Jump to content

losfomot

Senior Members
  • Posts

    323
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by losfomot

  1. FSI K RZXY GJ YMJ XNLSNKNHFSHJ TK YMJ SZRGJW XNC, XNSHJ K NX YMJ XNCYM QJYYJW TK YMJ FQUMFGJY, FSI BFX ZXJI FX YMJ F KTW YMNX HTIJ. N FR RFPNSL YMNX UTXY JCYWF QTSL OZXY KTW YTRLBDYMJW.

     

    'X' is most likely a vowel (probably 'O')

    'N' I think is actually a 'T' and 'J' is probably an 'E'

    A, C, E, O, P and V don't appear in either post and so would represent less common letters of the alphabet.

    Am I on the right track?

     

    You are right about the J, Ytrlbdymjw.

  2. Why then would gravity be less in orbit than on the surface of the planet then? I suppose because gravitons are circling the planet and pushing you away from the Earth just as others are pushing you toward it?

     

    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.

     

    Then what would cause you to orbit?

     

    The fact that you have motion tangent to the massive object you are being pushed toward.

     

    Wouldn't gravitons be pushing you from all lateral directions equally as well?

     

    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. First you say there is no such thing as force at a distance. Then you say all forces are push forces. Is this because all forces are due to quanta being emitted and received? If so, I don't get how gravity can be a push-force transmitted by particles without gravity dissipating as it passes through layers of blockage, such as the many stories of a sky scraper. If gravity was the result of particles pushing down from above, each successive level of a sky scraper from the top down would experience less gravitation due to some of the gravity getting used up by the matter above it. Since gravity doesn't decrease when entering the lobby of such a tall building, I have to conclude that gravity cannot be a push force coming down from above.

     

    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. Hi all,

     

    I have some questions about the present big bang theory and why the universe is dark. I'm not a creationist, because I don't believe in god or in any deity of whatever kind, so I just need a few seconds of your time and simple answer to my questions.

     

    1. We know that light has a speed, we know that light emits in all directions so here is my question: why isn't universe bright then? If we can see a galaxy, than it isn't emitting light in every direction or is it?

     

    2. Perhaps there was no big bang at all, but we are on the other side of black hole, which formed 13,7 billion years ago from the stars it devoured?

     

    Maybe to you, my questions seem juvenile, but I have to get it off my chest.

     

    Thanks,

     

    J.

     

    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. No. If the force you felt were due to the other objects in the universe, these forces would have to result from instantaneous action at a distance. That's magic. It doesn't work like that.

     

    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. I started this whole line of discussion precisely because I agree with you that it does sound warped for a 35-year-old to be having sex with a 6-year-old. But if we are going to be a rational society, we have to be prepared to develop the logical reasons for everything we do, and I can't seem to locate why it is that sex between adults and children is regarded as infinitely more evil than just about anything else that could happen in society. If you abstract from the term 'sex,' which is a real panic button in our culture, and dig down to the more formally characterized experiences which constitute sex when it goes on between adults and children, then I have trouble finding the exact mechanism by which this normal biological pleasure necessarily produces such massive physical and psychiatric harm -- apart from cultural over-reactions to it -- such that it must be punished as the greatest crime imaginable.

    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.

     

    If you look at it in terms of human evolution, then I have to assume that early forms of humans were promiscuously having sex with humans young and old, just as our closest simian relatives do today, with juveniles often being the objects of sex play by adults. I think we can agree that this sex in primitive humans, say 400,000 years ago, was not monstrously traumatizing to young humans, since if it had been, the human race would have died out, since psychiatrically damaged people have poor survival chances in primitive living circumstances.

    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.

    But then at the latest with the beginning of settled life in cities, about 15,000 years ago, sexual partnering became restricted, with monogamy being the only accepted form of mating, except for tribal elders or wealthy men, who were probably able to be polygamous. (I am not counting nomadic, non-city dwelling peoples here, who have generally remained polygamous until recently.) So no doubt with monogamy the rules about sex became more strict, and even though women would be married at the age of puberty, the intensely strict atmosphere of control over sexual partnering, no doubt backed by religious superstitions, probably generated lots of equally strict ancillary rules, such as the old Hebrew rule that sex with women during their periods was 'unclean,' or that sex with children was unacceptable.

     

    From this point on, it became difficult to tell whether the harm from sex between adults and children was produced by the social panic over the event and its attendant psychiatric damage to the participants, or whether it was somehow an inevitable consequence of the nature of physical intimacy (although for some reason it did not result from bathing, massage, wrestling, etc.) between children and adults. One modern anthropological clue as to whether this is truly interculturally harmful is the fact that in Margaret Mead's study of Polynesian culture, on modern Pitcairn Island, or among the Kalahari Bushmen, free sexual interaction among adults and children doesn't seem to have the negative effects it does in cultures which disapprove of such activity.

    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.

     

    I started this whole line of discussion precisely because I agree with you that it does sound warped for a 35-year-old to be having sex with a 6-year-old. But if we are going to be a rational society, we have to be prepared to develop the logical reasons for everything we do, and I can't seem to locate why it is that sex between adults and children is regarded as infinitely more evil than just about anything else that could happen in society. If you abstract from the term 'sex,' which is a real panic button in our culture, and dig down to the more formally characterized experiences which constitute sex when it goes on between adults and children, then I have trouble finding the exact mechanism by which this normal biological pleasure necessarily produces such massive physical and psychiatric harm -- apart from cultural over-reactions to it -- such that it must be punished as the greatest crime imaginable.

     

    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'm not so sure Marat's reasoning is warped, parents can insist on making their kids do some pretty shitty things, dangerous mind destroying things but sex is somehow worse than worse. Sex seems to have a special place in the hearts of most people, quite low on some even though they enjoy it themselves they cannot recommend it for anyone else. Sex has often been termed the "fate worse than death" for much of even the twentieth century the idea of sex as worse than death was the popular gestalt. Any woman who gave into sex outside of marriage was fatally flawed but men who managed to play around was a "real man" sex has never been realistically interpreted or portrayed, even masturbation is often condemned as harmful in some way. Sex occupies a special place in our society and the harm it does is blown far out of any reasonable proportion to any realistic harm it could do...

     

    i am quite sure there are many things it is legal and even thought to be good for kids that are far more harmful than sex. if society says it's ok to work kids in the mines because they are small and can fit in the small holes then it becomes ok to do so but suggest sex and you will be automatically a pariah, you can do some wild stuff to kids and get by with it, from mental abuse to turning them into psychopaths, you can teach them to hate, to be racist, to despise anyone who believes different than you. You can program your kids to do almost anything but have sex, you can teach them that sex is a fate worse than death, you can teach them that homosexuals are worthless pieces of shit that deserve to be killed. you can teach them to be Nazi's but sex is out of the question. just try to teach your kids that masturbation is a good thing and let them tell their teacher and see what happens. if you are lucky you will not quite loose custody but count on visits from the child services...

     

    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. The criminal law makes an important distinction when it decides to regard the motive with which any crime is committed as utterly irrelevant to the guilt. Thus even though Robin Hood may steal from the rich to give to the poor, he is still regarded by the criminal law as guilty of theft, regardless of his good motive in helping redistribute wealth more rationally. The intuition of law is correct because all we really experience of anyone else's actions towards us is the effect; since no one can read minds, we can never know what the real motives of another person are in injuring us. Even the person injuring us will have a hard time knowing what his real, ultimate motives are, since subconscious wishes are often directing actions while those wishes are hidden from conscious awareness. Thus I wouldn't be surprised if many people who consciously believe themselves to be earnestly beating children for their own good to make them into better people are in fact just sadists, just as many earnest religious educators may just be using children selfishly to inflate their own sense of self-importance as imparters of the divine truth to little idiots who don't know any better. Countless people in the 'helping professions,' including teachers, nurses, social workers, psychologists, and psychiatrists, are often acting in those roles out of selfish motives to support their own egos, their sense of self-righteousness, their social power, their income, and are thus actually 'using,' 'exploiting,' and 'abusing' the people that they control in their so-called 'caring' roles. But the reason that they cannot be criminally punished for this selfishness is that their actions are regarded by society as legally neutral or beneficial, and not as harmful to the autonomy rights of others.

     

    In contrast, sexual interactions between adults and children are regarded as harmful to the children so the adults involved can be punished, and their motives are characterized as exploitative or selfish, because society regards what they are doing as harmful, yet the search in this thread for those harms has encountered difficulties in locating the supposed physical and psychiatric injuries above the level of those physical and psychiatric injuries which are regarded in other fields of human endeavor as being completely acceptable for adults to impose on children.

     

    But since we are inferring the selfish motives of the adults from the supposed objective harm of what they do, since we can spot real physical and psychiatric harms in society but we cannot read minds to discern motives, the whole issue comes down to what we have already been discussing, which is whether adult-child sex is really objectively harmful or not.

     

    Since society, largely as part of its cultural inheritance from St. Paul, who was obviously sexually sick in his terror and hatred for sex, regards sex with dislike and suspicion, any possible benefit from adult-child sexual interactions is invisible. The possibility that children may enjoy these interations with adults, since they just continue the sex games that children spontaneously play with each other, is ignored. That discovering something of the reality of sex might help in dispelling the metaphysical terrors of a hidden world of sex that society tries to impose on children is similarly dismissed out of hand, even though there is considerable evidence of young people coming into maturity with sexual neuroses arising from socially-induced sexual repression. The possibility that some emotional closeness between children and adults might develop from their sexual interaction is also denied, though there is evidence of this, both from the positive bonding that the Ancient Greeks felt developed in the mentoring relationships generated by culturally-approved pederasty, and in the emotional bonds formed between young boys and their female school teachers who have 'abused' them. So since the possibility of these positive effects is denied by the ideology of sexual fear which disapproves these relationships in the first place, the supposition that the adults involved can only possibly be acting out of selfishness follows from the initial assumptions.

     

    At the conclusion of your post you seem to switch from disapproving of adult-child sexual relationships because they are objectively harmful to disapproving of them because they should not be 'tolerated,' but intolerance is just a response to what is rejected for cultural reasons, and is not itself a rational reason for rejecting something.

     

    I agree that finding no objective reason for dispproving of adult-child sex relations is disturbing, since one of the greatest outrages of our society should certainly been supported by the very clearest proofs of its objective harmfulness. But I think we can at least agree that those necessarily extremely evident proofs of its objective harm going far beyond other risks to children which society is perfectly content to permit are turning out to be surprisingly elusive.

     

    (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. You might complain that adult-child sexual relations manifest the selfishness of adults, since they use children for an activity which they enjoy more than the children do, but this of course happens all the time, such as when religiously-obsessed adults force children to share and reinforce the adults' obsession, even though the children neither understand nor care about what is going on.

     

    '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.

     

    To clarify my point, we could operationalize the notion that 'we would all agree that' physically dangerous ice skating lessons and psychiatrically dangerous religious instruction are below the level of risks which children can acceptably be exposed to by saying that no one would think of calling the police to address the risks or harm these activities normally produce. If anyone did call the police to complain, the society in all its official institutions -- law enforcement, the courts, the legislatures, the psychiatrists, the public health officers, etc. -- would implicitly agree that the risks of these activities are below the level of danger at which we should become concerned about children being exposed to them. This implicit agreement would be expressed in the fact that the police would not go to the skating rink to arrest the skating instructors or go to the church to arrest the nuns, the 11 PM news would not be ablaze with public hysteria over 'child abusers in our midst,' feminists would not be parading on the streets about young girls having their nose broken on the ice or having nightmares about Purgatory, etc.

     

    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.

     

    And yet, from my analysis in the previous post, we can see that the physical and psychiatric risks of these activities -- and many others like them which are perfectly legal in society -- cannot really be rigorously distinguished in type or intensity from the risks of child-adult sexual relations. So the uncomfortable conclusion we are driven to is that the uniquely intense degree of legal, psychiatric, and social panic with which society reacts to child-adult sexuality lacks rational basis.

     

    Very much distinguished in type. Apples and watermelons.

     

    You seem to be recommending that we reform society from top to bottom so that the culturally acceptable level of physical and psychological risk to which children can be exposed is lowered, and I would not only agree with you, but I would add that the acceptable level of physical and psychological risk for adults as well should be lowered by the provision of a more generous social safety net.

     

    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.

     

     

    But my point was rather to show that, given the levels of physical and psychiatric risk to children that our present society already accepts, it simply makes no sense that child-adult sexual relations are treated as infinitely more risky than what is now accepted for other types of child-adult interactions.

     

    '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. So in all these cases, I simply can't see how there could be anything intrinsic to the nature of child-adult sexual relations, once the cultural panic and its attendant artificial trauma is removed, which necessitates it being harmful, or any more harmful than risks we all agree, in psychiatry, law, and society, are perfectly acceptable for children to consent to.

     

    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. Technically it can't be proven as "not harmful" as proving a negative is exceptionally tricky.

     

    I said evidence, not proof.

     

    The core feature of his argument that I actually agree with is that the hysteria the taboo invokes by adults in a child's life can be a cause of psychological damage.

     

    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.

     

    Where I disagree, is I do not believe pedophilia is as benign as taking someone's picture, I do believe it is quite capable of causing genuine harm all on it's own with no need for cultural reinforcement. Hysteria may amplify this harm, but the initial harm done would still be in there and is great enough that it justifies the laws against the practice regardless of cultural magnifiers.

     

    Absolutely.

  13. True, one could argue as you do, that we should eliminate all dangers -- whether those of religion, sport, or sex -- from the environment of children as abusive and as marks of a previous and less civilized era.

     

    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'm not dissing you (I also might get weirded out if the same thing happened to me), but objectively, I would tend to think that the cause-and-effect are the other way around.

     

    You knew wasps frequented where you hunt mushrooms, or you knew it was wasp season, or you (unconsciously?) overheard talk about someone getting stung by a wasp, or someone mentioned wasps recently. Knowing that you planned to go into the "wilds" to hunt mushrooms the next day, wasps were "on your mind", and so, you dreamed about one. If you had dreamed about seeing a bat in the middle of the day or about problems with your computer, then the memory of it would have been unremarkable and forgotten, and you would not perceive a pattern. I think our sleeping brains mull over many unresolved issues.

     

    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. greetings colleagues!

     

    i need a liquid which is a good heat conductor but not a conductor of electricity ,and also must be fluid.

     

    i need that liquid for a research of a new project at uni.

     

    by the way the cheaper liquid is better icon_smile.gif

     

    what's ur offer or how and where can i find it?

     

     

    thanks

     

    fg

     

    Doesn't water fit that description?

  16. Hi,

    This is a complicated one to describe, but it's been driving me and a friend mad for a few days :)

    Let's say a train is travelling round the Earth at almost the speed of light, and there is an observer on the train and another at the only train station.  Each observer counts how many times he passes the station (i.e. orbits the Earth).

     

    The observer at the station says the counting will last for 1 minute, and he starts and stops the train.

    Let's say the person at the station counted the train pass 400 times in the minute.

    So far so good, but since the train is travelling close to the speed of light, time will move slower for the train passenger, so after the minute is up outside the train, he may have only felt like he travelled for two second.  Since the speed of light is constant for each observer, the train passenger will see the Earth passing by at almost the speed of light, so will see the station passing by at maybe 7.5 times a second.

    If he only felt like he was in the train for 2 seconds he may have counted 15 stations, but the person at the station counted 400 passes.

    Since the train MUST have passed the station a finite number of times, how many times did it pass?

    We may be missing something obvious, but we can't think what it is.

    Thanks for any info you can give.

    Paul.

     

    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.

  17. I think this answers my question. I was wondering if once matter is compressed to the density of a black hole, does that matter retain the properties of a black hole if the massive gravity is removed. That is, can the mass of 1kg stay in that compressed state without the entire gravity of a black hole to keep it that way.

     

    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.

  18. 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.

  19. Umm no, accelerating at 1G to very near light speed and then decelerating would get you there in a little over 6 years earth time and less than 4 years ship time. I can't seem to find the equations I need to be exact but 280 years is way off the mark...

     

    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.

  20. Yes, we are tallking about light reception.

     

    Does each receive the signals differently.

     

    yes.

     

    Let's stay on the M' train frame.

     

    Are they two flashes equidistant yes or no.

     

    In the Train frame the two flashes are 'equidistant', yes. But they are not simultaneous. They occur at different times.

     

    We are talking about the light emission as being simultaneous.

     

    Let's see, if the light emission is not simultaneous between the frames, how would you possible do the original mirror experiment for LT construction? It assumes a common light emission where both clocks are set to 0.

     

    Furthermore, Einstein used a common light emission to prove the consistency, which he is wrong, of SR.

     

    So, you cannot say the light emission was not simultaneous to the frames at the front of the trains or your refute all of SR.

     

    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.

  21. See, this is the problem.

     

    Let's just take the front flash.

     

    You are claiming when M and M' are co-located, the flash in the front occurs at a closer distant to M', the moving observer than M.

     

    Since the speed of light is a constant, this must be true.

     

    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.

     

     

    You see, you cannot claim lightning is at a location from one frame and not at that location in another.

     

     

    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.

  22. Well, that is not what I said.

     

    I said, "What folks have not realized yet with SR, if you have an absolute solution frame to frame, then you contradict the relativity postulate".

     

    For example, let's look at the relativity of simultaneity train enbankment experiment.

     

     

    http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html

     

    Note how both frames draw the absolute conclusion the observer on the train sees the front light before the back. This is not a conclusion that is relative to the frames it is absolute for both.

     

    Note, how it implies both frames agree the train observer is hastening towards the beam of light .

     

    I wonder how the train taken as stationary hastens toward the light.

     

     

    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.

     

    I wonder how the train taken as stationary hastens toward the light.

     

    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.

  23. 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.

     

    If you apply a force to the ladder then the ladder IS moving.

     

    As viewed from the garrage the ladder will appear shorter.

    As viewed from the ladder the garrage will appear longer.

     

    If the ladder remains at rest (ie no force applied) and you accelerate the garrage instead then

     

    As viewed form the ladder the garrage will be shorter and

    As viewed from the garrage the ladder will be longer

     

    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:

     

    No forces need be involved, though. You can look at the situation after the ladder is moving relative to the barn, and there are no accelerations to worry about.

     

    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.