Scorpiomover...

Modulo is the French term that I used... Thanks, I now know the English equivalent.

Here is the link...

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modulo

Modulo and or modulus means the same thing. In programming it is a function used to calculate "le reste".

The word modulo, in the mathematical community, is often used informally, in many imprecise ways. Generally, to say "A is the same as B modulo C" means, more-or-less, "A and B are the same except for differences accounted for or explained by C". For details, see modulo (jargon).

In the various branches of mathematics, it may be used in connection with:
modular arithmetic, a ≡ b (mod n)
modulo operation, in computing, the remainder after division
an ideal (ring theory) in ring theory of mathematics.
an equivalence relation.

It also may refer to:
Módulo, a Brazilian company specializing in IT governance.
Ferrari Modulo, a concept car from 1970.

Anyway... I am sure you will find something to argue about... It will not surprise me...

Here is an other link... my friend Wikipedia...

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modulo_(informatique)

I doubt you'll read it... It is in French...

Also see here...
www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/DoubleSlit/DoubleSlit.html#TwoSlitsElectrons

Surely if I'm an omnipotent being I can figure out a way to make immortality not suck! Christians and Muslims seem to think that Heaven is going to be the bees knees for all eternity. So why do we have to suffer first?

Surely, as an omnipotent being, I can create a universe where people can have joy without knowing suffering.

You didn't. It was a bad word choice.

“But, some of the things we use today were thought of in Science Fiction” is not supporting evidence that the world would be complete crap in the absence of suffering.

If you have archaeological evidence that the stories of the Bible are true, I'm all ears.

Logical fallacy (argumentum ad populum) – it doesn't matter what the majority of people “think” is true. Truth is truth.

Okay, but you're still arguing that God created this so people can... experience greater joy? The logical extension of this is something like, I can beat you (my wife, child, pastor) , because it'll teach you to... what... have greater joy or something?

Which was my reason for using a forward slash / between the statements. It's shorthand for “or”, as the hyphen – is shorthand for “and”. I believe you mentioned a UK vs US English issue before... maybe this is another “lost in translation” thing?

Interesting... There are some very wrong assumptions... The poster using modulo is hilarious... Is a programming term that simply means the remainder of a division.

Indeed. But if the experiment is allowed to run with one particle at a time, it shows an interference pattern. This is not new.

I am not anti-Semite just because I speak out against Israeli policy... no more than anyone might be anti-Christian, or anti-any other religion that is practiced here in the US just because they might despise American policy.

It's okay for Israel to cut off the water to Palestinians, but not okay if someone points that out and calls for the same treatment in return on Israel?

I would, but it's not "everyone" who is doing it ... eh? It's the Israelis!

And being against such an Israeli policy (or against their despicable behavior) does not make me anti-Semite ... it just means I'm against what they are doing.

It is when that's the topic of the thread!!!!

If someone wants to talk about Americans cutting off water from poor people ... start a thread about it.

But even if a person were to do that … they would not be accused of being anti-anything that has to do with a single religion.

A partial post was posted from another thread. Conveniently … only part of it was posted to try to make a point and one of the most important parts of the actual post was left out. Of course only part of the post does not make sense and naturally it would look like it supports the point the above poster is trying to make.

I have never demanded that the world threaten Israel.

I have pointed out some of the despicable things that Israel does to the Palestinians and still feel that if someone did that to them they might be more willing to sit down and negotiate.

I have only ever insinuated that turn about for Israel would be fair play given what they do to the Palestinians …

That is in no way, shape, or form demanding that the world (?) should threaten them. That's just my way of being against another despicable Israeli policy and does not make me anti-Semite.

Again, show me. Show me where I have claimed that "they" (whoever you mean by that?) just want to take over the planet ... name the thread and quote the post.

Can you find anything to prove that the Israelis DON'T want to take over more and more land? Show where they are not building more new settlements on stolen land? Show where they have disassembled any illegal settlements and given the stolen land back to the Palestinians?

Or better yet ... show that they have brought in the rightful owners of the land and made them comfortable in the "new" settlement housing that was erected illegally on the land? Any proof of that? NO? I didn't think so.

BTW ... claiming that Israel just wants to take over more and more land does not make me or anyone anti-Semite. Again ... just shows nothing more than anti-Israeli policy.

Correction ... not just beliefs ... part of what we know Israel is doing and I speak out against it. That does not make me anti-Semite ... that just means I'm against the despicable behavior of the Israelis.

So I repeat … I am not anti-Semite just because I speak out against Israeli policy... no more than anyone might be anti-Christian, or anti-any other religion that is practiced here in the US just because they might despise American policy.

Anyone is free to define it any way they want ... and they are certainly entitled to their opinion.

show up on time and keep your mouth shut.


its amazing how few people can make it to the gig when they are supposed to.

The Senate Health Care Reform bill is ready for debate. Estimates have the total cost over 10 years to be at the 850 Billion dollar figure. Some say the cost will be closer to 1 trillion dollars.

Igor what about situations where there is hyper inflation much like the Wymiar Republic between WWI and WWII Germany? I would say that most Revolts are caused by economic conditions, and that this country is primed for one, justified for social reasons but economic ones as the catylist.

And he was right. I believe an objective reality exists, but it is probably so far removed from our experience that we'll never know much about it. What is it to "know" something? We can see an orange, feel it's texture, weigh it, taste it, cut it up and look at it, learn it's molecular structure and probably experience it in a million other ways, but at what point would we know it? Can we ever know all there is to know about a simple orange? I would suggest we never will.

I didn't read his post, but it sounds like he's talking about quantum erasure. Here's a link showing simple experiment to illustrate it. It (this experiment) relies on entanglement, and I'm not sure if the one he was thinking of does or not.

http://grad.physics.sunysb.edu/~amarch/

That's why I like PS-Online it's free. I don't pay a dime to go online and play games. I can play with my friends or whoever anywhere and never have to pay a yearly fee.

I'm fully aware of what W7 is, it's what Vista should have been if MS hadn't cut corners, rushed it to the market, and hadn't gotten sidetracked with security issues in XP.

Yes but none of those were past paid products, they were always free. In terms of Microsoft giving away a free version of a paid product that you had to pay for in the past, is rare for them but apparently they have been feeling pressure from other free office apps recently that made them do this. Much like what Nero did recently by giving away a free version of Nero 9.

No one can argue that MS is brilliant with marketing.

Look what they're doing with Windows 7 for example.

But, this is really brilliant. They're going to make a killing on selling add space with this new product KNOWING that sooner or later you're going to get sick of it and eventually break down and buy the full version. In essence they are increasing the cash flow for their product by what is no less than double dipping.

As much as I dislike MS I have to admit that's pretty ingenious.

Xbox Live Silver isn't a free lite version of Xbox Gold, because you can't play any online games with the Silver account at all. If you could play online games with the Silver account with game restrictions being implemented then it would be considered a free lite version of Gold, but considering you can't even do that with the Silver account, then they share no main attribute together.

That's like saying when you buy the Xbox 360 you get a free controller. But if you want to enhance your game experience with friends you need to buy a second controller. I don't see your point...

So Jews already were doing lots of hygenic practices for thousands of years.

Does that include the ethnic cleansing and genocide of "the land of milk and honey" as described in Book of Joshua .

I would rather stay dirty rather than have this stain on my cultural background.

Reinhard Bendix summarising the Weber work writes that free of magic and esoteric speculations, devoted to the study of law, vigiliant in the effort to do what was right in the eyes of the Lord in the hope of a better future, the prophets established a religion of faith that subjected man's daily life to the imperatives of a divinely ordained moral law. In this way, ancient Judaism helped create the moral rationalism of Western civilisation.

I thought it was hilarious, but I wondered why mathematicians were worth more points than physicists

Which brings me to the real question...How would he score Ed Witten?

Let's review:
scorpiomover's defense

is something like - "the world would suck, a sci-fi book told me so".

Which, I suppose shouldn't be a shock from someone that read the bible and concluded it must be true without any supporting evidence (and continuously mounting scientific / archeological evidence supporting the opposite conclusion).

I can think of one good reason not to....how can appreciate anything that is "good" if you have never experienced anything "bad"?

Given the high rates of divorce and a 'throw-away' attitude to relationships, I think we desperately need to regain a sound theological and philosophical grounding to marriage, the family, and loving and intimate relationships of all kinds. Unfortunately religious fundamentalism and conservativism and its excessive concern for certain non-issues (such as contraception) or specific sex acts, has diverted Christianity away from a more holistic and personal focus on love and marriage as a whole, which of course must include respect for persons in light of their inherent dignity as the person they are in the gender they are, and also has to include an element of justice which involves fairness and reciprocity between people in a relationship rather than arbitrary domination or power struggles (which often kill relationships and love).

I think the Bible needs to be liberated not from the Bible but from conservative or fundamentalist readings which try to preserve traditions which do not reflect the sort of life-giving, grace-filled and loving relationships all human beings would enjoy in marriage and other relationships if they had not fallen short of the glory of God.

Scorpiomover you asked me to "Just revise your interpretation of the OT." Great, I will try but I will need you can help. Let's take my "misinterpretations" point by point....

Genesis 3:16
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

"Are you trying to solve the distribution of the primes?"

Yes. I have made very little ground to be honest.

I'm going to be bold and just say this. A calculus of infinities.

Ofcourse infinity would have to be treated like a number. And of course that's heresy. I'm researching it though.

Geeze!!...I think Desertrhino was right; you WOULD make a great straight man. Maybe we SHOULD take our show on the road! Let's see...
Martin & Lewis, Crosby & Hope, Abbott & Costello, and introducing Dukky & Scorpio...
Hmmm... I think we'll have to do something about your name...You sound too much like a James Bond villain for a comedy act.

What about the reinmann zeta function. I didn't read the whole wiki text but might it have an application here?

I've been using my own (very poor) method of analyzing primes with a technique I use called spindles. Its similar to cellular automna but the spindles concentrate on the path of the primes.

Yes, but does everyone say that 1=1?

Working from the assumption that "a" God exists, and that different religious facets are actually seeing part of Him/Her, this can only be "proven" existentially, which, if I'm not mistaken, was one of the reasons that Aristotalian logic eventually led to other extensions of logic, like that of Boole.

I believe that the fallacy of proving God only through logic, and no quest for proof was called the "existentialist fallacy," or something like that.

The existential fallacy, or existential instantiation, is a logical fallacy committed in a categorical syllogism that is invalid because it has two universal premises and a particular conclusion. In other words, for the conclusion to be true, at least one member of the class must exist, but the premises do not establish this.

Example

1- All inhabitants of other planets are friendly
2- All Martians are inhabitants of another planet.

3- Some Martians are friendly.

My mind wanders way too much on a nice Sunday afternoon.

In an empirical sense, this is not provable.

On the other hand, Faith needs no proof.

Religious faith differs from Empiricism because the role of each is vastly different.

Talcott Parsons would say that that purpose of Religious Faith is to "integrate society" along some meaningful existence. On the other hand, the purpose of empiricism, be it science or law, is to sustain Pattern Maintenance. Pattern Maintenance is the need for any social system to sustain itself through time, as the same or similar entity. Thus, the legal laws, or sustained scientific theorems, remain the same until changed because of new empirical, or other, evidence. But they add to the stability, or continuance of society or add continuity to our system of existence " as opposed to adding to "integration," or the need to form an "identity" of ourselves.

On the basis of Faith, if one wants to believe that God has existed forever, it needs no further proof. It's only when one faces the need for Pattern Maintenance Against the need for Integration that one is faced with this challenging question. A carburetor is not meant to fill the function of a radiator.

OH, and BTW, these same "religious deep thinkers" that are adding all of that Bible stuff where it does not belong, i e. adding Bible verses and what not that does not address the original question --- they traverse many threads here on POF, doing the same thing. So, don't feel like you're being targeted. It is a shame, but one of them keeps changing her login just about on a daily basis, I guess so that she won't get banned from the site.

I know that it's difficult to ignore them, but just do your best to do so. They leave after a while, or at least pester you with their "thumping and ridiculing only once in a while. Ironically, they seem to be operating under the false illusion that they are "spreading the word."

What do they practise on before they're ready for the "big time"?
("OOPS...knife slipped again!" "Don't worry...we got lots more where he..I mean she came from.")

Like 5 at once?...Bring 'em on!! (the pills I mean)

That's why they wind up lobotomized, living in hospitals for the politically insane, drooling into their shoe. It never pays to be TOO smart.

OR, most doctors were jewish and thought it would be better for the baby to be "clean" like them?

That's what I mean...the pain and discomfort are proof of the commitment and give it meaning. Tattoos are quite painful (and also pretty ugly after 40 years or so). They are also expensive. Why do people pay good money to suffer so much pain and possible infection, just to have a picture on their body?

Frankly, I've never figured it out, but it would seem to me to be a good analogue to enduring the pain & suffering of adult circumcision for some reason, be it religious commitment or whatever.

Id like to know what smart people have to type on this one. I never actually thought about this until the other day but once I started to think about it I contemplated if sometimes there are instances where 1 does not equal 1 mathematically speaking. If we use math to explain the universe around us then certainly you can also see how 1 may not always equal 1 mathematically speaking.

All I am trying to get at is "mathematics" is human theory. Time is largely irrelevant in mathematics. Why use a timeless theory when we ourselves are not timeless?

Scorpio, I've come to the conclusion, based on available evidence, that you would make a lousy scientist.

Your approach seems to be 'draw no conclusions' as if 'conclusions' are a bad thing.

You know what science is? With this approach, science would get nowhere. Conclusions...even wrong ones...are important.

The process is self correcting.

The difference between science and religion is that science doesn't expect you to take anything on blind faith and I know you've seen me and others point out that science is inherently skeptical. Indeed, science is revised every time.

And I have also pointed out that Relativity is up for revision, especially since it stands as mutually exclusive to QT, suggesting an overlying "law(s)" overriding the two.

Which is an active area of research.

However, I don't understand your confusion. Time and again, scientists have conducted experiments that have proven the SPEED of light.

The only one suggesting emotional investment is you.

Um...so do the experiment, get the data, but then doubt the results of the experiment and so draw no conclusions from the experiment you set out to get data from in the first place. Am I missing something?

Okay, my bad. Poor choice of words on my part...however, it is a little presumptuous to say "you implied this, so it means that is what you believe." Not quite. I can imply you're a thief, but that won't exactly stand up in a court of law.

Perhaps it would be better to say that current theory holds that information transmission is limited to the speed of light, and that such transmission of information includes gravity. That is the current state of physics. It is the basis for the construction of LIGO (and a proposed space-based version).

Have I done any of the experiments myself? No. But I have read of and heard from those who have. They seem to be pretty smart and know what they're doing. Hardly seem right to impune their competency. However, according to you, the only ones who would be acceptable (and even then, maybe not) would be the actual scientists doing the experiments and only if they can answer all conceivable questions, even those that have had no experiment to answer.

Ask the physicists the standard experiments for the speed of light and information transmission.

As I've already stated, there is one major experiment underway for gravity waves, and that is LIGO. It has, thus far, produced negative results. Again, not necessarily a failure. Just a constraint of the experiment.

Oh, let's not get into the failure of American education since, first of all, I am NOT American.

As for what you "know" about science...no comment at this point. I know science changes. I don't need you to "remind" me of that.

You assume the universe "perceives." That requires consciousness. That's getting into discussions of "God." Let's not. It's outside the purview of this discussion, unless you've got something definitive.

Good thing Thomas Edison didn't have your attitude.

I have not failed 700 times. I have not failed once. I have succeeded in proving that those 700 ways will not work. When I have eliminated the ways that will not work, I will find the way that will work.

What and why are two separate questions.

Scorpiomover is like the Energizer Bunny. I can hardly even find the energy in myself to respond to him because no matter how eloquently or consistently you correct him and expose his flawed reasoning, poor understanding of what science even is, and grade-school level arguments he will strike right back with something even worse and far more requiring of 50 paragraphs of correction and information. It's just not worth it. Discussions with scorpiomover, I've quickly learned, are 100% counterproductive. And I think the less he knows about a topic, the more he is willing to dig himself into a deep hole and let us cover him with dirt... We just need to turn and walk away.

scorpiomover, since you (*cough*) mastered atomic physics at age 7 and relativity at age 10,

also grasped the relatively simple idea that the speed of light in a vacuum is a fundamental constant of our universe?

With your cosmic brilliance and genius status the likes of which no one on Earth, including history's greatest and most brilliant physicists and mathematicians, has ever known or witnessed before,

it seems that you shouldn't be the one asking questions, but the one answering all of them.

I can't help but take it as a bit fishy that you're sitting here getting easily mixed up and confused and absolutely clueless on simple things in physics, but repeatedly boast of accomplishments which place you at an intellectual capacity about 50 times that of Einstein, Hawking, Feynman, Dirac, Heisenberg, and Pauli combined. Something just doesn't add up, it seems.

Why don't you guys I don't know.. do a little research some time.

It's funny that I am the only one supplying evidence for my ascertions.

If it was done solely for medical reasons then more than just 6% of Europe would get it done. It's for religious reasons. Nothing else.

No careful medical investigation ever preceded the introduction of neonatal male circumcision as a routine procedure. It was introduced on the opinion of a few influential nineteenth and early twentieth century physicians without any research into safety or efficacy.

Before the late nineteenth century, medical doctors understood that infants feel pain.1 Then, in 1872, Paul Emil Flechsig advanced the idea that infants could not feel pain because "their nerves are not completely myelinated."1 Incredibly, this idea caught on, and all sorts of operations---including open heart surgery---were carried out on infants without anesthesia for many years.1

I always wondered about that...Do some homosexuals get their back door circumcised? What gets trimmed off?

Did you make a claim on this thread that I asked you to prove? What was it?

Having an opinion and making a claim are NOT synonymous. You (and a few other people) ought to learn that.

So what makes you think I haven't already changed my mind and now agree with you with respect to circumcision?

Because the parent isn't the child having the procedure. Assent to it should come from the child.

Because the people you tried to arrest would rubber-hose you?

So does the one in 200 infants who doesn't consent and gets "complications" from the procedure have the right to sue?

Do the others, who didn't consent to it and decide they didn't want it done have the right to sue their parents for breach of trust and dereliction of duty?

That can be more than offset with beer...Bring 'em on!!!

Then it's legitimate therapy for an addiction.

You WERE denied the option. Look, infant circumcision is the same as infant baptism. It is meaningless to the child because the child isn't making the religious commitment. The only important difference between the two (both of which I would disapprove even if I were a christian or a Jew BTW) is that the water dries off and leaves no scar, Circumcision is basically there for life, whether you wanted it or not.

If you REALLY wanted to make a personal covenant with God, you would get circumcised willingly at your Bar Mitzvah! It would likely prove far more meaningful.

In cases where consent cannot be given, it is the responsibility of those with the trust position of power of attorney to act in accordance with what they believe the wish would be of the individual in question. That is for life or death situations. It does not extend to someone being passed out and his loved ones deciding in his sleep that he'd probably want that ship tattooed on his chest!

This is my experience in life with standing up all day at work and having clubfeet. From the age of 16 I worked in an engineering machine shop which involved standing on my feet all day. This was not a problem for some years and I even forgot I actually had clubfeet.

However by the age of 24 I started suffering from pain in my ankles and feet. The pain progressively worsened and by the age of 26 I was taking pain killers to cope with being on my feet all day.

At the age of 29 I was forced to leave this job as the pain was so unbearable it became impossible for me to continue. I enrolled for studies in computers and was lucky to get myself a job sitting down after passing exams. I've never been a person who likes to study or sit exams but with a little determination I ended up really enjoying it. I am now 33 and I have been doing a sit down job for over 3 years now, and I love it!

My only regret is that I wish I had got of my feet a lot sooner. From my own experiences I strongly feel that standing up all day long with clubfeet was incredibly detrimental to my health. I'm confident that the arthritis and pain that I now suffer from in my feet would still have happened. However by standing on my feet all day long for 13 years my arthritic pain was accelerated by a considerable number of years.

This is only my experience however and you and others may be different. Due to my own experience, I would ask that anyone with clubfoot/feet would strongly consider seeking employment within a less demanding industry.

Dudley

There are people in this country (and likely yours too) that have the custom of female circumcision (which entails removal of the clitoris). It is my understanding that those who can't get the procedure done here (unless they know a back-room butcher) go back to the "old country" for a holiday and get it done there on their daughters. Do you approve of that?

Until well into the Nineteenth Century, the same sentiments prevailed.
The English explorer Sir Richard Burton observed that "Christendom practically holds circumcision in horror". This attitude is reflected in the ninth edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica (1876) which discusses the practice as a religious rite among Jews, Moslems, the ancient Egyptians and tribal peoples in various parts of the world. The author of the entry rejected sanitary explanations of the procedure in favour of a religious one: "like other body mutilations ... [it is] of the nature of a representative sacrifice". (R. Darby)[20]

Then, a change of attitude began, something that was reflected in successive editions of the Encyclopaedia Britannica:
By 1910 the entry had been turned on its head: "This surgical operation, which is commonly prescribed for purely medical reasons, is also an initiation or religious ceremony among Jews and Muslims": now it was primarily a medical procedure and only after that a religious ritual. The entry explained that "in recent years the medical profession has been responsible for its considerable extension among other than Jewish children ... for reasons of health" (11th edition, Vol. 6). By 1929 the entry is much reduced in size and consists merely of a brief description of the operation, which is "done as a preventive measure in the infant" and "performed chiefly for purposes of cleanliness". Ironically, readers are then referred to the entries for "Mutilation" and "Deformation" for a discussion of circumcision in its religious context (14th edition, 1929, Vol. 5). (R. Darby)[20]

Historically, neonatal circumcision was promoted during late Victorian times in the English-speaking parts of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United States and the United Kingdom and was widely practiced during the first part of the 20th century in these countries. However, the practice declined sharply in the United Kingdom after the Second World War, and somewhat later in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It has been argued (e.g., Goldman 1997) that the practice did not spread to other European countries because others considered the arguments for it fallacious. In South Korea, circumcision was largely unknown before the establishment of the United States trusteeship in 1945. More than 90% of South Korean high school boys are now circumcised, but the average age of circumcision is 12 years, which makes South Korea a unique case.[21]

Infant circumcision has been abandoned in New Zealand and Britain, and is now much less common in Australia and in Canada (see table 1). The decline in circumcision in the United Kingdom followed the decision by the National Health Service (NHS) in 1948 not to cover the procedure following an influential article by Douglas Gairdner which claimed that circumcision resulted in the deaths of about 16 children under 5 each year in the United Kingdom.[22][23]

Anyway, I do agree Darwin & Evolution are closely tied, and often people try to deamonize the man (Darwin) in order to attack his theory (Evolution). Which is silly, his theories should be either attacked or accepted on their own merit, not the merit or caliber of the man.

Video-games, the scourge of the new millennium provide a quick and dirty fix of 'achievement'.

Wrong...I would have found a society that approved of it, or failing that, brewed my own in the basement, thus negating the need to stagger down to the beer store.

I think I made that choice a long time ago. "Women are like elephants to me...nice to look at, but I wouldn't wanna own one." - W.C. Fields

Why should I have to go to the trouble of proving it to you? What you (or anyone else) think of me is of too little consequence to bother. I derive my self esteem from myself, not from external sources of approval.

Only to a lawyer, not a logician.

FALSE! I believe in freedom of choice, so ANYONE who wants to get circumcised ought to be able to get it done.

I'm glad you don't make the laws...You'd never take me alive!

I don't know what a tryant is but you sure sound like you could be a potential tyrant if you had the power.

Yeah...you'd probably have to ban bathtubs too.

Then why are they so damn popular.

try to separate some nimrod from his TV or his tranquilizers and you'll probably get a reaction similar to trying to take my beer away!

Really?...So what did the rabbi say when you asked him to slice it off? You guys must all be pretty precocious. Most people can't even talk at that age.

I'm saying (contrary to established law) that silence is silence, not consent. If a week old baby can ask for the procedure, I'm fine with that. What I'm not fine with is his lack of response on being asked (if he is, which I doubt) being taken as tacit approval. It may be technically lawful under the distorted excuse for what passes as law around the world these days, but it is simply WRONG!!

I'd like to recommend Goldbach's (1st) conjecture.

So here's a logical twister...Is it possible to prove it to be undecideable?

Getting a bit defensive, scorpio?

Okay, did I say that gravity waves DID exist?

However, gravity is far more pervasive. Indeed, it cannot travel faster than the speed of light since information in a relativistic universe is restricted to that speed limit. Hence...gravity waves.

What I was pointing out that the speed of light is a fundamental law of physics in relativistic space. Nothing has ever been found to contradict this in any evidential way.

You tried to counter that it's a "perceptual" construct based on the fact that we human beings perceive based on electromagnetism of which visible light is a part.

But that wasn't THE POINT! The speed of light, I will say again, is fundamental to the universe, like the strong and weak nuclear forces and like the electron. A "maximum" speed limit, if you will.

Now, if you want to talk about gravity, physics is based on the underlying principal that gravity, like light, can only travel so fast IN RELATIVISTIC SPACETIME.

This is basic physics.

Now, it is important to acknowledge that, so far, there has been no positive detections of gravity waves from the LIGO detectors. Is that a failure of science?

A failure of the theory? No. Especially since this is the last holdout of observable Relativity. Which means that the results of the experiment are simply more constrained.

Now, if you're inclined to start sitting there and saying that the likes of Albert Einstein, Kip Thorn and Stephen Hawking, go right ahead. Have fun. I'll go on the old saying that it is better to be silent and have people think of one as an idiot than to open one's mouth and remove all doubts.

One: Belief based on the fact that NO experimental evidence has been presented to date that invalidates the theory, despite a massive, nearly innumerable body of evidence and experiment, is NOT "blind faith." It's informed, rational decision-making.

Two: Now you're saying that any crackpot "theory" that is too obviously bullsh!t for anyone to actually waste experimental time, money, and energy refuting it is now deemed "plausible" until such time as someone specifically invalidates it? Like Light's expanding earth crap? What.ev.er.

That's sacrilege!

Any more than 18 beers removes my ability to perform it and I've usually had that by the time she's had two. If I have any more than 6 beers, it kills my desirability anyway, so consent isn't an issue; the issue is the number of beers.

Anyway it's good that we finally started talking about what is really important instead of that stupid circumcision issue;

frankly it's been so long since I've seen it I can't remember if I'm circumcised or not.

So if I find an injustice and complain about it, I should either shut up or complain about every injustice committed? What makes you think I don't complain about any injustice I find? The thread was focused on only one, so I focused one that one and you are b¡tching at me because I'm not b¡tching about a hundred other issues not relevant to the thread?

Speaking about the Baconian method, are you inferring by induction that silence on any of them implies tacit approval? It would appear so. Your logic is flawed.

So where's the inconsistency?

Thanks for that at least; I'd hate to think you'd deny me my greatest pleasure in life!

Think how many more would be saved if we banned swimming, skydiving, driving, flying, street-crossing and a hundred other hazardous, unnecessary activities. A LOT more people would stay alive that might otherwise die...Of course I suspect most of them would now find life unworthy of the living and commit suicied, but that's another problem we could address with tranquilizers & TV reality shows.

You only have to ban those things that infringe on people's right to freedom of choice.

I am interested in why Verzens foreskin kept getting infected no matter how clean he was.

And taking two showers and one bath per day might suggest some type of complusive condition.

Get real! We don't have to do sh¡t! Did I say anything about not doing for a child what's in his best interest? If you have a valid reason to believe there is a medical procedure in the best interest of the child, what's the problem? What is at issue is whether or not a cosmetic procedure is in the best interest of the child. I contend that it is not. I also contend it is wrong to force a non-consensual procedure on an infant for religious reasons, since the child has not yet reasoned a belief system and it ought not be presumed that the child is going to be the religion of the parents.

This should answer your question.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-5870-review-test/7

Scorpio, you'd argue against the sky being blue...

Oh hey! Real science here.

Vuk Mandic, an astrophysicist at the University of Minnesota and a member of the LIGO team, says the observatory is providing a taste of things to come in the field. "This is the first time that this type of experiment, directly searching for gravitational waves, has reached the sensitivity that is sufficient to start probing cosmology and early-universe models," Mandic says.

Let's review:
scorpiomover's defense

is something like - "the world would suck, a sci-fi book told me so".

Which, I suppose shouldn't be a shock from someone that read the bible and concluded it must be true without any supporting evidence (and continuously mounting scientific / archeological evidence supporting the opposite conclusion).

This is a false dichotomy. Humans are capable of experiencing positive feelings, even in the absence of negative circumstances. I've never been raped, or watched my family die at the hands of a man with a machete - and yet - I'm still able to appreciate & have great joy in my life. I've had items (including a car) stolen from me, but I was able to appreciate & enjoy those things before they were taken from me. I don't need to consume feces to appreciate the awesome flavor of strawberries.

If you believe in God (capitol G), you are religious in the Judea / Christian sense. All other gods are lower case "g".

It's against forum rules to exclude certain groups from discussion.

That said, I'd like to take this opportunity to write about the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM). I believe that FSM created the universe after heavy drinking. This is why there are flaws with the earth such as volcanoes, earthquakes, and France. All evidence for evolution was planted by FSM to test the faith of Pastafarians, like myself. Pirates, though demonized by Christians, are divine beings who give candy to children and prevent global warming. Our Heaven has a beer volcano and a stripper factory. Our Hell is similar except the beer is stale and the strippers have STD's.

So, to draw an analogy, if I can find one rabbi who says your god either doesn't exist at all, or is a poopy-head, you have to accept the truth that your god is quite possibly a fictional poopy-head?

Riiiiiiiiiight.

That is my point. What gives ANYONE the right to assault the integrity of an infant's body? It is obviously without his consent to do so and any argument that it is in his best interest is a stretch at best, but more likely downright irrational.

Correct.

No we don't.

There are many theistic religions that don't require circumcision.

That's right. That's why they don't.

That's an assumption. How do you know it hasn't been noticed? Have you read any peer reviewed studies on it?

If I had a trauma because of that, I'd KNOW.

Do you remember how you felt when you were seven days old?

How do you know it hasn't "damaged" your psyche in some way?

Now that's (a funny) load of crap & you know it. What makes you think I allowed my kids to get pierced or tattooed, or otherwise mutilated because I live in a Western Country where its common?

It doesn't apply to circumcision anyway, because circumcision is not a Western custom.

As many remain uncircumcised as get it done.

1. Adam and Eve supposedly had no knowledge of good or evil. How could they be held responsible for being disobedient to God? How were they supposed to know that disobeying God is "evil"? Of course, it's easy for us to judge; we have knowledge of good and evil.

2. So, because of their disobedience, sin has been unleashed upon mankind. Man is now depraved, wicked, imperfect, etc. Yet writing and compiling the words/thoughts of God Himself is the ONE PERFECT ACT sinful man has accomplished? I'm not buying it.

Who said the Bible is perfect? For this purpose, let's just equate "perfect" with "inerrant." Talk to a Baptist minister or Pentacostal pastor. Easier still, take a look at "answersingenesis.org" for endless claims to Biblical inerrancy.

I would also take issue with your claim that people have succeeded in keeping the Scriptures unchanged for 100 generations or so.

The Bible's most enduring quality is that it is widely open to personal and agenda-driven interpretation. It has the potential to be many things to many people, for good or not-so-good.

The Bible is, at the end of the day, just a book (more precisely a compilation of books and letters) written by various (fallible) people, with no more power than that which its (fallible) readers project upon it.

Which is why this doesn't ring true for me: "Whether or not the manuscript is factual or not is, for many, the biggest question surrounding the document.". The biggest question for me is: since there's so many obvious contradictions, and endless interpretations, why would anyone believe the authenticity of the document?

In some instances of some translations, they would be correct. But translation errors don't account for the majority of contradictions.

It also doesn't help that translation errors just prove that the devine hand of God isn't working if his works aren't being translated accurately. You can't say, "The Bible was written by God (infalable) through man." and admit "The Bible has translation errors.". Either God saw to it you had clear & accurate instruction... or he didn't.

Still more believe that they are not flaws at all, but simply subjects that can no longer be fully understood since parts (even full books) of the Bible, that possibly contained information and explanations of these subjects, have been removed or lost.

Those people don't have the first clue about the history of the Bible. The Bible is a collection of writings. There's no deleted or lost passages from these assembled works. Some writings may not have been included... but they weren't every "removed". This is an important distinction.

His theories are entirely inconsistent with Einstein's theories. Newton's theories work on a macro scale, and Einstein's on a micro scale, but not visa versa.

Not true:
You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
You can't make / shape God, therefore he can't be an idol.

Einstein knew this when he was producing his theories - and stated they weren't "laws" nor would they be laws. He was working on a unifying "law of everything" even as he published E=mc^2. Scientiests have been working on a theory of everything. The closest thing we have right now is string theory & quantium physics. The former is more of a pseudoscience (because it's predictions can't be directly observed... yet... maybe...), and the lader doesn't explain everything. But, I digress...

And, in some cases they're written record of someone's accounts of someone's accounts. And, in all cases, translations of translations of original text that we can't locate. Therefore we're unable to authenticate the translations.

Personally, I'd want to have all ten people describe what they saw... just to see how closely they matched. Like with your example of the sphinx... if one person says it had the head of a man, and the other said it had the head of a bull, I'd still tend to call it a mirage. At best, it would be an odd rock formation, rather than an artifact.

(And even then - depending on how long it has been between the time they supposedly saw the event, and how long they've been in contact since, I might *still* discount it due to possible collusion... )

It seems like the church has some work to do with either it's image or it's stand on issues that are in need of realigment with a broader audience.
As the one poster has stated above it seems that old or atrocoties atributed to the church are overshadowing any good they do attempt to do in this world.

Although I am not religious, nor do I currently believe in a higher being other than maybe a more intelligent race than humans, it is a shame that we do not currently have a wider belief in just being human. I don't count being an atheist as an organized anything but could be a basis for something new.

As long as it wouldn't turn into a bunch of scientoligists.

Actually, that would be incorrect. The overall bias is to assume light is predominant in the universe because, well, we see it.

However, gravity is far more pervasive. Indeed, it cannot travel faster than the speed of light since information in a relativistic universe is restricted to that speed limit. Hence...gravity waves.

Dark matter and dark energy are predominant since dark matter (and its gravity) is known to influence the development of galaxies and dark energy is pushing the universe apart to an increasing extent.

Circumcision, unless medically necessary, is a COSMETIC change that can't be rationally argued as being beneficial to the infant. Uncircumcised men seldom (never?) opt for cosmetic circumcision. Reasons for adult circumcision are almost always either medical or religious.

The likelihood of ever needing a circumcision for medical reasons is relatively small, certainly small enough to negate the option of circumcising an infant as a rational course of action for medical reasons.

There could be an argument made for infant circumcision based on religion, as most people assume the religion of their parents, HOWEVER, an infant can't be said to be born with a religion; it must be chosen freely. This goes back to the need for consent. An infant can't give his consent and ought not be circumcised.

That argument doesn't wash with me. How can you know how much it pains the infant? Even if the nerves weren't fully developed and it really was less painful, what effect do you think it might have on his psyche to be so traumatized at such a young age? Do you think the infant knows what's going on that he can rationalize the pain as being "for his own good? I think even if it were ten times as painful for an adult, it should be a matter of the adult's choice whether or not he wants to be circumcised.

The Ubangi people pierce their lips and stretch them with plates. I don't know itf its a religious or strictly cosmetic practice and I don't know if they start it in infancy, but suppose it is true in both cases. Are the parents justified in piercing and stretching the lips of say a seven day old infant?

Education is a hard fought for luxury for many people in western civilisation and in not even an option for a huge proportion of the world.
We became free by our education and are now becoming enslaved by our worshipping of materialism. The only true wealth is an open mind and an education.