Reaper

Damn you figured me out . I didn't include sadism because I have a good understanding of what drives a person to do that. Of course, it depends on the person because there are differing reasons for why one is a sadist. This is certainly true. I was kinda looking at this from an evolutionary viewpoint, as to why someone would want this. Or better yet, if this has any survival value. An organism is driven to survive, and by my understanding, being aroused by the thought of being tortured or abused, or actively seeking it, would run contrary to an organism's survival.

From my knowledge, what qualifies as someone having a mental disorder is someone who suffers from extreme distress (emotional or otherwise), abnormal cognitive functioning, or exhibits maladaptive/abnormal behavior. So I agree with you there, I can't see why belief in creationism, even young Earth creationism, could be a mental disorder. I never considered it one though in this thread. Well, no, the second law of thermodynamics says that the entropy of an isolated system will increase overtime, meaning that all things will tend to go toward disorder. A process can only occur if it increases the entropy of the system. Under this rationale alone, you are hard pressed to come up with how the universe couldn't have a beginning. All of our data does indicate that it did have some sort of beginning i.e. the Big Bang.

Very interesting. I have a few questions though. First, understand that a lot of this is over my head, so don't be surprised if I ask what might seem to be "basic questions". 1. Why the need for a non-perturbative solution? 2. On page 13, it mentions that gravity doesn't have to be unified with the other 3 fundamental forces. If that is so, then what does that imply for GUT? It seems to me that this implies that when the Big Bang occurred, the Universe wasn't in perfect symmetry to begin with. 3. Can you explain the RG Trajectory please? (page 14) Those are my questions so far. I'm going to keep re-reading it to see if I can understand it better. Very interesting read, and its nice to see that there are serious alternatives to String Theory!

A black hole arises out of a solution in General Relativity, so the laws of physics do apply. In fact, any mass could become a black hole if it manages to collapse to the Schwarzschild radius, which is R= (2MG) / c^2. The problems with Relativity are the singularity solutions, because they break down at that point. Well, the first question you have to ask is, does a wormhole even exist? Some solutions of GR do allow one, but it is a bit of a stretch. There is a lot of things we don't understand, and the whole point of science is to take what we don't understand and try to understand it by hypothesis, verification, and mathematics. This is how we formulate laws that govern phenomena. But even then, some theories such as Quantum Mechanics, will remain beyond our total comprehension. But one thing we can do is understand the math behind it and use it to make predictions. That is how we know about the mechanisms behind it.

If you want the simplest possible answer, the reason they are looking for such a theory because both Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity are incomplete theories. Not only that but they aren't compatible with each other. The main challenge is trying to find a Quantum Theory of Gravity that is consistent with General Relativity, without the singularity solutions. The main problem is that gravity only attracts, and is by far the weakest force. For reference between how strong each force is, the Strong Force has strength 1, EM has strength 1/137, Weak Force has strength 1 x 10^-6, and Gravity has strength 6 x 10^-39.

True. I still believe that the Empire/Republic would win out in the long run, but it would be interesting to watch though. And given their method of assimilation, the length of time would depend on which planet they were trying to assimilate. I'm sure it would take much longer for them to assimilate a planet like Coruscant, or any high priority world which could offer a stiff resistance. Yeah, but thats true of any weapon system described in the choices I put above.

National debt is a major problem that has been on the rise for several years now. The government doesn't want to address it, and the media doesn't want to talk about it. And this is where serious problems begin to arise, never mind the fact that the corporations have a stranglehold on the competition.

The Orion project was back in the 60's. The current spaceship they are building and designing is called Orion. The launch vehicles that will take it into space are called Ares I.

As some of you may know, there are some groups of people who use bondage as a tool for sexual pleasure. It seems though that, unless in cases where one is raping another, that this is completely voluntary for both sides. It sparked my curiosity because I've been wondering what exactly the person who gets tied up gets out of it? Or more specifically, why they would want to be a masochist in the first place? How does the thought of being abused actually arouse a person? I also heard of people who have fantasies of being raped, and this does serve as a source of some sexual pleasure, even though they would not want to be forced in real life. Any thoughts?

Well, not all of them. Some, especially the leaders of these extremists, are quite content in their belief that the other side should die.

As some of you may know, General Relativity does predict that gravitational fields do affect the flow of time. The exact equation for it is: And this has got me wondering. What would happen if you were to stand on a Neutron Star or hover near a black hole (assuming you aren't crushed by the overwhelming gravitational force). Could you, in principle, live far longer? Or if you had a second spacecraft far enough from the gravitational field exerted by these bodies would one observe the people on the Neutron Star (or black hole) go through time much slower relative to them, similar to what you would see at near-light speeds? Another thing that I'm wondering is, would you get different results in an experiment depending on the strength of the gravitational field? The experiments I'm referring to is particle accelerators. What I'm wondering is, would it matter if you built a particle accelerator in the sky as opposed to the ground (please ignore the technical challenges involved, this is purely hypothetical). In many noted experiments a Muon decays at a slower rate when accelerated to near light speeds. But since time goes slower on the ground than it does in the sky, would this effect be noticeable. Like, would a muon decay faster in the sky then it would on the ground? Or is the gravitational field of the Earth too weak to be of any significance. If it is, would it, and other affects associated with Time Dilation, have much more of an impact on or near a black hole or neutron star, or other massive body like the Sun or Jupiter?

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. Its just that most people use the word "actually" in the beginning of a sentence if they intend on making a correction and it sounded dismissive. A little social skill that you should keep in mind in the future . P.S. I recommend you should strive to become a climate scientist, you would do very well in that field in my opinion. True. I'm not sure if you ever watch the "God who wasn't There" but they explore the idea that Jesus could be completely fictional.

I know they have a lot of ships, and that would prove overwhelming. In order for them to defeat the death star efficiently they would have to know the blueprints for them though, much like the rebel alliance did. Otherwise taking out a starship the size of a moon would be quite a challenge, even with thousands of ships. And then there is still the task of taking out an Empire that spans an entire galaxy. The Borg would pose a significant threat no doubt, but the Empire or Republic does have a considerable advantage in terms of numbers, weapon availability, and size. By comparison the Borg don't even have Delta Quadrant under their full control. Well, if it can blow up a planet, it is probably not a laser. A laser would just burn a whole through the planet. Hey, I'll have you know that nerds can get quite serious about this thing . I mean, come on, who doesn't take this seriously???

One of these days there will be a shuttle accident if they keep flying while drunk. I charge the accused with F. U..............i

Electrons exist in "probability clouds" around the nucleus if I remember correctly. Where exactly they are depends on their energy level. This is where we get the electron configurations for elements. This model has been around since the 1920's.

Well, then its clear that you either didn't watch it or didn't understand the point of it because that was not what it was about. And so what if made references to Orwell. They were not taking every little thing and slapping "OMG Conspiracy" on it. They allude to Orwell because his books, 1984 and Animal Farm, describe very well the consequences of misinformation and abuse of power, and some of what is going on today does match what was described in 1984. Of course, on a much smaller and less devoted scale. Alluding to a fictional book is not a fallacy, nor does it decrease the legitimacy of the film. Look at the people they interviewed, and especially look at the reports they talk about and the information presented. This is a big deal. And this isn't restricted to one side of the political spectrum, it is pervasive in American society.

Yeah, but that was pretty much my point. I was not disputing that. It wasn't until Constantine came to power that Christianity became the state religion. I don't know about Babylon, but Rome did actually have 7 hills all of which are named, and it is referenced in mythology, historical accounts, politics, etc. Traditionally, it was believed that the city of Rome was founded on one of these 7 hills. The 7 headed beast is believed to allude to the 7 hills of Rome. In one account, in some show on the History Channel, they did talk about the possibility of the Revelation as being a form of War Propaganda, and a way to protect those who had dissident thoughts. There are many differing interpretations of the Revelation, some of which include the possibility that it is supposed to be an actual event. It depends on what Christian Denomination, and their scholars, you refer to. I do agree that there is some element of truth in the bible, but as to whether the events in the bible actually took place I'm a bit skeptical about. Up until recently, the bible (yes, both old and new testament) was believed to be a factual historical account of the Jews and of the world. You go back in time and it was widely believed that the events were factual. St. Augustine even used the Bible to calculate when the day of creation took place (He calculated it to be 4004 B.C.). The Bible was intended to be a factual account. Even to this day most Christians believe that most of the stories in it did actually occur. If you don't believe me, go to any church, and they'll tell you that these events, ranging from Moses's Ten Commandments to the resurrection of Jesus, did actually occur as described in the Bible. This isn't restricted to the masses, many educated scholars and religious leaders also believe this. My parents, for example, are Roman Catholics and they believe that the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus was a factual account. And they are educated too, having graduated from college and have knowledge of other beliefs and religions. The Bible was intended to do many things, such as act as a guide, or allude to the life and times of the people back when the stories took place. But it was also intended to be a factual account. Its similar to any other religious text, whether it is Christian, Hindu, Islam, etc. The Bible makes for a great read and you can certainly draw moral and historical lessons from it. Christian Theology draws heavily on the Bible, but it is not concerned with whether or not the accounts were true, but rather what it all means. Overall I don't believe the accounts in it were true or literally happened the way as described in the Bible. And I don't believe it was intended to be merely a metaphorical text. ~My two cents anyway.

I don't know how to change it so that it displays Other, unless one of the mods or admins would be kind enough to add an Other option.

Well, actually, supernatural means, quite literally, beyond nature or exceeding nature. It comprises of forces and things that are beyond nature and is firmly outside scientific explanation because they simply cannot be brought into empirical observation or experimentation. While most people usually associate supernatural with a deity, it also comprises the idea of a soul, non-material mind, reincarnation, etc.

We created an anti-matter hydrogen atom before, back in 1995 We have yet to determine whether or not antimatter atoms have any fundamentally different properties. I agree with YT, if there was a large amount of it it would be detectable, especially in the early universe. Anti-matter annihilation gives off gamma radiation. Current theories suggest that there was slightly more matter than antimatter in the very early universe, and that is why most of the universe is matter but not antimatter. As to why this is is another issue all together.

What do you make of this? http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/crowdfarm-0725.html Apparently, a couple of grad students at MIT proposed a way to power things by the movement of people, in what is called a "Crowd Farm". This is supposed to harness the mechanical energy of the movement of people and convert it into electricity. The way its supposed to work is that you have some sort of mat that, when you step on it, it depresses slightly and this would generate power through the Dynamo Process. Ideas for use range from train stations to concert theaters.

It does have a liberal bias, but I would not call it propaganda because many of the problems described, especially about the media, have been going on since the Reagan Administration. These problems are well known within the intellectual elite (I doubt the public is well informed). The reason Bush is usually under attack in this is because he and his administration is responsible for allowing corporate influence to get way out of hand. The film, by the way, covers everything from public mistrust in the government to problems with voting to corruption within the media. Its not just confined to the Republicans or conservatives, it is also the fault of the liberals. You have to watch it to see what I mean.

Traditionally the authorship is attributed to the apostles. As to who actually wrote them that is unknown. Especially given the timespan in which they were written.

Yeah, but then you have to consider if they would be able to adapt to it because the Death Star would be able to take it out in one shot, unless the Borg knew what was coming at them ahead of time. And then there is the sheer power of the beam, unless their shields can match that kind of energy I don't think it their adaptation would matter.

In a lecture that I had some time ago in a philosophy class we actually had a discussion about the texts in the bible and its application to overall Christian Theology. My philosophy professor discussed with the class about his experience and study of biblical texts, mostly New Testament texts, that were written circa 3rd century AD, and some of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The one thing I found interesting was that there is very little to no deviation between what is written in today's bible's and what was written in 3rd century AD bibles. The ancients, so I was told during this discussion, were very careful to preserve what was written and not deviate from what they were copying. There were many reasons for this, aside from the fear of death or incarceration. From this information it is very clear that the texts were probably intended to be interpreted literally, so I don't see how they could be metaphorical, although there is speculation as to whether the Book of Revelation might have been (such as reference to the 7 headed beast, which corresponds to the 7 hills of Rome). Sure, some parts of it does smack influence from Greco-Roman mythology and society and some of it from Persian mythology, but whatever the cultural influence I'm pretty certain it was intended to be taken literally. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Given that all other observations and experimental data contradiction most everything in the bible, I would say that believing the events, especially the act of creation, is very irrational in this day and age. I don't think it qualifies as mental disorder though, just either wishful thinking or cognitive dissonance. Ignorance could also be appropriate given specific circumstances, such as not being exposed to scientific data.