@Lou

Quote:

The article was pretty explanatory:

And let's just quote that to be crystal clear how explanatory it was:
"in order to be effective, the doses needed would be massive enough to kill a person."

Quote:

The humor was about Steve Jobs and partying...

Had you included LOL or stated you meant humor we wouldn't be here.

Instead you made the ludicris claim that MDMA hasn't killed anyone so therefore it must kill cancer. You have ZERO evidence to back that up. And in addition your included article is explanatorially against your claim.

If you don't defend humor as a serious statement then people would take your humor as humor. I'm buying tickets for Hawking Stand Up hour, he's funnier.

@Lou

What really happens on Mars! Lol

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Nimrod and @Lou Higgs experiment outcome due anyday. Good article here on what the early signs are. It mostly matches but with some possible expections. It's an exciting time! Will Higgs be proven and Standard model confirmed? Will Higgs be proven and the Standard model changed or discarded? Or will Higgs be shown not to exist. It's looking more like Higgs will be proven and related evidence may change or even discard the Standard Model. Again exciting stuff looking into the unknown and seeing which postulates are more valid than others.

As someone who isn't a particle physicist, I have watched the press conference and can only say "Congratulations?"

Having heard a woman talk about the ttbar now for 15 minutes I am beginning to think I chose the wrong profession

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

@olegil

Quote:

As someone who isn't a particle physicist, I have watched the press conference and can only say "Congratulations?"

Discovery is always bitter sweet. If the Higgs wasn't there we'd have many new directions to investigate to observe the reasons for mass. Or lots of more work to be done. Certainly this doesn't close the door on that work but it makes it increasedling unlikely that the work in those directions will produce anything fruitful.

BBC on Higgs has a good article describing the whats and whys about the postulate and subsequent evidence. And a bit more CERN

Recap: On Monday the US Tevaton confirmed Higgs to a 99.8% confidence, about 2 sigma. Today the European LHC confirmed Higgs to a 4.9sigma level, 99.9997%confidence. Mass of the particle is 125.3 +/-0.6 GeV.

@Lou,
Still some work to get the extra .0002% confidence which physicians use as the strongest goalpost to cross. But what can be said is we've increased the evidence for the Standard Model. Unfortuanately what this also means is other theories, Radiative Pressure for example, are looking worse today then they were a weeek ago.

In short , ya got more evidence to build for radiative pressure to topple the increased evidence for Higgs.

Last edited by BrianK on 04-Jul-2012 at 04:12 PM.

@Lou

NOAA states Mermaids don't exist Of course not! Underwater Fairies! Who else lives in Atlantis? Duh!

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: The article was pretty explanatory: And let's just quote that to be crystal clear how explanatory it was: "in order to be effective, the doses needed would be massive enough to kill a person."

And that specific amount is stated where?
...still waiting...
Exactly.

Quote:

Quote: The humor was about Steve Jobs and partying... Had you included LOL or stated you meant humor we wouldn't be here. Instead you made the ludicris claim that MDMA hasn't killed anyone so therefore it must kill cancer. You have ZERO evidence to back that up. And in addition your included article is explanatorially against your claim.

You and Nimrod have still not proved one case where the cause of death was directly MDMA, only dehydration implied by MDMA use. Rather lame to imply MDMA considering the atmosphere where it is generally consumed is a hot nightclub where they charge $5 for a bottle of water and alot of fast-paced dancing is involved. As if not being on MDMA wouldn't have caused the same effect because the extra $20 could have been used for water instead of a pill, I suppose is the reasoning...

Quote:

If you don't defend humor as a serious statement then people would take your humor as humor. I'm buying tickets for Hawking Stand Up hour, he's funnier.

Apparently you are bored often.

Last edited by Lou on 05-Jul-2012 at 02:14 PM.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: "Real" ecstasy can be MDMA, MDA or MDE. Read. The. Statement. "a mean 33 deaths per year where MDMA was implicated" Note the substance implicated. It was not MDA It was not MDE It was not PCP It was not GHB It was not calcium carbonate It was MDMA Quote: Why simply admit to "not knowing" or admitting that the real amount has never been determined because it would require actually killing people in the %'s you claim? Instead you have to further polute this thread with your unscientific CRAP. OK Smartasre, since you are the source of all human knowledge, past, present, and future, how much of it should Jobs have taken to be cured of all ills while remaining totally unharmed himself? An estimate, with calculations, will be acceptable to demonstrate just how supremely scientific you are.

"implicated"
I implicate you to be an xxxxxxx. Whether that is a fact or not is up for debate. Perhaps dictionaries would come in handy?
I also didn't note where they listed the drugs they did test for. Perhaps you can show me where they specifically included GHB?

Science by proclamation at its finest! Again!

EDIT:
Please refrain from flaming. This has gifted you 14 days off to think about it. -- Moxee

Last edited by Moxee on 05-Jul-2012 at 06:09 PM.
Last edited by Lou on 05-Jul-2012 at 02:10 PM.
Last edited by Lou on 05-Jul-2012 at 02:09 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

And that specific amount is stated where? ...still waiting... Exactly.

Lou this logic is not as complicated as you want it to be and it's well established. To rephrase the article it stated --- IF there was sufficent quantities of MDMA to kill cancer THEN it would kill the patient first. You claim MDMA can't kill a person. Therefore MDMA can't kill cancer either.

The construct is so well established there is a formalized term for this - Modus Tollens. It says when P implies Q and we have the case Q being false then this logically establishes we also have the case that P is false. In the statement made by the article P, killing of cancer, and it implies Q the killing of a person.

Which, not too surprisingly why the article states that "By chemically re-engineering the drugs, scientists were able to develop variants that are 100 times more effective at fighting cancer – lowering the necessary dosage, and making treatment safer" --

Your article states MDMA kills you first and scientists are working to eliminate that side-effect. So, you if you are right and MDMA doesn't kill people then it doesn't kill cancer either (according to the article you put up for evidence). And according to other documentation it's not true that MDMA hasn't caused at least some deaths.

Quote:

You and Nimrod have still not proved one case where the cause of death was directly MDMA, only dehydration implied by MDMA use

Next you're going to tell us that bullets don't kill anyone it's the hole.

Quote:

Apparently you are bored often.

While I find Hawking's sense of humor better than your own I'd not pay to see either one of you at a Stand Up Club. I thought you might love Hawking. He bet against Higgs - he really thought LHC wouldn't find him. The evidence proved him wrong too.

So was your 4th of July weighty?

Last edited by BrianK on 05-Jul-2012 at 02:30 PM.

@Lou

Also today - First Dark Matter filament discovered They should have waited a bit on this one knowing Higgs would grab the limelight.

@BrianK

Lou doesn't believe in science, ergo he won't accept the findings of science. For the rest of us it's good days indeed.

I have a feeling the nature of dark matter really won't be discovered until we are able to escape the heliosphere ourself with some good instruments. But even then, if dark matter cannot be seen, how would you detect it even up close?

What's the theory of dark matter only existing out there and not in here, btw?

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

@olegil

Quote:

have a feeling the nature of dark matter really won't be discovered until we are able to escape the heliosphere ourself with some good instruments. But even then, if dark matter cannot be seen, how would you detect it even up close?

Dark Matter has a gravitational effect. If we see gravitational lensing and no visually detectable objects that would be a likely candidate for Dark Matter. Dark Matter is thought to be a new subatomic particle. One recent plus is the energies Dark Matter is thought to exist at are reachable by the LHC. If Dark Matter has the components we think it does we no longer have to escape the heliosphere. We could create those conditions in the LHC.

Quote:

What's the theory of dark matter only existing out there and not in here, btw?

Dark matter has been postulated to exist on earth. Some of the detectors, like the Tower Sudan one the University of Minnesota uses, are on the look out for Dark Matter. It may be we just haven't detected Dark Matter on earth.

Like all postulates we need evidence to see if Dark Matter (23% of the universe) is real or not. And if not there's already a line up postulates that don't need Dark Matter. They, of course, would need their own evidencing to see if they apply to reality or not. Mathematical formulas are great on paper but it's with evidence that we grow to learn if those formulas mean something within the actual universe.

@Lou

Quote:

Perhaps you can show me where they specifically included GHB?

as you are possibly aware, I can't, just as I can't find evidence that autopsies test for the presence of calcium carbonate when sudden deaths occur.
When people suddenly fall down dead for no obvious reason, pathologists run a whole range of tests to find out why, and based on the results of the first series of tests run more specific tests until the identify the cause of death. This is achieved by following the line of the evidence, rather than deciding the cause of death, and then bodging up the "evidence" to match. When MDMA is implicated it is because the primary toxicology showed the presence of something from a spectrum of drugs, and further tests isolated MDMA from such as MDA or MDE. Meanwhile opiates, cannabinoids or any other potential suspects, would have been excluded from the list of potential causes in the initial testing, either because they were not present or were present in insufficient quantities.

Quote:

You and Nimrod have still not proved one case where the cause of death was directly MDMA, only dehydration implied by MDMA use

Leah Betts did not die as a result of dehydration. Of course, since her death was merely a symptom of trying to avoid MDMA effects on human biology you will again claim that it doesn't count. What I will point out is that whenever I raise my intake of water without increasing my activity level, my activity level raises itself as I have to keep going for a pee. Of course that would then lead to problems maintaining electrolyte levels, but since MDMA induces antidiuretic hormone production, there would be no increase in urine production to match the increase in water intake.


@BrianK

Quote:

Also today - First Dark Matter filament discovered

Wow! Two major breakthroughs in less than a century. At this rate they will have to update the schoolbooks, and we can't allow that, can we? Seriously though, Higgs made his proposal while I was at school, and as a result the Higgs Boson did not get listed in my schoolbooks. Despite this I am the one who is willing to accept the accuracy of his theories, while Lou is still holding out. The main reason that I am more inclined to accept Higgs rather than Brandenburg or Haramein is because I was not able to find a flaw in his maths in less than ten minutes. That is not to say that Higgs is definitely correct (only 99.9997% certain) just that the others are definitely wrong.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Wow! Two major breakthroughs in less than a century. At this rate they will have to update the schoolbooks, and we can't allow that, can we?

No we cannot! Next thing someone will thinking Contiental Drift is wrong and it's like it's a big plate or something!

Quote:

Seriously though, Higgs made his proposal while I was at school, and as a result the Higgs Boson did not get listed in my schoolbooks.

I'd say the answer here depends on what we're teaching. You can spend a lifetime only focusing on postulates. In schools we need to be educating how to use the scientific theory, building scientific arguements, and well understanding the importance and meaning of evidence.

Quote:

The main reason that I am more inclined to accept Higgs rather than Brandenburg or Haramein is because I was not able to find a flaw in his maths in less than ten minutes. That is not to say that Higgs is definitely correct (only 99.9997% certain) just that the others are definitely wrong.

Ooh careful this isn't 40 years old so we just can't accept it! The main reason I don't accept Haramein is the current evidence is counter to his claims. If Haramein wants his milkshake to bring all the boys to the yard he's gotta bring evidence of a milkshake.

My position on Higgs is there's more to come! (Science never stops asking, questioning, or testing.) There is other work to do such as understanding spin and seeing if that matches prediction. That should be complete by Dec of this year. And this Higgs doesn't seem to take care of all the mass. There may be other Higgs Family particles out there. We need two things to happen - first ramp up the power at LHC and do more experiments, likely 2014 as 2013 is a repair year. Second, since the evidence of Higgs is so massive it basically green lights a bigger and badder collider. Follow the trail! We certainly haven't found the end.

Good Thought Exercise LINK

If the earth were the size of a grain of sand the nearest star would be 198 miles away.

@BrianK

I found it funny that the page you linked lists Proxima Centauri as closest star and then lists Eta Eridani as closest G-type star. Uh, try again. First off, the distance given matches Epsilon Eridani, not Eta. That's an error of a factor 12. Also, Epsilon Eridani is class G while Eta Eridani is class K

Second, Alpha Centauri A is a G-type star, only 0.13 LY further away than Proxima Centauri, which we're still debating whether or not is orbiting Alpha Centauri A/B. So even if they just typoed Epsilon as Eta, that's still off by about a factor 3 from the closest G-type star.

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

@olegil

Thanks Olegil! See what happens when one doesn't evidence! .

Personally I liked the idea of expressing these in terms that are more approachable for most people. No one can figure out how far a LightYear is. (Well except for those few that live it day in and day out.) An idea would be to correct these so that relationship is a more accurate reflection.


@Thread
Photos of Sprites and Elfs Not quite what your first impression is! These are the strange lightning effects caught during the edge of storms. I personally wonder if at least some of the 'UFOs' are simply people who don't know what they're looking at. Certainly true for that guy that turned in the moon above his house as a UFO. LINK Remember Unidentified Flying Object just means the observer didn't know what the heck they saw. It doesn't mean it's an LGM (Little Grey or Green Man). If it's an LGM then it's an IFO (Identified Flying Object).

Last edited by BrianK on 10-Jul-2012 at 10:21 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 10-Jul-2012 at 10:20 PM.

@ Lou

I thought you might like the Xbox Mars Lander simulation. NASA put this simulation together with the proper 7 minute delays so one can see the difficulty of landing on MARS. Well, and hone their skills. It might prove useful for those Russians that can't seem to get their tech correct.

Pioneer 10 and 11 update..it's the internal heat
http://www.sci-news.com/space/article00472.html

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: Pioneer 10 and 11 update..it's the internal heat http://www.sci-news.com/space/article00472.html

More specifically: radiation pressure.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/07/spacecrafts-behavior-no-longer-an-unsolved-problem-in-physics/

To quote:
Quote:

it's Newton's "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" in a straightforward form. If heat emissions are distributed unevenly on the spacecraft, then more thermal photons emanating from a given area will impart more of a force in the opposite direction—enough to account for the acceleration anomaly.

Yet another example of how light can and does push...and pushes off when emitted.

@Lou

Quote:

Yet another example of how light can and does push...and pushes off when emitted.

I have never denied that heat and light energy can have an effect, just as I have never denied the existence of electromagnetic energy. Unlike you however I am also aware of the quantity of energy. For example, the Pioneer probe is currently travelling at approximately 12.046 km/sec. The discrepancy in acceleration is in the order of 8.74±1.33x10^-10 m/sec^2. That is a small figure even in comparison with the deceleration forces applied to the probe by friction losses due to the density of the medium through which it is travelling. Once again the concepts of scale evade you by several orders of magnitude.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.