zapatos

Who gave the cows the right to live? Does a rabbit have the right not to be eaten by a hawk? How is this different? Obvious to whom? Certainly not to me.

If this is a centimeter... Then what is this? Answer here. (Hope I did this right!)

An object observed from a distance is a view of the object as it was in the past. The object itself is not in the past. It is still there right now. Just because I can't see how it looks today until tomorrow arrives does not mean it is in the past. I don't believe there are multiple copies of everything, one that exists now, one that exists yesterday, etc.

At one time there were no religious beliefs and now there are. So except for some of the details, I'd say this experiment has already been done.

Can you explain these two statements? I don't understand how something thrown into the past (from the present) did not travel in time. Are you saying that when you throw it into the past it also remains in the present? If so, that is even more confusing.

I don't understand why you want to equate time and space. You can describe everything by only discussing space. Overlaying space with time only confuses things. This is only true if space and time are the same. I guess I need to understand why you belive that. It just seems to add complexity with no benefit, and requires time to have properties that cannot be shown to exist. For example, if I throw a ball to you, it seems as if you are saying that it moves into the past (from my perspective), into the future (from your perspective) and not all through time (from the ball's perspective), all at the same time. Very confusing to me why it is true, and why you want to connect them in this way.

First, it makes the past sound like a place you can go. Second, it did not go to a 'time' you are not in. It simply moved in space. Third, it is not going to a different time (the past), it is simply moved in space to a location where photons take longer to reach you than they did before you threw it.

I can't speak to everything you mention, but for the most part it seems you are not describing what we know about time, but what things have time as a component. 1. we know that motion requires time: nothing can move from one spatial coordinate to another in zero time, it would be a transgression of the Speed Of Light. This is something we know about motion. 2. we know that the rate of time is related to gravity: where gravity is stronger Time flows slower. This is something we know about the model of Relativity. 5. we know that time is linked to space: time alone has no physical meaning, only the spacetime continuum "exists". This is something we know about the model of Relativity. 7. we know that information needs time to travel, it's an extension of point 1 of the OP. As a direct consequence we know that any observation is observation of the past. This tells us about information. 8. we know that distance is related to time: to more an object is far away, the more he is observed in the past (another consequence of point 1) This is something we know about the the speed of light. 9. so we know that if you take a close object, then propulse it far away, you are throwing the object into the past (and not in the future as comonly believed). And that is coherent with point 8. because the object is continuously observable along its path. As the distance increases the object falls into the past. I am not sue what this is.

Victimless crimes often come about when people try to legislate morals. Some example include: http://www.ldp.org.au/policies/1166-victimless-crimes

The question is invalid, a lot of plants aren't green at all What does the fact that some plants are not green, have to do with whether or not aliens would interpret green the same as we would?

You make me think that. You believe God did all of this, but you aren't even trying to find out just what it is He did. The universe is a masterpiece and you act like there is something wrong with looking at and admiring all the details. God gave you your senses, your brain, and this absolutely phenomenal place to live in and explore. And your response seems to be to cover your eyes and ears, refusing to experience it. Understanding the universe is not a betrayal of God. That is what makes me think you are wasting your view. Life is a wonder. Don't squander it.

Come on, you're not even trying. Take the blinders off and have a look around. It's amazing out there. And if you are right about God it would be a shame if you wasted the view while you are here on earth.

Any God who requires people to become amputees so that his plan works out is a total douchbag. Sounds like there is not much difference between God and the devil.

I am quite sure that no one would change their view of the statements you made if they knew your actual age. In fact, I seriously doubt anyone has considered your age at all. You do however seem to be making an astounding number of inaccurate statements for someone who has been on this site for such a short period of time.

Can you please supply some references for any of the things you said here?

At what speed do molecules break apart? Why do molecules break apart at all due to speed? Speed relative to what?

Yes, I'm glad you did wait! Great pictures too. Yeah, that's a good question. And are the non-blobs of light possibly partial images of the distant quasar?

First of all, we resolved in this thread that one picture would not contain multiple pictures of the same galaxy at different locations. Second, I don't know where you heard it's been proven that galaxies barely move, but... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space

Can you explain please? I see nothing wrong with what we worked out and I believe he did indeed 'get it'. Or are you saying I was wrong?

You didn't address this to anyone in particular so I'm going to put in my 2 cents. One of the things I've noticed on this site is that you can call a person just about anything you want as long as it is implied or put diplomatically, and it is not a direct statement. For example, this quote: ...pretty much called you (or whoever was being spoken to), a 'fuckin scientific know it all idiot'. But since it was not directly said to you, there is plausible deniability. 'Oh, I didn't mean him, just, you know, some other guy.' Or if someone says "I think you went inside the Sphere you need some psychological help." Here again, 'Oh, I'm not saying he is crazy, it was just a thought I was having'. Most of your comments were subtle, but when you made your 'jackass' comment, there was no plausible deniability. You called him a jackass. To me there is really not much of a difference. I've been called lots of things on this site, but it is usually put like "Perhaps you are a dumbshit with no ability at all". I think they get away with it because they didn't just straight out say "You are a dumbshit!" I may be wrong but I think the reason you got called out was because you did not diplomatically call him a jackass.

Um, I think you misused the colon.

I think this is too complicated an issue to be decided by whether or not they are 'entitled'. What is the impact of the law? Are funds available? If additional funds to pay for brand names is raised, will it impact other areas? Who should make the determination? Doctors? Patients? Governments? How much of a decrease in drug effectiveness is acceptable? Is it worth listening to people bitch about it? How does this affect the politics of those involved? You probably need a method that is sustainable, effective, and delivers maximum benefit with an acceptable amount of downside. After you've done this, you can feel comfortable telling grandma that she just has to live with what she is given. As an aside, my insurance plan insists on first prescribing generics, but then the doctor has the authority to use other brands if the effectiveness of the generic was not acceptable to him.

Did he tell you anything about the spaceship other than where it would be?

I tend to think you'd quickly run into problems if this was true. For example, let's say that I perceive the apple as red and am told it is red. You perceive the apple as black but are also told it is red. All other colors we perceive the same and have the same name for. We are now asked to pick from a color pallette the color which seems to be a lighter shade of the color of the apple. I pick pink, which we both agree is pink, and you pick gray, which we both agree is gray. At that point we realize that we perceive colors differently. I think if we perceive colors differently we would have people constantly criticizing the clothes we picked for the day. Which is exactly what happened with my dad who was color blind. It was obvious to the whole family that he did not perceive colors as we did.