I_Pwn_Crackpots

Pioneer, did you actually read this thread at all?

I encourage you to read what you type out loud, you will be surprised at the amount of incoherent rubbish that happens to escape your notice.

If Newton had devised a theory of Gravity that was partly wrong and as a result 100 million people lost their lives – then Newton would be responsible. The “Evolutionary” ideas of survival of the fittest and chance have indeed led to the loss of at least 100 million lives. But somehow evolutionists are careful not to take any responsibility. They can’t be blamed for gravity and so they can’t be blamed to what they got wrong about evolution. Frankly this kind of reasoning disgusts me.

The ideas of Christianity have lead to the deaths of hundreds of more millions of lives, and continue to do so to this day. Should I hold you responsible for those deaths because you are a Christian?

Evolution is not even a social theory, so it is ridiculous to claim that the theory has anything to do with morality whatsoever.

This is similar to claiming Newton should be held responsible for airplanes falling out of the sky.

Plasma is often referred to as the 4th state of matter

You would have to show that all of those flood myths originated around the same time though. A meteor strike wouldn't make much sense if the origin of the myths were hundreds (or thousands) of years apart. Also, the meteor would have to be quite large to cause storms on a large scale.

Also remember that there was alot of cross contact between different cultures in the Middle East and the Mediterranean, so it is quite possible that elements of one myth could have been borrowed or plagerized from other mythologies (the bible being an obvious example of this).

You cannot construct a circle whose ratio is nearly 3.0, not even theoretically. For example, I can construct a circle whose diameter is the plank length, and the ratio will be pi.

Or rather, since a circle can be ANY arbitrary size, I can theoretically construct a circle whose diameter is 10^-1000 m, and the ratio will still be pi.

No, it doesn't mean that at all.

I also think it's important to separate that from religious motivations, since when an "afterlife" is involved the whole equation is completely different. If you actually believe in it, then the survival instinct doesn't interfere with sacrificing your life, and might actually help it along, if, as in Christianity or Islam, you only "survive" in the afterlife if certain conditions are met in life, in which case sacrificing your physical life to meet those conditions is a no-brainer.

I agree with this as well, as dying for an abstract concept does not make much sense from a biological standpoint. And yet, there are extremely well documented cases of people doing just that, especially when religion is involved. It makes me wonder if this could be a form of mental illness or something. But could an abstract concept really affect someone's mental health in such a profound way?

@ Blade:

Thanks for the videos. I haven't had any time yet to watch them, but I will when I have the free time.

I wasn't suggesting that Microsoft was good, but that the fact that they were more open than most of the leading computer industries of the day proved to be valuable. It's the same exact way with google too.

(Actually, given the stunning success of the iPhone, I wouldn't be surprised to see MS head in the same direction. I use a Windows smartphone myself, and it is a *dog* compared with the iPhone. And MS well knows it. I'm very concerned about what lessons MS is learning at the moment. Maybe they'll try to tackle an iPhone-like usability champion but with the openness and extensibility. On the other hand, they make Windows, so how likely is that, really?)

It would be interesting to see what Microsoft will do with it's phones. I'm not too sure if they would be very open with their phone software either, rather I'm convinced that it probably will go as far as their X-Box did (Sony still dominates by far, and I really have to wonder why...)

Google's "don't be evil" philosophy comes to mind as an example of an approach to dealing with that problem. Not that they haven't had their own share of controversies, but given the way they've inculcated their technologies into our lives it's not hard to imagine a few nightmare scenarios had they NOT had a philosophy like that.

Big Brother 1984? Maybe >

Light does not have mass.

Time is not a spatial dimension. And I don't think the flip book is a great analogy, because according to special relativity objects experience time at different rates, depending on their relative speed to one another. You should read up on world lines if you want an accurate visualization of it.

Its just impossible.

It's not strictly impossible per se, but the OP's proposed method certainly is.

But a circle is a mathematical construct, not a physical one. Perfect circles don't exist in nature. They don't have any meaning beyond the mathematical "realm". You can therefore make a circle arbitrarily small, and pi will always be irrational.

No, that's not subduction.

It's where two plates collide, where one plate goes under another and pushes material up from the mantle.

Have you ever heard of Pangaea? All continents were part of it at one time.

That's not fossil evidence. That's just some guy talking out of his ass.

Have you ever heard of subduction?

And, even if we assume that this ridiculous hypothesis has any merit, how do we explain the fact that life began in the sea?

All a shape implies is that the universe is curved. It doesn't have to look like anything.

I wouldn't say that pi is "just one number" because at the plank lenght scale pi is close to 3.0 Having an absolute limit on how small things can get does change things - don't you think so?

What????

Do not change the subject. If you were following this thread at all you would know I was told I need evidence before I start speculating about mechanisms. Now you are telling me I need a mechanism before I can begin considering evidences.

I never said or implied that. What I stated was that you were starting from a false premise. You were assuming something to be true and then asking how it fits into an already established theory which doesn't support your hypothesis.

What about the groups of sister taxa that line both sides of the pacific. I have not heard an good explanation that calls for a static sized earth.

I think the correct term for this is misunderstanding, not evidence. You don't understand plate tectonics so therefore you conclude that it must be wrong (If only I could be THAT rigorous!).

No, people asked for evidence and I gave it to them.

So then you shouldn't have any problem convincing people of the validity of your theory, should you .

I don't want people to just ignore it or change the subject.

 

Agian

I asked that question because you are starting from a false premise.

If the wavelength is as big as the universe, I don't think it can be redshifted. After all, cosmological redshifts are caused by the expansion of the universe itself. It can't get any longer then that.

But humans and time machines are not tachyons, so they would violate special relativity.

Since the hypothesis of the OP is false, you can come to any conclusion you want.

Wow. If Microsoft did something like that the entire world would be in an uproar.

That's why apple doesn't rule the world, and Microsoft does. Because they don't do that . Not that I'm a supporter of Microsoft, but they do have a much better marketing plan then did IBM or Apple.

Yeah, I always use parenthesis to keep myself organized. For signs, only the negative sign is sufficient, I don't also need a positive sign, though I do switch signs often so that they become easier to keep track of.

I don't know a whole lot about human behavior, so I want to know the psychological basis behind the need to be correct about a given idea.

Specifically, what could drive a person so far that they would be willing to die for a given set of beliefs or ideology even if it is complete nonsense? Or even worse, that they would be willing to kill someone else for their beliefs?

You see this phenomenon most often with religious cults, even if their set of beliefs specifically preaches tolerance.

Answer this question first: How does perpetual motion fit into the Law of Conservation of Energy?

imagine, What is 2+4?

I think there was a good reason why nuclear powered airplanes were considered only for military use. And they didn't even want it.