StringJunky

This article seems informative. http://www.allaboutvision.com/conditions/spotsfloats.htm If after reading this you still feel concerned take steps to seek expert advice.

Stardust - John Gribbin

About in the same league as trying to make a perpetual motion machine then?

I'm glad the old system of Rep Power has gone....it created and encouraged a situation that I remember Severian called 'one big circle jerk'. Now people's rep is more inclined to represent merit rather than influence. Wise move CR.

Your link didn't work for me but I googled the title and editor's name and got this...is this the one? (the URL ending is different to the one you provided): http://eom.springer.de/ Looks like a good resource.

Stardust by John Gribbin. Great intro to Cosmology. Einstein: A Hundred Years of Relativity by Andrew Robinson. I think this is an honestly presented overview of Einsteins's life and works with critiques by the author (a physicist) on the long term and relative importance of each of his theories. The Revenge Of Gaia by James Lovelock. Putting his apocalyptic forecast for humanity aside this book is a nice intro to the Earth System: it's cycles and feedback mechanisms. It's about Time by David Mermin. An intro to Special Relativity that keeps the maths to a minimum. but some is unavoidable. Not a light-hearted read like the first three...needs effort!

Exactly...not every conversation needs to be of an adverserial or combative nature. Sometimes people want to mutually explore ideas without fear of judgement...LET, not MAKE, the person come to their own conclusions from what we OFFER them Let Philosophy and Religion be that place. The. fact is BILLIONS of people ARE religious and it doesn't help the cause of science by being fundamentalist in attitude ourselves....a corrosive and critical attack style only puts them on the defensive ..then they are lost to science. I'm not religious but I have no problem with the way the Mods want it to be run. The full rigor of the Scientific Method can be maintained in the proper science forums without being compromised by the presence of P&R. Quite often, scientific discussions veer naturally into metaphysical or philosophical territory and I think people should have the 'sandbox' of P&R where they can test there ideas and beliefs with each other cordially and see where it leads...without necessarily trying to PROVE anything, but still coming to an agreeable conclusion, or without leaving the person who's sharing and testing a metaphysical or philosophical idea feeling negative about the experience when their idea doesn't work out logically under the spotlight of mutual discussion. With the Science Forums we have the place for evidence-based dialogue and in P&R we now have a place to explore the whys and foundations of personal or societal beliefs without necessarily measuring against a rigid scientific 'yardstick' or methodology if it's not appropriate. If one can't make the necessary attitude adjustment in the P&R forum, don't go there...it shouldn't be seen as a gladiatorial arena like the rest SFN if that's not the the spirit or intention of the OP in a particular thread there....simple. When in Rome do as the Romans do.

Three old dears overheard talking to each other: - " It's windy" - " No it's not, it's Thursday" - " So am I...let's go and have a cup of tea

Hi I'm interested in science, logical thinking and acoustic guitar. hence my name!