DrKrettin

I doubt that - I suspect that they were an explanation for what causes natural phenomena - Greek religion is a prime example. Having said that, there is probably no one single root. Edit: with "they" I mean the Gods.

I was going to suggest the external anal sphincter muscle, but then there is an internal one, so I don't know whether that counts as a pair.

Do you mean the series of confrontations between the UK and Iceland about fishing rights?

Because that's what it says in the bible, written by people in a highly male-dominated society. I'm not sure what point there is in trying to discuss this on a science forum, because here one usually operates on evidence-based phenomena. For childish and unsupported claims, you need a religion forum.

And you believe that simply because it is written in a weird book cobbled together 300 years after the events it describes. Why that book? Why not (say) the Koran?

This is a total non sequitur, even if the previous assertions were true. Why not a 3rd coming, or a 763rd coming? Why not take them even more seriously?

I have always felt that the "season of goodwill to all men" is disgusting. Why should there be a season of goodwill, and not the whole year? I also assume the language is such that it refers to the whole species, not just to one sex thereof.

You should blame the Babylonians, who had a sexagesimal numbering system. They divided the full circle into 360 degrees, presumably so that the sun moves about 1 degree every day throughout the year. Then the degree is divided into 60 minutes (of arc) and then 60 seconds (of arc). This idea is then copied with the face of the clock.

That post is very confusing because you are quoting out of context and assuming all my replies are aimed at you, which they are not. What does "your knutz" mean?

It sounded to me more like intense frustration rather than condescension. He doesn't explain what his environment is, but it sounds like a group of students who are not interacting as he would like.

I admire the last two posters for the effort they put into this.

But it's part of the ugliness of daily surroundings. I find mental restriction from religious beliefs extremely ugly. From what I can make out, the OP is bemoaning the limited nature of the people he knows, not the attractiveness of the walls of buildings.

You are confusing two totally different things. 1) The force of gravity that you feel on your body is proportional to the product of the mass of the Earth and the mass of your body. 2) The mass of the Earth is the sum of all the masses on it. What is so difficult about that?

If everyone has the right to freedom of thought, what do you think of a sect of about 30,000 individuals in London alone who do not allow their children to visit a museum in case they learn about evolution? What about the freedom of thought for these children? In other words, what do you think of people who have religious beliefs but who themselves do not believe in freedom of thought?

Who is to tell me the criteria on which to judge people? On which principle are these prohibitions based?

It's a well-known fact that a male naughty bit has a mind of its own, often disagreeing strongly with any other centre of intelligence, if there is one.

My heart tells me you are right

We need some evidence to take that seriously, and as I said before, if you continue to call it energy, nobody will ever take it seriously. You can't call it energy just because you like to (well, you can, but it is nonsense in a scientific environment)

Interesting, but to be honest, I can't see anything new here. In fact, I've used the same methods (on a smaller scale) to erect a barn myself.

Are you by any chance the reader who has commented in the Guardian with a very precise post to this effect? That Guardian headline is a disgrace.

Simple calculus. Let's say the force F = GMm/r^2 where the two bodies are at distance r and have masses M and m. If the distance is constant we can write F = kMm where k is a constant. Now we say that the sum of the two masses is also constant, so M + m = c, another constant So m = c - M F = kM(c - M) = kcM - kM^2 dF/dM = kc - 2kM = 0 when c = 2M, i.e. M = m, and the second differential is negative, so that is a maximum That shows that under those conditions, the force is a maximum when the two bodies are of equal mass. It follows that 9 and 1 have less attraction than 8 and 2.

Logic: B is ridiculous, but exists. A is also ridiculous, therefore A exists. OOOOOOOOOKAAAAAAAAAY

That's the conclusion reported in this article in the Grauniad I find it hard to believe they can reach this conclusion from ancient measurements, but I haven't read the original article.

I hear what you say, or rather I read what you write, and I cannot fault your argument. But I am surprised that the speed of water molecules which you quote is not somehow dependent on the air pressure above the water.

My guess is that 30 is way too low to get any meaningful result, given the subjective nature of what is being measured and the different ways people might react to the pep talks with and without "the message" Given the prospect of winning a million dollars from Randi, a sponsor and a lot more volunteers should be easy to find