iNow

I agree with your position completely. Differing opinions are wonderful things. However, if I wanted to discuss religion, I'd got to a site dedicated to doing so. Mommy... why does the preacher touch me in my special place?

Well, if half of the gold is gone every 2.7 days, how many days will it be until 75% of it is gone?

I'm kinda new here, so my opinion won't necessarily carry as much weight, however... You want religion, go to church. You want discussions on religion, hang out with people who think the same or go to church groups. You want science, read journals. You want discussion on science, come here. I don't go into churches every Sunday and try to yell louder than the preacher why evolution is correct and belief if the flying spaghetti monster is a silly, childish, waste of curiousity and intellect. Why should folks be allowed to come here to do the equivalent?

If you read the actual science journals on climate, or you go to any university and speak with professors in the climate or meteorology departments, there is no doubt that a significant portion of global climate change is the result of human activity. If you were, however, to watch the news, you get about 50% saying it's due to human activity and about 50% saying it's not. There really is no disagreement among those who actually understand the climatology, just among those who do not. It's really the media, and the insanity which is our current political process who say most of the issues with climate we are experiencing are not anthropogenic in nature. Are there natural cycles? Of course there are. Are we humans causing a major impact on those cycles? You bet your hindquarters. In response to your question, "What's going on here?" ... It's a really really big problem, and it's really really hard to fix, so many of our government officials who are in a position to actually do something would rather bury their head's in the sand, cause doubt in the populace that it's happening, and ignore it until they are out of office and somebody else has to step up to make changes. Fortunately, the global consciousness is really waking up to this issue, and those in power will not be able to ignore it for long. It's no longer in their best interest to ignore it (which, I suggest, they did previously in order to protect their own "pocket-books" and "wallets). Even major corporations are "going green," because they know that they will lose money if the public thinks they are not taking actions to help resolve the issue. If only people in power had listened to what was being said in the 60's. Instead, many were just called names and made fun of for loving those around them and the sphere on which they stood.

While your statement might be true *relative to an outside observer,* to the object falling into the BH everything would seem to progress as normal. I concede that our current models tend to break down when trying to accurately describe what happens inside of (what we currently call) a singularity, but there is a lot of great work being done right now on quantum gravity to amerliorate this issue. If you really want to argue that an object cannot successfully fall into the center of a BH, you'd do better to discuss the issue of tidal forces. The influence of gravity at the bottom of the object would be much stronger than the influence of gravity at the top of the object (relative to the center of the BH), and the object would stretch so much that it would eventually get torn apart. You've said this twice now, and stated it as if it were fact. Can you support this with some sort of credible evidence? Now this is wrong on a number of levels. Time and space are inseparable. The two are inextricably linked. Further, you travel through time with each passing moment... forward, like an arrow. Time and space are different dimensions of the same coordinate system. So, if someone were arguing to you that you did not exist at all, and you... standing right there beside them knew, without a shadow of a doubt, that you did exist (since you were right there listening to them)... you may come across to the other person as hostile, but that would make your refutation of their stance no less valid or accurate. Most everybody gets hostile once in a while. It's part of our evolved neurobiology and physiological emotional state. I also ask that you recall the fact that human flight was once only science fiction, as was travel deep into the ocean, or computer technology, or the ability to travel to outer space. One must first have vision in order to achieve it. ......~Michelangelo

You definitely raise a good point that there seems to be overlap in the two, however, I'd suggest that Septic reaction (poison) is where the poison directly damages the systems and Anaphylactic reaction (allergic) is where the bodies own response to a stimuli causes the damage. So... mowing the grass is not directly harmful, but when my throat closes up and I get all itchy for doing so, that is. Yet, were I to swallow some bleach, the bleach would be directly causing the harm. I'm guessing here, but I think that sounds reasonable.

I'm too new here to know the personalities, so plan to watch the reactions of others first, however... This IS being presented by Fox News, so my immediate reaction is to suggest that there is something much more important going on elsewhere from which they are trying to distract us. I'd better go over to C-SPAN for a while and discover what that is.

This one is in Australia. I've listened to it a few times and they have some intriguing topics. What's most fun is tuning it in after a few beers. http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/default.htm

No... not at all, but I can see now what a crappy analogy I'd made. My bad. I'd suggest that homophobia is never okay, unless maybe you have some mental disorder where you are more prone to be phobic. Phobias happen, and tend to have evolved for good reason... innate tendency to be afraid of cliffs and the baby doesn't crawl off of one; innate tendency to be afraid of snakes and we don't get bitten by them... those things work. What's the benefit of a phobia toward someone who is homosexual? Social control? I dunno... Also, ParanoiA calls to my attention a good point regarding "hating a group FOR hating." I notice myself doing this all too often, and it reaks of hypocracy. Thanks for the reminder.

It seems you're framing the issue way too narrowly. If we are successful in Iraq, people won't think "hmm... the democrats were completely wrong about Iraq." The entire freakin' planet, with the exception of a few in the current administration and a few in the US who refuse to give up their *faith* about the outcome, would think they were wrong! The perception that we are failing in Iraq is not just a talking point or an election issue used by the Democrats, it's a statement of fact by the vast majority of intelligent human beings on Earth. Now... I concede that the Democrats have been able to advance more rapidly as a result of our consistent failures in Iraq, but it was more because congress and the administration were majority republican, so republicans took the brunt of the responsibility for said failure. It's not that Dems had any better plans, just that the people wanted change for change's sake (basically, people voted republicans OUT of office... not so much democrats INTO office). Last, it's a bit of a strawman to suggest that, because the democrats have advanced as a result of the republicans poor execution in Iraq... that "liberals don't even want victory in Iraq." I'd challenge you to define "victory," and then support your claim that "liberals" don't want it. There are only two things about which I'm never wrong. Those are politics and religion.

Try to remember, worse according to whom? What's worse - A lion eating a zebra or a lion not eating a zebra? Well, to to the zebra, the lion eating him is worse, but to the lion, not eating the zebra is worse. Yet both the lion and the zebra are part of the same society. The definition of worse is subjective, relative to the interpreter. However, a bit more back on the thread's topic, I'd suggest that hating others is really bad. But then, I'd lose significant portions of my definition of love were hate to disappear. What is positive without negative? Now, who eats the lion?

Lockheed - Your question would be more accurate if it said "How many males and how many females have voted in this thread?" Not all memebers will vote. Not all readers are members. Your data is only as good as your population sample. Lies, damn lies, and statistics...

Well mate, you ask a lot of very interesting questions. Unfortunately, it's tough to give quick answers, as trying to explain the answers to the questions requires explanations of the tenets behind them. Your question is like asking a baker how they make their danish taste so good. Well, they'd first talk to you about the ingredients. They'd then talk to you about the proportion of those ingredients and how to add them together. They'd then talk to you about the mixing process, and how you should not over mix. They'd then talk about the importance of steady heating, and once they'd described each of these things, you'd be much closer to understanding how their danish taste so delightful. Same with discussion about blackholes and wormholes and time. It takes a little bit of effort to form the foundation of your understanding, and you need good teachers to help with that. A book that really opened my eyes and my mind, which is written for the non-expert (and not just people with 4 degrees in math and 2 PhDs in Theoretical Physics... in other words, easy to follow if you're willing to spend some time trying)... and I'd HIGHLY recommend it to help address many (if not all) of your questions above: Kip Thorne: Blackholes & Time Warps - Einstein's Outrageous Legacy. http://www.amazon.com/Black-Holes-Time-Warps-Commonwealth/dp/0393312763 Kip manages to take the reader from start to finish, explaining fundamentals in clever and understandable ways, and he also allows you to use your imagination like he and his students do. It has several pages, and has a lot of information to digest, but you will come away much more informed if you choose to read it. I've actually read it two or three times just because there were some pieces I couldn't fully digest the first time through. Another great teacher is Richard Feyman, but I'd suggest Kip's book above to be your first discussion with "the baker" about his "wonderful tasting danish."

You might check out the work of David Buss. He wrote a really cool book which I enjoyed called, "The Dangerous Passion." http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/Group/BussLAB/ http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=david+buss From the first link above:

Try adding 30 minutes before and 30 minutes after your workout to stretch. Also, eat or drink protien within an hour of working out. Working out tears down muscles, forces blood and energy through your body, and activates new parts of your brain. As you continue working out, your muscles rebuild stronger, your blood and energy flow more efficiently, and your brain has desensitized to the pain. Like the first time you smoke a cigarette. You cough and choke and your eyes water... but then, you get used to it, and you become much better at it. The beauty here is that working out is good for your health, where smoking is not. All in all.. stretch. Hydrate before, during, and after, then eat or drink protien so your muscles have the building blocks to rebuild. Enjoy.

Ah... thank you for clarifying. Nobody is born hating. I agree. Perhaps we'd do well to suggest that creationism serves as a disappointment to many of us. I mean, why would somebody consciously give up their attempt to accurately understand the wonder which is the universe for some spoon-fed falsehoods? I, personally, do not *hate* creationists, but I disgust what they stand for and what their belief set represents. As for homosexuality, people are not born hating that either. However, I definitely feel that people are born homosexual... I'm of the school of thought that they did not choose it. Since being born into a certain condition, in my book, is different from making a poor decision, and is very much like hating someone for the color of their skin or country of birth, I find that clear bigotry. I'd suggest that when someone hates people who are homosexual, it is simply a representation of their own insecurities and need to pigeon-hole others... despising people simply for being different from themselves. While I don't pigeon-hole creationists for being different from me, I do pigeon-hole them for ignoring the mountains of evidence which stand contrary to their belief. ...but I'm not sure I've addressed your question.

Are you suggesting that homosexuality is a choice? If not, can you clarify your question, because implies I must be missing something.

You are asking also, what's worse... Hating someone for what they are, or Hating someone for what they think and/or have been taught? Both are silly, frankly, and I think Pangloss touched on this above rather poignantly.

Glad it helped. Here are links to two parts of Cindy's work that I referenced: http://www.springerlink.com/content/l6t5188g2368377n/ http://www.psych.ubc.ca/~bglab/articles/Meston%20&%20Gorzalka%20(1995).pdf

I'm a layman, so I'll offer some layman's terms. Apologies to those well versed should I misspeak. Please correct my interpretation as needed. The wave function describes all possible states of an object. This is really the heart of the whole "Schroedinger's Cat" issue. Let's say you put a cat into a box. In that box is a poison in a glass vile, and the box gets dropped (I've changed the real thing a bit, but this is close). So, cat in box, glass vile of poison in box with cat, box gets dropped. This is where we are. So, the wave function which describes this discusses all possibilities. The vile didn't break, and the cat is alive. The vile did break, but the cat survived. The vile didn't break, but the cat died (maybe he had really bad vertigo . The vile did break, and the cat died. Before you open the box, according to QM, the cat is actually all of these things at the same time. Since you don't know, all you have is a wave function which describes the probabilities of each state. Here's where it gets weird though. The cat is also anything else, just at a lower probability. The cat is a dog. The cat is your grandmother. The cat is elvis. The cat is George Washington. The cat is a pterodactyl pulling a meerkat out of a blackhole... According to probability, it's actually all of those things until it's observed, and the wave function is used to calculate the probability of each potential state... Most are just so very unlikely that they can be disregarded, and although still possible, we tend to look at the "cat is alive/cat is dead" only split. So, once you've opened the box and you look in, you actually learn the state of the cat. You know if it's dead or alive, you know if the vile of poison broke or did not, you know if Ben Franklin wearing a ball gag was in there the whole time... and "the wave function collapses." All of the possibilities that made up the wave function go away (hence the collapse), because you've observed the system and only one possibility was realized. Just wait until you read about double slits. Check common sense at the door and prepare to enter the rabbit's hole.

Hi Mag, Here is a link to the study you reference. It was conducted in 1974 by Dutton and Aron. http://www.fpce.uc.pt/nucleos/niips/novoplano/ps1/documentos/dutton&aron1974.pdf You can also google the term "Misattribution of arousal." Also, look up the work of Cindy Meston from the University of Texas at Austin. She did similar work to the bridge study, but expanded it to include general exercise, and also rollercoasters! I was a research assistant for her while I was still in college, and we got to go to Six Flags all of the time to collect data. Loads of fun. The same principle holds when taking your date to a scary movie, or driving fast. It gets their heartrate up and adrenaline pumping, so unconsciously they attribute that arousal to you.

Terrorism is not something you control, it's something you prevent. An ounce of prevention equals...

Are you familiar with Hawking Radiation? If you want more specific answers on QM and the impossibility of a perfect vacuum, consider the impossibility of certainty implied by QM. Was that Heisenberg over there? I like his hat.