cause hundreds of people to die. That's what fanaticism is, it's forcing you ideals on other people...

[/quote']

 

Exactly, which is why its important to educate people about the truth. So that they can see past the fanatics, and so that they can see past the biases that are presented to them in the news. And also so that they can realise the error of their ways, and try to correct them.

 

And while the majority of the population isn't rejoicing every time a Westener dies' date=' how many are secretely glad?

[/quote']

 

I guess we'll never know. But as long as they don't show their support, the movement will die out eventually.

 

@Tiger's Eye

 

Good points there. And you're most welcome

 

LazerFazer

Yes, that actually is an identity

[math]

cos(2 \theta )=cos^{2} ( \theta ) - sin^{2} ( \theta ) =2cos^{2} ( \theta) - 1 = 1 - 2sin^{2} ( \theta )

[/math]

LF

@ecoli:

If you think that the palestinian terrorist attacks will stop' date=' just because Israel want's to "leave them alone" then you are sorely mistaken.

[/quote']

 

Well, the answer to this lies in the root of the problem. Why, do you think, would a person give up his/her life, knowing that he/she will not live to see the benefits/repercussions of his/her act? What would cause a promising young person to so willingly forfeit his/her life, for no immediate benefit? Desperation. That’s what. Have you seen the figures of Palestinian poverty? Over 50% of Palestinians live below the poverty line. In Gaza alone, 77% of the population live below the poverty line, with 23% of them living in 'deep poverty'. That means 23% of the people in Gaza cannot afford even basic supplies. Another thing. Israel has repeatedly destroyed the infrastructure of the Palestinian people, and then blamed them for not ensuring peace and stability in the region. Tell me, how can such a state combat terrorism, when the majority of their prisons and police stations have been destroyed by the Israeli army as ‘precautionary measures’? All I'm saying is that if you give the Palestinians a chance, give them a bit of leeway so that they can prove themselves. And then, if they fail to make good use of that time and that chance, then you can continue to blame them.

 

The Arabs want Israel out of that region...

 

True' date=' but we know that’s never going to happen. But don't you think that if the Arab nations see that the needs of the Palestinians are being taken care of, they might be more willing to settle their own disputes peacefully? Look at Egypt. They have a peace treaty with Israel, and nothing bad has come out of it. True, the sentiment amongst the local populus isn't on the side of Israel, but again, can you blame them? They are subject to images of their brothers (in religion at least) under occupation and under oppression. How would that make you feel? Again, once the Palestinians needs are taken care of, the situation will diffuse greatly.

 

And good point about Oklahoma bombings. Just goes to show that its not only 'Muslims' that are 'terrorists', but also other disgruntled people.

 

@Pangloss:

 

As for the issue of whether they have the right to build them, one can say the same thing about Nazi Germany. Of course they have the right. The question is whether we're going to allow it.

 

I don't see how that relates to Nazi Germany. They had NO right to attempt to commit crimes against humanity. Iran, as of yet, has no such intentions. They only intend to acquire the weapons, but perhaps it would be better not to let them have it. After all, you're right, we don't know what they plan on doing with it. The best bet would be to eliminate all weapons of mass destruction. But that's an idealist view on life. That’s never going to happen.

 

@john5746

 

True, the Muslims did use force, but always as a last resort. In the first few years of Islam, the Muslims usually shied away from confrontation as much as possible, and only when they were faced with no other option did they use military force to overcome their enemies. But the point that I was making is that even when force was used, never was there a needless loss of life. Oh, and Islam actually preaches tolerance to all 'People of the book' i.e. Muslims, Jews, Christians. According to the Quraan, these three religions are continuations of each other, with Islam being the final 'product' so to speak. And yes, people have used the excuse of religion to further their own goals, but these people are most definitely not holy fighters (Mujahideen). Once again, Islam only says to use force if you are attacked. Basically, fight fire with fire.

 

Most civilized countries have seperated religion from government.

 

As far as I know (although I could well be wrong)' date=' no other religion actually provides a framework for a political system. Mainly because the areas where they were revealed into already had an established political system, as rudimentary as it was. Arabia was a desert with many different tribes, each vying for their own supremacy. Islam brought along with it a cause to unite all the tribes of the peninsula; a common factor: religion. It also brought along a political framework, its own set of laws, if you wish, that state how a nation should be governed. If you want more info, search Sharia' or Islamic Law on Google (with the end single-quote).

 

What we *do* know, is that every terrorist act against the U.S., from Pan Am/Lockerbie to the world trade center was commited by Islamic peope.

 

You know, I actually agree with you and yet I disagree with you. First, I am warmed that you used the term 'Islamic people' instead of Muslims, although that might have just been a coincidence. As I stated earlier in this post, those who use Islam as a front for attacking innocents are misguided. Islam says to only attack if provoked, and to only attack those that have wronged you or your family/tribe/clan/country/religion/etc. Although it isn't my call to make, I wouldn’t consider these people Muslims unless they make a very strong case for the argument that they were wronged in some way by the people they killed. Just killing innocents to prove a point goes against my morals and against my religion. As I said, even when the Muslims conquered enemy cities, they allowed the occupants to remain there, to keep their religion, and even left the political and social structure in-tact. They most definitely did not promote any type of prejudice or any type of mass-killing.

 

@bettina

My "clue" is what I see' date=' read, and hear in the news. Same place you would get your information. My "clues" are beheadings, death to America, death to Israel, thousands and thousands chanting in the streets, women beaten and stoned in the streets, etc etc.....I could go on and on, and I can name some weirdo clerics in charge of a weirdo religion if you wish...

 

A religion full of hate and dominance is all I see. Look at some Islamic web sites and tell me I don't have a clue.

[/quote']

 

Yes, that’s all you see because that’s all that the news companies feel is worth broadcasting. Do you honestly see in the news a young man helping an elderly woman across the street? Or do you see a young man killing his mother for who-knows-what. You need to look deeper than just the news as your source of information. Also, the news is pretty biased, so don't let that cloud your mind either. And no, I don’t get my information from the news. I get it from living in the Middle East for 9 years of my life. And not once have I seen this "religion full of hate and dominance" in the general populus. As for the "death to Israel..." and people in the streets, it’s only what, 10,000 people out of the entire population of a country? So you can't honestly say that’s the general feeling in the Arab world. And even so, they would have merit, seeing as Israel is primarily responsible for the plight of the Palestinian people. (And don't tell any Arab I said this, but it could well be personal pride. They DID loose 2 wars to the Israelis, and so I'm guessing their pride is just a bit dented because of that.) "Women beaten and stoned in the streets" again, its just a small bit of the population. Those few websites that you see don't represent the entire religion of Islam. Seriously, I suggest you get a reputable translation of the Quraan and read it, if only to see just what Islam is all about.

 

Hope this clarifies some points about the nature of Islam, and also hope you people will spread this knowledge so that more people can become aware of Islam. After all, our strongest weapon is knowledge.

 

Cheers,

LazerFazer

Wait, I thought work was a change in energy also?

So would it be correct in saying:

[math]

W = \Delta E

[/math]

[math]

\Delta E = mg \Delta h + \frac 12m \Delta v^{2}

[/math]

[math]

W = mg \Delta h + \frac 12m \Delta v^{2}

[/math]

Also, isn't the runner applying a force onto the road, therefore HE/SHE is doing work ON the road. At the same time, the ROAD is doing work on HIM/HER? And since work is a scalar quantity, do they really cancel out, or do they just add to each other?

LF

Or you could try here.

Gives a pretty comprehensive list of equations.

LF

It becomes clear now that Iran (a) intends to acquire nuclear weapons' date=' and (b) believes it has a moral imperative to destroy Israel.

[/quote']

 

I fail to see how that makes it clear that Iran intends to acquire nuclear weapons. And even if they do, who's to say that they have no right in having such weapons? Is it a matter of trust? Then its safe to say that we cannot trust the US, seeing as they all but said 'Screw you' to the UN. Is it because they are a Muslim nation? If so, read my post a while ago. Is it because it threatens poor baby Israel? Well, i guess then Israel should stop with their attacks on Palestinian people. Israel should leave the Palestinians alone, and that includes getting the hell out of all Palestinian territories. And allowing them to trade with anybody they want to. Then we'll see an end to the violence, and then all the nations of the world can unite and recognize Israel as a nation, and then this issue would be dead.

 

And no, I dont support Iran's stance on this, just making a point that theres more than what meets the eye.

 

LF

Well, if a tree falls in a forest, is there still the sound wave? Yes,there is sound, but there is no NOISE, because noise is just our ear's interpretation of the sound waves.

And yes, you can tell the difference between boiled and unboiled water, as has been stated here prior to my post.

LF

Thirdly, the Islamic religion is full of murder, lies, and betrayals.

Please, don't talk about things you have no clue about. Have you ever read the Quraan? Have you ever listened to what the 'weirdo clerics' say in the mosques? Have you ever even taken any PROPER courses in the nature of Islam or the ideals within Islam? Well then, I would say you are most definately not qualified to make any value judgements against Islam. Just take a look at the root of the word "ISLAM" (if you don't speak Arabic, then thats gonna be a bit of a problem). It comes from the word Salaam which means peace in Arabic. So, even the Name preaches peace. And the traditional Muslim greeting translates to "Peace be upon you". You want more evidence that Islam is a peace-loving religion? Of the many Muslim conquests in the past, one stands out the most mainly because both Muslims and Christians conquered this place. I'm talking of course about Jerusalem. When the Crusaders conqured it, what did they do? Slaughtered every single occupant of the city. Men, Women, Children. They 'cleansed' it completely. When the Muslims conquered, what did they do? They let people do what they wanted. Those who wanted to leave left, and those who wanted to stay stayed. Again, I tell you, Islam is NOT a religion of killing, war, lies or betrayal.

Although I do agree that the future seems very bleak at the moment.

LazerFazer

'eradicating Israel'

That sounds familiar!!!

Personally, I disagree with the entire idea of eradicating any nation. It doesn't solve any problems, only creates more. And anyway, that would have to go through the Security Council, and the US will 100% veto any motion or resolution to eradicate Israel.

@bettina

There's no evidence that Iran is using their enrichment facilities for weapons grade material. As I'm assuming you know, even nuclear fuel for power stations requires enrichment, but not to the level that weapons-grade enrichment reaches. Do you really think that we should destroy Iran 'No matter what'? Even at the cost of millions of lives? Would that be worth it? Don't you think that diplomacy is a much better avenue than any military action, especially since the probability of mass loss of life is extremely low? I live in the Middle East, and I can tell you right now that the sentiment amongst the local population towards the US, UN, and UK (all have U's... wonder if thats significant??) isn't too friendly. I wonder why??? The three have repeatedly let the Arabs down since the end of WWII. And with no good reason. How can Arabs trust the US when they are not trusted themselves? If you really want Iran to cooperate and trust the UN, then they need to be shown some trust first. It's strange that way, but somebody needs to make the first move. And even when Iran was being frank and open with UN weapons inspectors, they still weren't trusted. Then they see what happened in Iraq, and guess what's going through their minds? "Gee.... I wonder if we'll be next??" Oh, and dont go calling a country uncivilised. It doesnt foster any productive debate, and only engages negative feelings. And as Tiger's Eye said:

One thing's for sure: wiping out a country will only cause problems that really aren't necessary

cheers,

LazerFazer