DrKrettin

 

That's probably how religion started in the first place, wondering about our bodies and if anything was left when they stopped moving.

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.

 

The sphincters are all I can think of that are muscular and not paired. But there are loads of those: anal, cardiac, pyloric, oesophageal

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.

.....and only fall to war over gods.

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

 

Hey guys,

I've always been fascinated by the image of God. More specific with the question why he always seems to be visualised as a human, although he/she/it is described as so much more than that.

 

 

 

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.

.

Probably because the World can only fill up Once . And we are nearly full and in a pretty poor state to recommend to any higher power , that we are in good shape to take on any other worlds !

 

' We have been weighed in the balance and found wanting '. ( " Mini mini tekle and parsin " )

 

We were given ' fair warning ' . Namely 2000 years ! This is not my decision , comes from the higher ups !

 

Mike

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?

.

And the first comming happened as proof that the Second comming should be viewed more seriously , as it is deemed to be a sort of Judgement time on humanities behaviour at the time .

 

 

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.

If that's the case, then let me ask:

Why 1 minute=60 seconds and not 100 seconds ?

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?

 

I'm afraid I found it rather condescending

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.

 

I acknowledge the infringement of the human rights in that case. But since I don't have any kind of control over them, over their thoughts, nor over their actions whatsoever, I cannot say anything else than that I pity them.

 

Let's hop back on-topic now.

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.

Rubbish. Is the gravity of the earth found by adding every mass of the earth. Or multiplying every pair of masses of the earth.

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?

 

I mean, sure, you do have the right to judge people. In your head. Without letting that influence the way you treat them, for they share the same right as you have (from the European Convention on Human Rights):

 

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?

 

We are not to judge people based on their beliefs and religion, neither are we supposed to interpret the Bible as literally as can be: that would be plainly wrong.

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

Does that mean that thinking is done with one's naughty bits?

 

 

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.

We had a thread on this recently - there is no thinking done by the heart. The link doesn't give any evidence for it, it just says that some experiments were done (without explaining them) and then concludes that their 'might' or 'could' be something to the expression.... which probably means there isn't. The heart is a pump for blood. The thinking is done with the brain.

 

What do you think?

My heart tells me you are right

 

 

We can restore crashed bones, paralyzed people back and their nervous system. .....

 

Why I name this energy? Because energy is related to heat.

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.

 

 

It's wrong. The day lengthens by about 2 milliseconds per day, per century. They got it right in the body of the article.

 

"with every passing century, the day on Earth lengthens by two milliseconds"

 

And then they got it wrong again

 

"The split second gained since the first world war may not seem much,"

 

We've added 26 leap seconds since we started doing them in 1972

 

We've known about this for decades.

 

 

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.

 

Sir Isaac's law of mutual attraction says nothing about a maximum force when the masses are equal. The law says for any two masses. Your argument is a mass of 9 and 1 have lesser attraction than masses of 8 and 2. Why?

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.

 

As the surface moves out it pushes the water back and as it moves in the water molecules will move in to occupy the void at an average speed of 600m/s.

 

So if the surface is moving faster than this it will leave a void behind as the water molecules cannot catch it up.

 

 

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.

You need to get 30 people willing to be in the study. You need them to perform some activity to a statistically valid baseline.

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