I'm just the annoying person in the room, who says "Who says it has to be so?" "Why can't we think of it an entirely different way?" Drives lots of people up the wall.

Ok- fair enough. I say let's move on to all those damn lights in the sky.

hospitol records as well as the increase in crime during those times as well....

To at least see if there is something that could explain the coisidence.

maybe it isn't a material on the moon and instead is a specrum of light due to the reflection against the full moon.

he moons glow is basically reflected and filtered sun rays. could have some effect on our eyes that account for the results.

It is a force powerful enough to control ocean tides.

You seem to be missing this by an even bigger margin...Ok lets concentrate on one thing.
What is the single photon interfering with?

Dont forget that a single photon fired through the slit should just make a dot on the back wall, it cannot interfere with itself. The way an interference pattern happens is if TWO photons come together they create a peak, where they don't is a dark patch. You have to have 2 photons to create an interference pattern...it cannot do it by itself.

Surley there must be some reason why a FULL moon has a noticable effect on how we act during them.

No, but I read books, as do you, which is where we get our facts from

We view the quasar contemporaneously like we do the interference pattern

Yes you are missing something...How can 1 photon show an interference pattern if there is only 1 photon…1 wave or 1 particle.

Apparently they do, evidence for the last 80 years or so has shown this, many theories to explain the evidence have been presented.

How do you know this? People ask if a tree falls over and no one is there see it fall, does it make a sound...well evidence shows (metaphorically speaking) that if there is no one there, there is no tree. The photon is a wave until we view it, then it is a particle.

If you are on the moon are you not and extra terrestrial by definition? We have been so it's not so hard for me to believe. Earthings were ET's

Every person on this planet better believe they found water there or else.

I believe any conclusion we must base on the existance of alien life must be based on our actual observations of the universe. And everywhere we look in the universe, we see it is outright hostile to all forms of life.

Why? There have been Billions upon Billions of speices, and only a dozen or so reached a level of intelligence that can be considered human-like. You claim its arrogant to think the universe doesn't have another intelligent life- I say its arrogant to look at the vast and varied history of life on our planet, with billions of lifeforms having existed, thrived, then gone extinct, and to conclude the universe must have lifeforms that act and think identical to the kind of life you see in your lifetime.

Even if there is life in the universe, why -must- there be other intelligent life? Clearly intelligent life is the minority, and evolution does not exist to gear life towards intelligent life.

These are all made up numbers, though. If you want serious debate, you must be willing to use actual observations, not "wouldn't it be nice if" scenerios

Also, I'm pretty sure the chances of intelligent life would be more like 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000001% or even worse odds.

Saying wheres theres water theres life is like saying that where theres wood, theres fire. And thats simply not the case.

Mars has no Magnetic Sphere, and Europa is far too close to Jupiter, and thus both planets experience waves of radiation slaming against it- it would be an absolute mircle for life to survive in such a place.

So then are there mermaids?

Math doesn't make fact- esspecially when you're making up the numbers.

I never suggested that he should ask CERN to put my idea forwards for testing at the LHC, or testing at FermiLab. I could do that myself with better success than he could. I'm just discussing ideas on a forum. I'd just like to stop feeling like when it comes to science, religion, politics, and economics, and just about everything that ever was mentioned, that anything I say that even suggests possible disagreement with your opinion is automatically wrong, because I have dealt with extreme fundamentalists before, and you talk exactly the same ways they do, only more, because even when it comes to science, they're usually a lot more informed when they tell me that I'm wrong, to at least provide clear evidence.

"PANDEMIC"..."STATE OF EMERGENCY"...blah...blah...blah
over 198 dead people ? .....

I wonder how many normally die by mid Nov each year during the regular flu

lets ask the 6.6 million in 5 years from now after the flu is gone.

I saw you wrote that they did exist, but not that they might exist. That, to me, implies that you think they definitely do exist.

..it is exhausting explaining all of this

We all have heard the expression, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"

-FDA regulations (Keep harmful drugs off the market, winds up killing more by delaying the approval of life-saving drugs)

-Minimum Wage Laws (Makes it next to impossible for our poor, inner-city youngsters to find jobs, earn skills on the job, and advance to higher pay, after government schooling provides them with zero qualifications.)

-Tax-exemption for Employer Health insurance (Has made health insurance cover basic medical tasks such as checkups and minor operations. Without consumers spending their own money on these, doctors and hospitals do not worry about competing with prices - and as such there is no force (consumers voting with their dollars) to keep prices down.

-Frannie May (Bought less-than-prime mortgages from investment banks with the intention of making housing more affordable to low-income families and minorities. Ended up allowing speculators to bid-up prices on houses and gave banks a disincentive to not make risky loans. One of the key elements in creating the housing bubble and subsequent crash.

-Freddie Mac (See above)

-The Federal Reserve (By acting as a central bank, the Federal reserve intends to keep prices stable (no inflation) while maximizing employment. In reality, the Federal Reserve has a long history of leaving interest rates too low, causing bubbles (roaring 20's, tech boom in the late 90's, and housing bubble in the mid 2000's), which causes massive crashes (the Great Depression of the 30's, tech-bubble crash, housing collapse). Some refer to this as the business cycle. I refer to it as the inevitable consequence of when interest rates are set by government, largely for political reasons, rather than by the market.

Is freaking out online a fix? Will it save the world to blog plague warnings everywhere? Oh, do let us try. Laughter *is* the best medicine.

So, basically, it's not real science if I mention it, but it is real science if you mention it, right? So if I had mentioned LIGO, and YOU had mentioned the site I brought, you'd argue that the things that you quoted here, LIGO, are NOT "real science", and the stuff that I mentioned, WAS "real science"? Be honest. You read about gravity waves a while ago, what you read made sense to you at the time, and you're convinced that they MUST exist, without proof.

If Stargazer1000 cited a scientific study that tested if my view was right or not, and proved it conclusively wrong, then I would be only too happy to agree that it's wrong. He just hasn't done that yet.

In this case, the fundamental medium of information transfer in the universe is light.

The effects of such perception not only happen to your eyes. They happen to all bodies that use light as a medium of information transfer, which is AFAIK every atom in the universe. So the effects of perception don't just change your perception. The effects of perception change the perception of the universe.

rom what I understand, Einstein's theory of relativity is more about perception than physics.

Might we ask if vaccines are now powerless against evolution of plagues, and perhaps contributors to viral evolution? Naw...Not us...We're bigger than nature.
Nature bats last though..

Right. Now theoretically, if we could bypass acceleration altogether and just push an object to lightspeed. Would that object still need the entire energy of the universe to maintain that velocity?

I wasn't going to bring up the following fact, but if you agree with the OP, that would be me, you are disagreing with the ACLU

No, more like the dawning of the age of aqaurius................

I think the rest of the folks on this thread are interested in finding out the truth about vaccines.

And if an object approaches the speed of light, does it really have more mass or just more force? This might be a dumb example, but if I throw a one pound bible against the wall at 10 miles an hour, then a pro-league pitcher throws a one pound bible at the wall at 100 miles an hour, does the 100 mile an hour bible have more mass? Or does it just hit with more force?

Not to be an ass, but you really are stretching here. This is not what the definition is. You are taking your own negative connotations of the term and using it to justify a new definition.

I have openly admitted that this mindset did play a major role in the crisis. But you do not seem to understand that the Federal Reserve is the institution that loaned out the vast majority of the money to create the imbalances to begin with - and Frannie May and Freddie Mac, both government entities, bought risky mortgages, giving "greedy" investment banks an easy out of the risks of lending.

Yep. North Korea, the Soviet Union, and China which has fortunately been improving by going the way of free markets.

I challenge you to name one nation that has been able to make the achievement of eliminating starvation, homelessness, and other problems of poverty, for the great bulk of it's population WITHOUT a free market system.

Despite all of the vulnerabilities of eBay, despite the fact that it is a system built more or less on autonomy, despite the fact that one can easily "disappear" and get away with harming other individuals, despite all of the "information asymmetry", eBay has been a MASSIVE success for the great majority of people who use it. Do you really think the buyers and seller of eBay would be better off if they were subject to all of the bureaucratic regulations of our federal government, not to mention be taxed for it?

You would be a fool to think so.

There is plenty of info on the web (and a little in the MSM). At least have a look before you start with the "Chicken Little" crap.