Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by losfomot

  2. No, if you entertain the idea that the push is coming from the eternal reaches of space, then anything massive will be absorbing some of that push. When you are standing on the Earth, the Earth is blocking almost 180 degrees of space. When you move away from Earth (into orbit, let's say), it is blocking much less. If you moved as far as the moon is, then you are being pushed from almost every angle equally... you are still pushed toward the Earth, but the Earth is only blocking a small section of space from your new point of view, so you are not pushed toward it as strongly. The fact that you have motion tangent to the massive object you are being pushed toward. Yes, except in the direction of a massive object that is absorbing some of those 'gravitons' I don't really want to get into trouble for hijacking this thread. I am not saying this is how it is. And I have no idea if this is the phenomenon that matterdoc is referring to in the op. And I most definitely see things wrong with his 'hypothesis', not that I really understand what it is he is hypothesizing. "There is no flow of electrons towards earth during thunderstorms." ????
  3. Are you sure about that? Actually, it could be pictured in such a way. The many layers of a skyscraper do dissipate gravity... but not enough that you would notice standing on a regular scale. On the other side of you, however, is the mass of the entire Earth... plenty enough mass to 'dissipate gravity' by a noticeable amount. You are 'pushed' from all sides, but less so from the direction of the Earth, which is why you are stuck to it.
  4. 1- Perhaps the first two responders are right in assuming you meant the question in relation to Olber's paradox... I read it differently... so, just in case I am reading it correctly, I will give a different answer: When a star or galaxy emits light, it is emitting countless packets of light energy call photons. These photons are emitted, essentially, in every direction... however you will only see the photons that actually hit your eye (the photons that are moving in your direction). The photons (light) that go in other directions are not visible to you (unless they hit something else and 'reflect' off of it, which is why we can see the moon... some of the photons from the sun that hit the moon will reflect in your direction and hit your eye, allowing you to see the moon... actually that is applicable to almost everything that you see on Earth during the day too.). 2- Perhaps you are right. There are many ideas about the origin of the universe... who knows which one is truly correct? But, right now, the Big Bang Theory is the idea that seems to fit the best... and it may not mean what you think it does ( the term 'Big Bang' is a little misleading ).
  5. Why would it 'have to result from instantaneous action at a distance"? So then how does it work?
  6. I have some trouble reconciling the fact that there is no absolute frame of reference with the fact that forces become apparent when something rotates. Mach's principle seems to be a solution to this problem, and I have a couple of questions about it. First, my understanding of Mach's Principle is that your local inertia is governed in relation to the inertia of everything else that has mass or energy in the universe. Therefore, because everything else in the universe is, on average, in a fixed position position relative to you, you can use 'everything else' as a reference point to tell you whether you are spinning or not and you will feel the forces associated with that spin. The Mass/Energy in the universe creates a sort of 'inertia field'. For example: If you were to wake up in a spacesuit out in space somewhere, and you fired off your 'turn left propellant' you would know you were spinning because you would see stars spinning past you, you would feel dizzy, and your arms would be pulled out away from your body via centri(fugal?) force. However, if you were to wake up in a space suit in a universe completely void of apparent matter (except for you), when you fired off your 'turn left propellant', nothing would change... you would not feel dizzy, your arms would not be pulled out away from your body, and you would, obviously, not see stars spinning past your head because there were none. Now for my questions: 1- Do I have it right? 2- Reading about it reveals some ambiguity and I am wondering... Is there general acceptance, in the scientific world, of Mach's Principle? 3- Assuming the answer to Q 1 is yes... in the bolded example above, if you were to put an object, lets say a tennis ball, in front of you as a reference point, and then fired your propellant, would it simply appear as if the ball was spinning around you? Would the ball be pulled in toward you? 4- Wouldn't Mach's principle have an effect on relative linear motion as well? A resistance to velocity relative to the universes average motion that would become greater the faster you go? 5- What is the difference between Mach's principle and an absolute frame of reference? Doesn't Mach's Principle (and, to a more precise degree, the CMBR) simply define what that frame of reference is?
  7. Well, I'll give it another shot since at least we have a well defined topic of discussion now. I sincerely appreciate the clarification. I'll get back to this part. That's a lot of assuming you're doing there. Let's pretend your first assumption was correct. Your second would not be. In terms of evolution, if this practice was traumatizing to the extent that humans were dying out, then it goes to reason that the groups that did not practice adult-child sex would be the ones that survived and flourished. The examples you give are not free from evidence of 'negative effects'. Also, there is a difference between sexual interaction with a child that has reached puberty, and sexual interaction with a 4, 6, or 8 year old. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe there is evidence that any of your 3 examples practiced such activity with such prepubescent children. Virginity at marriage seems to have been pretty important to the polynesians. Pitcairn Islanders had a legal age of 12. I don't know much about the Kalahari Bushmen, but if you have a source, please point me to it. It doesn't have to be 'massive' harm. A small amount of harm or even just potential harm is enough. Children depend on their parents to protect and guide them, and (most) parents do that to the point of giving their life if they have to. Sex is an especially touchy subject... why? Here's my assumption for the day (i like to call it a theory, but that might be too big an assumption): As a child, you don't really know any better, and you're curious so it wouldn't take much to coerce you into doing something. As a young adult, intimacy starts to become more and more important. As you get older, you want to settle down... share your life with someone. Humans seem to be naturally jealous creatures. The perfect mate is not one that many have mated with, it is one that has mated with few or none at all. This is evident in many cultures. In some, virginity is a prerequisite for marriage. In western society, some think of it as the ultimate gift to give to the one they love. "I'm saving my virginity for the man/woman I love". It is a social ideal, yes, but one that is almost inevitable because of our need for intimacy and our natural jealousy. The thing is, we don't realize any of this until we are older. So it becomes a part of our protection for our children that we do what we can to discourage sexual activity until the child is old enough to make an informed decision about what they want to give away and to whom. An adult coercing a child into sex is not just harming the child physically (very possible) and/or psychologically... they are taking something away from the child before they even know they have it. Parents are trying to protect their child's right to make that decision an informed one. It is so important, and yet so easy to take away, that we make laws to help us protect our children. Man, I got to go to sleep now.
  8. I never disagreed that sex was blown out of proportion in society. I have to say though, from my point of view, its not nearly as bad as you guys are making it out to be... of course, there are always extreme cases... for everything. And if you think any of what you just said makes it ok for some 35 year old man to have sex with your 6 year old son or daughter, then you have a pretty warped reasoning too (in my personal opinion).
  9. (sigh) It's like talking to a wall. I can only thank God (just an expression) for the knowledge that the law has this part right and people like you will never have the power to change that. Good luck to anyone else that wants to have a go at marat's warped reasoning.
  10. 'Religiously-obsessed adults' (I am referring to parents, whether they personally teach or they send their kids to (bible school?) be taught by someone else) are merely trying to pass on a trusted belief system. They are acting (or at least they think they are) in their children's best interest. They are trying to help their children, by teaching them good values and a good belief system. Many would call it a misguided effort. The important thing here is the intention. A pedophile is not thinking about the well-being of the child. They do not believe 'I should have sex with that 7 year old because it will make him/her a better person'. They are using the child's inexperience, curiosity and naivete to gain something for themselves. You say "since they use children for an activity which they enjoy more than the children do", as if the distribution of physical pleasure during the act somehow determines the level of wrongness of that act. It does not. It is a 100% selfish act on the part of the adult and at the expense of the child. Regardless of those 'religiously-obsessed adults', a child will eventually reach an age where they can legally make their own decisions about religion. They will have access to information, should they want it, and will be perfectly capable of renouncing their religion should they decide it is balderdash. It happens all the time. It even happened to you, marat, and (the way you tell it) you were one of the worse cases. A child that was sexually taken advantage of at an early age (by an adult) will not have that choice... What was physically done cannot be undone when the child reaches an age in which they are capable of making good, informed decisions. And so you have sucked me into defending the religious comparison that you continue to make even though... The fact that we allow our children to engage in activities that may be (certainly not in my eyes) more risky than adult/child sex, is not a defense for pedophilia. We do not all agree. The evidence is that safety laws are changing all the time. I don't know where you are, but here in Canada you can't even ride a bike anymore without a certified helmet. The 11 pm news would not be ablaze about child abusers unless someone was intentionally acting to abuse that child. Skating instructors and nuns are both trying to help that child because that is their job, and they (hopefully) care about helping the child. Accidents happen, that's life, and you can bet that 95% of skating instructors feel bad when a child gets hurt and had no intention of pushing too hard. Very much distinguished in type. Apples and watermelons. Well, 'reform society from top to bottom' sounds a little much. I don't see such a huge problem with sports and religion, in general. There are extremes everywhere though, and I agree that some of those extremes should not be tolerated. I am all for child safety, and reform is happening all the time. 'treated as infinitely more risky' would not be accurate. 'far less tolerated' would be closer to the truth. And I believe tolerance for such activity should be very low indeed. Anyone that is willing to take advantage of a child for their own, personal, selfish satisfaction should be punished. I think that you see that, marat. And I don't understand why you continue to take the position you do. It is obvious that you have had issues in your past that you wish society to address, but why present them in the guise of supporting pedophiles?
  11. It is one person committing a selfish act (often repeatedly) at the expense of a child's well being. It is wrong. Even just the potential of harm to that child is enough to condemn that person's selfish act. 'risks we all agree..."? I don't think so. As far as sports are concerned, every year changes are made to make them safer including laws requiring the use of safety equipment. I don't know if a child is allowed on the ice without a helmet today, but if they are, they shouldn't be, and I would bet it won't be much longer until they are not. As far as religion is concerned, that is a huge, millennia long problem. Freedom of religion is a tough nut to crack. It is an understatement to say that the issue needs to be discussed in its own thread. If this thread were about that issue, I would probably be siding with you marat... but it is not. It is definitely safe to say that we do not 'all agree' contrary to what you state. The controversy of this issue easily nullifies any use you can make of it to defend pedophilia. In a perfect world, a child would be taught all the religions. So that, when they are old enough to make a good, informed choice, they can decide for themselves what religion, if any, they would choose. In such a world, I think religion would quickly dissipate. But I digress, this is for another thread. Once again, the fact that we allow our children to engage in activities that may be (certainly not in my eyes) more risky than adult/child sex, is not a defense for pedophilia.
  12. I said evidence, not proof. I tentatively agree also. But the thread isn't really about whether or not sex is blown out of proportion in society, that is just just part of his argument, as you said. Two 8 year olds who are playing doctor and 'discover' the pleasures of sexual touching, etc. is likely not going to lead to psychological trauma. Of course an adults (over)reaction to seeing the two 8 year olds engaging in said actions could lead to that trauma. I am totally in agreement there. I do not agree that it can be generally assumed that the majority of adults would have that (over)reaction. But this issue should be discussed in another thread because this one is about pedophile rights. Absolutely.
  13. I don't think that's what padron is saying. I think what padron is saying is that the fact that we may accept our children's exposure to some of these 'risky' environments is not an argument for allowing said children exposure to other risky 'environments'. "Mommy, I found this mushroom in the back yard, can I eat it?" "Well, it could be poisonous... but you did go figure skating today, and you could have easily cracked your head open... I think eating that mushroom is probably far less risky... besides, I remember eating mushrooms as a kid, and I turned out ok... sure go ahead, you'll probably be fine" If you are really arguing in favor of pedophilia, how about you stop making these ridiculous comparisons to sports and religion and instead give some objective evidence that shows that an adult influencing a child to engage in sexual activities with them is not harmful. If it wasn't harmful, I think that we would have far fewer psychologists, and counselors in the world... there just wouldn't be the same demand.
  14. I disagree. I have never had a problem with wasps in 20 years of mushroom picking/hunting... I wouldn't even have made the association between the two until my recent encounter. I have run into plenty of deer, moose (meese?) and bear during my treks, but I don't even worry about them much. Perhaps there was some subconscious event that triggered the dream, but the encounter I chalk up to pure coincidence... just very interesting coincidence. Even more interesting is the reaction I get from friends that I mention this too. Almost everyone uses it as evidence to try to convince me of some paranormal explanation "see! How does your science explain that one!" or "see, God was trying to warn you"
  15. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformer_oil
  16. Doesn't water fit that description?
  17. A quick answer is that you are ignoring length contraction. The observer inside the train is orbiting a much smaller Earth than the observer in the train station experiences. If the station observer starts the train, observes 400 passes and then stops the train, then the observer inside the train will also count 400 passes.
  18. All black holes (apparently) radiate energy (lose mass). No matter how big the black hole is, it will eventually radiate all of its energy away (unless it is fed more mass than the energy it radiates away) and fizzle out. A small Black hole isn't any less capable of retaining its properties than a large black hole, it just has a shorter life. As it happens, you have picked a virtually infinitesimally small mass (1kg) for a black hole, so it would have an extremely short life.
  19. Thought I would share this with you all. A couple of days ago I had a dream. A single wasp came at me and landed on me. It was so vivid that I woke instantly, jumping up and brushing myself off. When I finally convinced myself that it was just a dream and there was not a wasp hiding in my bed somewhere, I went back to sleep. I should note that I am generally not scared of wasps. And the last time I was stung by any sort of bee was over 20 years ago as a youngster. Anyway, the day I woke up from that dream, I was stung 4 times by wasps. I was in the woods hunting for mushrooms and I must have disturbed their nest. Freaking things chased me all the way back to my car. Coincidence?... well of course, but it sure makes you think.
  20. If you scroll down the page at THIS LINK there is a calculator for 'long relativistic journeys' you can enter the acceleration and the distance and it will figure out how long to get there. (It automatically assumes acceleration for half the trip and deceleration for the other half). 4.3 light years at 1G would take about 3.56 years.
  21. yes. In the Train frame the two flashes are 'equidistant', yes. But they are not simultaneous. They occur at different times. I'm not sure I understand your position on all of this... Are you trying to say that both observers will see the flashes as simultaneous, and therefore SR is wrong, or are you trying to say that they won't both see the flashes as simultaneous, but SR is wrong in how it describes this. Are you trying to understand this stuff, or do you think you understand it perfectly, you're just refuting it? edit - I think I found the SOURCE of your arguments.
  22. I don't think I'm claiming anything of the sort. And if you only look at one flash, there is no simultaneity comparison. The observer on the train will see a flash hit the front of the train. The observer on the ground will see a flash hit the front of the train. When? They are experiencing time and space differently. When did they each see the flash? That is the point of the two flashes, to have something to make a comparison to. If you only look at one flash, there is no way for the two observers to compare what they saw and see a difference.
  23. It is not a conclusion that is drawn by the person on the train... it is a fact. And the person on the embankment does see the person on the train hastening toward one of the lightning flashes, so yes, if he knew SR, knew that there was no absolute frame, he could 'draw the conclusion' that the person ON the train sees one flash before the other, contrary to what he himself sees. There is no 'absolute solution' here. The observer on the train can take the train as being stationary. To him, he is not hastening anywhere, the light simply flashes at 2 different times. He is not agreeing about any absolute solution. He can also work out what the other observer sees, but not by saying "I'm hastening toward the light and the observer on the ground is not"... instead the train observer follows the following logic: I am stationary. I saw flash B first, then flash A. The observer on the embankment is hastening toward flash A with just the right velocity such that they must have seen both flashes at the same time, contrary to what I saw.
  24. It confuses me when an expert replies to a comment but does not refute facts stated in the comment that are clearly wrong. It seems like the expert is agreeing. I start to question my understanding (which is great when I have things wrong, but unproductive when I have it right) Above is a case in point. To me this is clearly wrong. It doesn't matter who is moving, if they are moving relative to each other (toward each other), then both should be shorter to the other. If I am wrong here, please let me know and excuse this post. If I am right, why not point out the shortcoming? You may have, kind of, here: But, I'm not sure.... and I can easily see others being confused.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.