Mad For Science

G-type star - A main sequence yellow dwarf star, the spectral type of which the sun is a member. Someone end in a H, I have a good one.

I would recommend a good sleeping pill. That is the only correct thing you have said in your post. I don't know who told you this but either they are wrong or you misheard them. Since life did not form or evolve by pure chance the odds are irrelevant. They can also be accepted if you learn what the theories actually say. There are many things that can not be created in the laboratory, the formation of a planet for example. The formation of the first life on Earth is not yet completely understood which would make it difficult to recreate, especially considering abiogenesis is relatively new (<100 years old). Perhaps you could provide a source for this 'theory' of yours. I am pretty sure that it was the arthropods that emerged from the sea, not single celled organisms. Humans are still apes.The ape like creatures that both humans and other apes (like gorillas etc) are extinct. Both man and other apes diverged a few million years ago.

El Nath - Traditional name of Beta Tauri, second brightest star in the constellation Taurus.

The plane Mercury has oxygen in its atmosphere at a concentration of 42 percent but there is no life there because the atmosphere is so incredibly thin. And the thickness of the atmosphere.

Nix- A moon of Pluto discovered in 2005 by the Hubble Space Telescope.

Just a fun game to play; Rules: State a word related to astronomy/astrophysics/cosmology. The next person states a word that starts with the letter the previous word ends on. Then state an interesting fact about that word. I'll start Pluto - Named after the Roman god of the underworld.

At about 2 minutes into the following video will show you how spiral arms in galaxies appear:

The latest images from the New Horizons probe of the Pluto system has revealed a series of dark spots near its equator. Does anyone want to hazard a guess on what they could be? Impact craters, extinct volcanoes? http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/Multimedia/Science-Photos/pics/7-1-15_Pluto_Charon_color_hemispheres_annotated_JHUAPL_NASA_SWRI.jpg

Astrology is more of a belief system akin to a religion but it was important as a protoscience to the development of astronomy because ancient astrologers made detailed and accurate maps and calculations on the positions of stars and planets which astronomers were able to use in scientific studies. Like astrology, alchemy was also a protoscience that led to the development of chemistry. Pseudoscience examples: Intelligent design/creationism Scientific creationism Flat Earth Electric Universe Geocentrism Concave Earth Expanding Earth

I don't know if they still sell them but you can actually buy pads and punchinng bags that have force sensors built into them if you can afford them.

It may have something to do with the speed of the punch. Without actually seeing you punch I would say that you are hitting faster when you recoil than when you throw your 'one direction punch'. Punching power is more appropriately mesured by how much you compress the bag (inelastic collision) than it is how far you move it (elastic collision). The more the bag moves the less impact the bag feels as energy that is meant for the bag is lost in the bags motion.

There is a public campaign to submit names for the features on Pluto and Charon. This opportunity ends on April 24, 2015. I have already nominated Leonard Nimoy since Pluto is the god of the underworld and Charon carries the souls of the newly deceased across the river Styx to the afterlife I think it is fitting. http://www.ourpluto.org/home

Some people think they have a system for winning the lottery too.

It is not necessary to account for every motion of every molecule of the bird for the mathematics of avian flight to be applicable in the real world. If it was math (and all of science) would be useless and it clearly is not. Every measurement has an element of error and random errors can never be eliminated, it can only be minimized, that is not a failing of math or science, that is life.Math and physics is not concerned with why the bird does anything, that is a matter for animal behaviorists. This analogy has now been stretched to an absurd degree. If you have studied relativity and quantum mechanics you would know that is not true. There is a little thing known as the observer effect (not the Star Trek episode).

The Universe was already about 9 billion years old before the world formed I am pretty sure this equation would have applied to something in that time even if no one knew about it. Just like a book existed before you read it for the first time. The math statement was not invented, it was discovered. We do know where the bird is going - straight ahead. Why he is going in any particular direction is irrelevant to the physics of the bird's flight. The metaphysics implications are irrelevant.

People often complain about the accuracy of weather predictions but often fail to understand just how difficult it is to predict such a dynamic process. Too many things like butterflies flapping their wings can affect the outcome. That doesn't mean we can just discount the applicability of math to make weather predictions, it just means that more information and further study is required. Math doesn't have to be perfect to be applicable. If we know that 10 000 rabbits is too many and 1000 rabbits is not enough for a given area then we can decide, based on the math we used to estimate them, we can decide whether they need to cull them or introduce a breeding program, we do not need to keep track of every individual rabbit. If you try apply unrealistic constraints of course the math is not going to be accurate. I can think of no reason why someone would want to predict how much water will be in a reservoir 1000000 years into the future.

I may be wrong about your thinking here but I think you may just be referring to the fact that for math to apply to real world problems you may have to make some simplifying assumptions to keep the math from getting too complicated to be practical. For example the Ideal gas law; PV = nRT is practical if you want to know how much gas to safely put into a storage tank but the equation does not take into account that the gas molecules have mass, size, interactions with other gas molecules etc. You can make it more accurate if you include correction factors but the complexity of the calculations increases.

You should probably get yourself booked in for a brain scan, that sounds serious. Modern man has made no such claim. The fact that we don't know it all and never will is the reason science exists in the first place.

"Math doesn't apply in the real world" is something school children say when they can't do math. It is way up there with "this is stupid".

The only value astrology has, apart from its entertainment value, was the observations made by ancient astrologers (as a protoscience) that provided a foundation for astronomy, like alchemy did for chemistry. However since astrology is based on the idea that the Earth is at the center of the Universe it does not have any credibility as a means of explaining anything.

I envision one of three things happening: 1) You just jump to a new timeline where you do not exist because you killed the grandfather from that timeline but not the one you come from. 2) Your paradox unravels the fabric of the universe, destroying it. 3) That time would just compensate by removing the paradox, i.e. erasing the cause (you) of the paradox like casting a stone into a fast flowing stream, the course of the stream does not alter, it just flows around the rock and continues on its way. If your grandfather remained alive but you were not born then you could not go back and kill your grandfather You are describing a predestination paradox.

I don't know if this question belongs on this forum so feel free to move it to the Trash Can if you want but I have often wondered about this: How would have our history (especially the history of space exploration) have been different if the Earth had a moon with a breathable atmosphere? I think that would have changed it dramatically.

All of your talking points are basically an argument from ignorance by the people who proposed them. Basically they are saying that because they do not understand how these aspects of biology evolved that evolution could not have possibly be true. It always pays to remember Orgels second rule: Evolution is cleverer than you are. If someone ever comes up with a model that is any serious competition with the theory of evolution then those pesky 'evolutionists' might allow for it. It's been over 150 years and no one ever has, not even close.

If you have an undergraduate degree in metallurgy you can find employment as a metallurgist, similarly with chemistry. However trying to find employment as a physicist without a PhD is next to impossible. So my question is if you only have a Bachelor of Science in physics could you be considered a physicist or do you need a PhD first?

I wonder what would happen if tachyons interacted with a black hole.