padren

I agree, and it really started to bother me during the presidential race. Palin was asked by a reporter about the investigation into her ethics violations, and she said point blank "she was cleared and no ethical violations were found" when quite demonstrably, she was cleared of criminal charges but the investigation concluded she committed ethical violations. Her lie was cited by conservatives as "proof" that the liberal biased media lies - she was right there after all stating she was cleared of ethical violation and yet that crazy liberal media was claiming in other articles she was found guilty of those! The nerve! I absolutely despise "talk over" politics.

How of curiosity, how many models are there for climate change, and how many variables do they each isolate? How much progress has been made on the "Global Dimming" factor due to particulate pollutants? I haven't heard about that aspect in a while, but when it came out it appeared to effect the models pretty significantly. Thing is, I see a lot of talk about "the model" like there is one and a general consensus but is that really true?

Well, as far as "on Bush's watch" goes, you could argue he wasn't watching until after 9-11. I suspect that is actually what the guy meant to be honest - no terrorist attacks on Bush's watch during the War on Terror. Poorly and stated to the point of total inaccuracy (considering the largest terrorist attack in history was while he was President) but probably the point he was trying to make - I wouldn't be surprised if it was an honest mistake and not an intentional deception.

Did you by chance tell her "No, you can't control the rain" or something to that effect right before? It's a well known fact that it is physically impossible to win an argument with a girlfriend, therefore, physics does support the phenomena you observed.

Why would scientists manufacture a global crisis to spend money? Isn't it common knowledge that it's both more profitable and socially acceptable just to manufacture a war? On a more serious note while we avoid "appeals to authority" as a logical fallacy and stick to logical arguments based on empirical evidence... for those that are overwhelmed by the logical arguments and don't know how to assess the evidence, they are effectively being asked to "trust us, we know" as if we were the defacto authority. They are of course, free to investigate the issues themselves, make rational, logical challenges but that doesn't help if they are incapable of making such challenges. They could take a huge amount of time out of their lives to try and get up to speed (and considering the dire situation, I don't personally feel that's a lot to ask) but if they feel they cannot do this due to busy work lives and bad experiences with learning science in the past, then what tools do they really have to evaluate the issue? We can see through a lot of this and understand the terrain, but they are being led around in the dark, by the very people they used to give wedgies to and shove in lockers. Sadly, it's easy to feed distrust in such situations.

I recently addressed this question in a post here: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=45939&page=4#75 I hope it helps answer some of your questions on the nature of this dilemma. It is not a matter of the particles acting like they "know" they are observed, but an issue arising from the fact that when we deal with the "very small" any attempt to measure them interferes with them - thus it's a mechanical problem, not a philisophical one. Strong feelings of how something works - whether ultimately correct or wrong - almost always interferes with the discovery of the process. If your convictions are correct, then the simple exploration of principles will reveal that your conclusions are correct regardless of whether you have strong feelings or not. Strong feelings interfere - we may avoid a theory we feel is on the wrong track and runs contrary to our convictions, only to realize much later it supports our original conviction. That certainty almost always pulls us in one direction or another when we should always follow the direction of where facts and observation lead us without bias for where that may go. For this reason I recommend "suspending judgment" and trying to explore the concepts without concern for how they may impact your convictions or lend/detract credibility from them. It's a very useful exercise that can only help your theory if it is in fact accurate, or alternatively find a better theory in the event your original one is not. I am certainly out of my depths on this one, I'll leave that to others. Honestly, Mooey isn't treating you like a stupid person. Perhaps you felt she was patronizing you, but I assure you she was merely trying to politely explain how ideas are discussed here and help you learn about the community - she is not a disrespectful person. Her statements are quite understandable as you are new here and may not be up to speed on the conventions of how we discuss topics. The simple fact of the matter is you have an idea and you want help with the physics, as you stated. You (1) speculate that dark energy and dark matter are the same thing. That's fine, but how do we test this? How can see verify if this is true or false? At this time, the only way I know how is to either perform an experiment that converts one into the other (difficult with modern technology) or, at least prove that it is supported mathematically. The conversion of matter/energy was first defined mathematically before it was demonstrated experimentally, and it would seem like the best place to start however I don't believe we have very good mathematical models for either dark energy or dark matter at this time. Until we can observe their behaviors in detail, we can't create mathematical models that explain their behaviors. Second, when you bring "thought waves" into the equation it gets far more complex. No such thing as a "thought wave" has ever been detected, measured and as such ever defined, let alone modeled. The brain emits low levels of EM radiation but at such low levels detectors have to be placed directly on the head just to detect them. How can we help in that regard when we don't know what a "thought wave" is or how to measure one? If you could get the double-slit experiment to react to thoughts alone - then it would be measurable. Then we could examine the interaction, and explore how the interaction was occurring. Until we can see some interaction though, it's really hard to explore the interaction. It's nothing personal and it's not a statement against your idea - it's just the bare bone requirements so we can work with your idea.

My memory of the Clinton administration and the absolute shutdown created by Republicans following the mid-term elections in 1994, in conjunction with the foaming at the mouth rabid rantings of people like Newt Gingrich culminating in republican behavior up to and including the 2000 election... all invokes a slightly different recollection. It was an absolutely despicable time for Republicans that resulted in the expiration of the Independent Counsel due to their gross abuse of it's office. All this while a Democrat sat in the White House.

It's like going to the doctor and finding out you have a massive tumor: either it's a malignant mass of Republicans bent on metastasizing, or a benign but useless mass of Democrats that does nothing but consume resources. Literally though, both groups are deceptive with Republicans being a little more "honest" due to their unveiled contempt for anyone that thinks differently than themselves. Democrats are more concerned with how others see them and think they can "educate" the masses to think like them, where as Republicans don't care if you die in the gutter if you are too slow to "get it" and do things their way. I have to say I consider the Republicans more dangerous, in the same way outright aggression is more dangerous than passive aggressive behavior but both are undesirable. When a Democrat attempts to "educate" others they are susceptible to inadvertently learning new ideas and ways of thinking, whereas Republicans appear by and large to care very little about intellectual honesty, integrity or the use of communication for any purpose other than the direct manipulation of others in a manner suited to their objectives. They are far more likely to exhibit the "divine right" mentality that justifies any and all actions as long as they to forward their goals. In short: I see democrats as misguided, and republicans as hellbent.

Just a point of clarification, I'd like to mention that "observation" (as I understand it, an expert may clarify or correct me) is not defined as observed by a person, but the effect of an observer in terms of any measurement of the phenomena. The manner in which this confounds people trying to measure quantum phenomena is purely mechanical, due to the scale involved. The reason for this is we are used to measuring things that are being effected by the environment in infinitesimally small ways, but we can measure those infinitesimal effects and thus observe the element we are interested in without impacting it in any serious manner. Consider sunlight: it's perfect for observing anything large enough to see, as photons will bounce off it and reflect in various directions including our eyes and it's thus observed. We know it's "lit" in the same way we know a duck flying in the rain is "wet" but the effect is minimal on it's behavior. When you get small enough though, lets say a fruit fly out in the rain, it is so small it is either dry or crushed by a droplet of rain. Go even smaller, and something is either "in the dark" or completely knocked off course by a single photon. Once we hit that scale anything we use to observe it will influence it. This is how the "observer" influences quantum phenomena - and the issue is purely mechanical. We thus call it the "observer problem" because no matter what tool we pull out to try and measure it with the end result is the same: the tool has too large of an impact on the phenomena observed to give us any information on how it would behave if we had not tried to observe it. When you use a volt meter to measure current, the tweaking of the needle changes the current, but the disturbance is generally too small to effect the observation or can be accounted for. When the needle of a compass indicates the presence of a magnetic field, it effects the field it is responding to. I am sure you are familiar with the quote "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction" and it's the crux of the problem: where in the past we have used smaller things to measure bigger things without upsetting the behavior of the bigger thing - we have nothing smaller to use when we measure quantum phenomena. Everything we have to throw at it will upset the system in such a chaotic way we cannot extrapolate the state at the moment we tried to observe it. It's like trying to measure the flight path of a bullet by shooting bowling balls at it and listening for the 'clink' of a midair collision: You can measure it then, but the path of the bullet has been irrevocably changed as soon as you hear that clink. That's the meaning of "observer," and if no one hears the clink but the collision occurs, the results are the same. It's not nearly as ominous as it sounds.

Nuclear submarines do this today but use fission, as you said you'd need a hydrogen based fusion reactor to avoid requiring external sources for the nuclear fuel. In nuclear submarines today, food is the largest limiting factor as far as I know - air can be produced in the manner you mentioned, water I imagine can be purified as well (ydoaPs would know better) and the fuel can last years. If you want to live underwater indefinitely though, you could always just move to Seattle.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1230092/Patient-trapped-23-year-coma-conscious-along.html Honestly this is one of the scariest things I can imagine. I would suspect this is a fairly rare occurrence, though I am glad apparently technology is getting better at identifying such cases. I have no idea how the mind could cope with that and not go insane. Not sure what I even have to say on the topic but I felt it was worth sharing. Maybe I'll think of more to say when I am less distracted by cold shivers down my spine just thinking about it!

I think it's really hard to sort through this without really reading all the leaked information, and with an idea of how much information was there in the first place that was not leaked, ie if it was leaked selectively at all. My first thought is that most "anti-global warming activists" have very little appreciation for how much debate goes on within the scientific community on all research. Attacking a research paper as flawed that is later released as sound could look like a conspiracy to cover up those flaws - but the question is whether that attack was rebutted and debated until it was considered solid enough to release. Lets examine the idea of a paper that contradicts AGW and someone trying to suppress it's publication - which would naturally appear to be a smoking gun to the "Antis" out there: 1) Paper contradicts much established evidence 2) The people who wrote it want to publish it 3) People in climatology are - A) skeptical of the research due to bias (not evidence) and - B) aware of the political damage that could be done if it is published prematurely Would attempting to keep it from being published then be considered conspiracy, or due diligence in such a case? I would argue if publication was suppressed despite all vetting of the evidence and material pointing to it being sound, then it would be. If there are open questions they want answered first to ensure it's not a political hack job with bad numbers, selective sampling, and all the trimmings of a paper that would be DOA just so some nay-sayers without any regard for the scientific process to cite out of context later then there is nothing wrong with fighting that publication. The real sad part is people in the scientific community that want to focus on research, are being forced to play politics. They have to deal with disingenuous individuals trying to "play the system" that if they ignore can damage their solid work and waste their time and energy. When they discuss how to deal with those who are playing the system, they are accused of playing the system themselves. It would take some serious evidence to truly damage their reputations in my mind, perhaps because I am already sympathetic to their situation. That, and I think if you released all the climate change emails from all the "Antis" you'd get a much bigger plume of smoke.

Those are my thoughts. I like to think the main obstacle is scarcity - humans are never more despotic than on a sinking ship with one lifeboat, and never more compassionate than when suffering of others can be alleviated without fear of rationing the limited means we have to survive ourselves. Resistance to needed social assistance, health care, and foreign aid always seems to boil down to how "the parasites will pull us all down" mentality of too little to go around. I think technology can help overcome this, but at the same time as technology grows so do we and we always seem to live on the edge of "just enough to get by ourselves." I'd like to live in a society with exceptional means and a remarkable ability to live within them without stunting itself.

I agree, though I have to say it seems neither party care "enough" for progress to be effective. I think many Republicans genuinely believe the convictions they profess, even if it is the result of self serving cognitive dissonance. It seems both parties suffer from enough genuine misgivings, self serving misgivings resulting from poor character, and blatant corruption that the individuals who genuinely want to act in the people's interests are simply outgunned.

For all the cynicism I have for politics, it is still really hard to understand just how things like this happen. We can say if it wasn't for the lobbies, we'd have true universal healthcare sometime soon - but how can people be that susceptible to simple bribery? I can understand why if someone genuinely believes universal coverage will lead to the destruction of western civilization that they'd oppose it, but that can't be most people in politics, especially the "Blue Dogs" specifically. I also understand how even unsolicited bribery can change people's thinking - they benefit if an open question has a specific answer whether they asked for that benefit or not, and without even realizing it they end up grasping at straws to rationalize any way that specific answer could still fit that question. In this case the question is how to deal with our health care crisis and the answer is by letting the industry make the adjustments itself... but that has gotten so desperate how can any democrat still go along with this? We hear these canned speeches and we feel betrayed - are they completely oblivious to that, or do they really not care anymore? Is there no one in their families to ask them wtf they are doing? I've never understood lawyers that proudly represent mobsters either but it seems insane: without lobbyists, we'd expect them to be sane, but due to their influence, these politicians are irredeemable. What scares me is that just doesn't add up to me, and yet it's the world we live in, and that implies the art of influence is far more insidious and dangerous than I've given it credit for.

On the whole I see science as the cultivation and distillation of knowledge about how energy/matter does and has behaved within the universe in a manner that can be applied by many individuals across multiple generations. While an individual can engage in science and apply the scientific method to better understand the world around them I think of "science" as the wider shared endeavor. It's worth noting that science does not tell us what to do with that knowledge, just what we can expect to do with it. It may tell us what to do in order to achieve a given objective most efficiently with the highest probability of success but it does not create or dictate those objectives. We set objectives based on philosophy at some level or another.

I doubt the OP is talking about running recklessly through crowded areas or busy stores, and it's pretty easy to calibrate when you run and by how much. It is of course easy to make a mistake if you're careless but running down a non-crowded street or 'dashing' a little in a store shouldn't put people in jeopardy. However, just as a general practice unless we are exercising we tend to only run in emergencies - which is useful as if we account for running to stay on schedule we have no way to make up for unforeseen delays. Since we tend to only use running in emergencies it naturally tends to draw attention since most who resort to it are in some form of distress. Maybe just to catch a late bus or get to a class on time, or dodging law enforcement - but it usually implies miscalculation and something going wrong on the part of the runner. Aside from that, if you "run" to get ahead in a forming line it can be pretty rude if you pass someone who is walking casually up to the line. People have the general sentiment that we should all be move about at a casual pace and if someone "got there" before you they'd checkout before you, and they could run to beat you - but they want to move at a comfortable pace.

The real question is if this "paper only" economic boost can translate into a self sustaining one as the city becomes active. It's supposed to be a resource driven center (they mentioned coal extraction) so it does have the potential to boost the domestic economy from within. When government money is spent on jobs that consist of digging holes and filling them up, then it's very correct call it for what it is. This seems more like a gamble though - they are betting it will pay off, and it is a lot of infrastructure that can lead to genuine growth. I am skeptical as to whether such a project will work out well because frankly, you now have this giant infrastructure that is starting to weather and decay even before it's put to use and it may take some time before the organic nature of population growth really fills and takes advantage of it. In most cities, new growth occurs as existing infrastructure becomes strained and while that is far less organized it is at least in response to direct demand. They are banking on demand patterns reflecting the plan they already built in - which may work out. It may also lead to some areas being strained and others in decline before they are ever utilized. It will be interesting to see how it develops.

Politics exerts a pressure towards such things, and it is necessary for people to exert a pressure back to keep them in check and their facts straight. To demand consistency may not result in total consistency, but it can only help towards better consistency and thus better policies.

For the record Genecks, it sounds like they were trying to treat a fairly routine illness, something like a cold, flu, bacterial or viral but not life threatening. You also have to think about more than your case. Have you considered what trends were happening at the time? If a particularly nasty bug is going around and a doctor is treating tons of patients all of which with similar symptoms all of which don't respond to antibiotics, your doctor could have been doing you a favor. It's possible you could have had two conditions at once, explaining why antibiotics helped with one issue but not the rest. Honestly I don't know much but I really don't think you have any justification to sue. You have to keep in mind you only see yourself walk into the office, you don't know what is going around at the time. You also aren't a doctor, and you have to realize it isn't there job to make you better. They are supposed to try to diagnose what's wrong, and if they can provide treatment to do so, while at the same time determine whether your health is seriously compromised enough to warrant emergency treatment. You were sick for a few months - welcome to the club. I've been hit with some pretty nasty bugs and doctors could never give me the plate number of the thing that ran me over. The worst I think I've had was 4 months downtime, I did go to a doctor once or twice but there really is no magical test they can do so I just had to get better. Also, unless you get a second opinion that finds something was missed on that x-ray you are pretty much out of luck on malpractice. He apparently found nothing wrong and no danger signs that would warrant emergency treatment. Something was wrong - you were sick after all - but nothing that raised red flags. Honestly I think you should take it in stride. Life is short, doctors aren't perfect, and there's tons of stuff that can kill us that most doctors could be unable to find. We go when we want them to try to help incase we are lucky and have something detectable and treatable, not for a silver bullet.

They should at least be consistent to their claims. If something is illegal because it's bad for your health, if scientific evidence contradicts the claim than they should abandon or refine their claims.

Which is fine and a measure of good socialist policies as a regulated capitalist economy. To find your own employment, negotiate your own wages, own private property and accumulate an uncapped amount of wealth (albeit taxed, but not capped) are all traits of capitalism in your society. My point however, is "a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended" is best handled by capitalist aspects of the society with socialistic regulations to help prevent abuse. This is because "labor expended" is a subjective evaluation. Scientific research alone could either be frivolous waste or arduous labor based solely on whether those in charge of compensation see the research as valuable or not.

Okay, and I do want to say I respect your beliefs with regards to these. What I am curious about though is: what basis did you use to come to those conclusions on those points? You find shapeshifting improbable, and dismiss astrology despite the practice's long history - even Ronald Reagan consulted an astrologist during his presidency. Likewise you find the other points possible or "confirmed" with a 'yes' answer. My point is, while I do honestly respect your beliefs, it appears to me that the basis of your beliefs have to do with personal experiences that can only be conveyed and shared with others as anecdotal evidence - the same classification of evidence that supports shapeshifting and astrology... yet you dismiss those. How can any meaningful discussion occur on the validity of each of those points? No one has any evidence to support their individual positions, just a series of conclusions drawn from an idea of how the world works. These sorts of topics can be rather interesting, but they are not scientific unless there is a body of evidence up to scientific standards to evaluate.

Using scientific data and theory (ranging from information about the big bang, string theory, quantum theory, dark matter, etc etc) as concepts used in postulating a new theory does not automatically make that new theory a scientific theory. There is nothing wrong with theories about supernatural phenomena, philosophy, or meta-natural mechanics[1] of the universe. These however, are not scientific theories unless they are testable in a scientific manner. Science advances our understanding of the world through shared knowledge and to share knowledge the criteria for validation has to be very high because people will always be willing to share information they are certain is accurate even if it contradicts information others are certain is accurate. This immediately flags that certainty is no guarantee of accuracy. If I saw a ghost tonight and even had a long conversation, and the ghost made an accurate prediction about my future tomorrow that came true - that could convince me, but it would not effect my views with regards to science, nor would I try to convince people in the scientific community as to the validity of my experience. It could be completely true and yet it would not matter. My own subjective view of the world may change, but I would have nothing to share with others that could demonstrate the veracity of my experience. Even if my experience was 100% true it would be better for science to ignore it. That is not a weakness of science, but it's strength. It is far better to cautious than cavalier when we are talking about facts that we as a species can agree on. It is important for the work done in Brazil by a biologist to be so carefully documented and tested and retested that when another biologist in India picks up that paper they can be confident that the claims are well established. Work that is speculative is documented as such, but only speculations that can lead to shared knowledge really have any usefulness to others. Feel free to explore any number of philosophical theories about the universe and/or meta-universe, but understand the only evaluation tools others will be able to use is their own personal bias with regards to if it fits a model of the universe they like. You have no other tests that can be effectively shared beyond yourself. One's personal bias is fine too for such theories, but it's really important to differentiate between those and scientific ones. [1]: Made up the term since I don't know the right one - but lots of philosophies define structures in the universe that are invisible and non-accessible to humans alive under normal conditions, that are effectively untestable. Nirvana, limbo, heaven and hell, "the astral planes" and "the cosmic library" etc. All these structures are defined in these philosophies as components in how a model of the 'meta-universe' works and how what we see on a daily basis in the observable universe fits into that model.

Please though, can you clarify what supernatural phenomena you consider to be grounded in real world phenomena, and which supernatural phenomena is the result of illusion or misconceptions? From what I can gather, you seem to believe: 1) Praying can influence events. 2) Positive thinking can influence events (I assume negative thinking too then) 3) Information can be "channeled" in some manner to the mind from the external to the internal thought processes. How do you feel about these supernatural phenomena? 1) Can some humans can transform into animals? 2) Can humans remember past lives? 3) Can the alignment of the stars influence our lives, as per astrology? 4) Can a person control another person with their thoughts, and take over their body? 5) Do ghosts/demons exist, and can they posses people? 6) Is there a race of supernatural blue humans living under Mount Shasta? These either exist or they don't, but they are all examples of supernatural phenomena.