StringJunky

If the universe is 'allowed' by science to have been here forever why can't God and hence not need a creator?

You'll probably spend much time looking for an answer and in time you will reconcile or make a choice between the two different patterns of thought in your own way...this is your personal challenge and journey. Science looks at things from a detached and critical viewpoint whereas religion is based on voluntary faith which is not conducive to objectivity. The process by which one reasons scientifically is at odds with a system based on pure belief and that's why most scientists, but not all, are atheist. Mathematics doesn't govern the universe, it describes it...you are putting the cart before the horse. Newton was a man of his time and religion was the norm...he did alchemy as well.

I think that about nails it. It is down to what is acceptable for everybody without long-term detriment to the group.

No, it doesn't show in Quick Reply. You have go to the fully-featured Input box by clicking More Reply Options. Wouldn't your vessel descend on a diagonal path but ascend on vertical one...you'll have no forward motion on the ascension?

If you want to upload a file from your computer. Click More Reply Options (bottom right of text input box) then look at the steps in the following image.

Whatever age we live in, the man is wooing or trying to court the woman not the other way round. We could possibly still be tied strongly to that behaviour pattern biologically with the consequence that it generally feels instinctively 'wrong' even though logically you are correct for this day and age. Not saying I'm right but just putting it forward for critique.

Silver in Heathcare It's Antimicrobial Efficacy and Safety In Use http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=QxtLm7MgQhYC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false Got from the reference section of Medical Uses of Silver in Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_uses_of_silver There's plenty to be getting on with there.

If in doubt ask for research papers to be cited or links to authoritative websites of relevant disciplines. On the whole, it's pretty clear when the scientists and mods here are expressing an opinion and also a lot of the long-termers enjoy and respect the scientific process so it becomes natural to pursue that ethos in their responses. Time spent here eventually indicates to you how much gravitas to give to any particular individual's response. If you want a more strict and formal forum setup them Physics Forums.Org indicate in each expert's profile their academic status but the guys here are good enough for me. Ultimately, I think, the 'truth' is a slowly shifting goal-post with the appearance of each new piece of evidence and you really have to make your own mind up what to conclude from it because there will quite often be more than one expert interpretation available at any given time as to what it means...I'm talking about the 'bleeding edge' stuff here.

The oral consumption of colloidal silver is a very bad idea. From the NIH National Centre For Complementary And Alternative Medicine on colloidal silver. Bolded emphasis was not added by me: http://nccam.nih.gov/health/silver

You could ask yourself, what if there were observers at the first period when life began on Earth, what would they have seen or known about the universe 3 billion years ago given the equipment we have now? They would probably think they were in a special epoch and the information is lost to us now in the present. You could go back even further when the whole universe was causally connected...now that would be the special epoch would it not and all we are actually seeing now is an illusion restricted by the Hubble boundary and CMBR? It's also rather anthropomorphic.

You can only understand from the information or data you have before you. The Krauss Observer, assuming an ubrupt discontinuation of acquired knowledge from the past, will not know and therefore could not understand nature as we in the present understand it.. It's not nature playing tricks, it's just that information has been and gone.

The fact that it has the word "attempt" in it would suggest so, strictly speaking. It would seem to me though, as only a layman mind, that 'theory' is used sometimes for models that have a widespread degree of consensus and not just ones that have been experimentally verified. It does muddy the waters a bit.

From.

Yeah, you are only about 40 years too late. Any organism that has only mitotic division at its disposal is not evolved to reproduce with variation. I think only random mutation can bring this about in them. Progeny variation, as an intrinsic feature of a species' evolution, needs meiosis available to them I think.

It annoys me when people put positive and invariably wrong claims of refuting well-established theories in their title. As far as I'm concerned the mods can have carte blanche to change it to whatever they think fit.

Thanks JC. At the QED level, this is because the electron receiving the incoming photon is sufficiently energised to reach the next energy level so the uv photon doesn't carry on passing through...is this right?

Cuts off wavelengths shorter than this?

Perhaps the minimum size or piece of the universe scientists use to determine isotropy and homogeneity is too small. Our Observable Universe is but one small piece in a much larger picture and any calculations or observations concerning the BB only relate to our OU.so that quasar group is probably not unique in the totality of the universe.

Here it is: http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.1081 Click on PDF top right.

Photosynthesis is the production of starches and sugars which uses carbon dioxide to make them but they still need oxygen to utilise the sugars to get their energy from by respiration. Photosynthesis makes the products that store the energy and respiration is the actual release of that stored energy. Photosynthesis: carbon dioxide + water (+ light energy) → glucose + oxygen Respiration: glucose + oxygen → carbon dioxide + water (+ energy) Higher plants are aerobes and depend upon a supply of molecular oxygen from their environment to support respiration and various other life-sustaining oxidations and oxygenation reactions. Without free oxygen most actively growing plants are unable to survive as individuals for more than a few hours or days and cannot develop sufficiently to reproduce either sexually or asexually. Accordingly, plants are endowed with anatomical and morphological features, such as numerous stomata, large surface to volume ratios and interconnected intercellular spaces that facilitate the entry and distribution of atmospheric oxygen. A plant's own photosynthesis can also supply some of its oxygen requirements during daytime. Despite these features, access to oxygen is often inhibited by environmental circumstances that restrict aeration of part or all of the plant (Hook and Crawford, 1978; Jackson, Davies and Lambers, 1991). When this occurs, the resulting tissue hypoxia or anoxia inevitably suppresses oxygen-dependant pathways especially the energy-generating system, disturbs functional relation-ships between organs such as roots and shoots, and suppresses both carbon assimilation and photosynthate utilization. Plant Adaptations to Anaerobic Stress Annals of Botany 79 (Supplement A): 3-20, 1997

Three in 24 hours is enough I reckon.

ajb Are you a physicist with a maths bias or mathematician with a physics bias? I know you are proficient at both but which side do you lean on more?

Yes indeed, the finery of the rider is incongruous and rather grotesque when contrasted with the final moments and conditions of the fox. Edit: I took this image down because it's not very nice but it does tell the truth of a fox's final moments. Click the link if you care to see to see what I mean: http://blog.dancallister.com/2010/12/15/fox-hunting-with-hounds-inhumane/

It's as strong as your password. .

Moon and Zapatos I was referring to hunting for pleasure by means of packs of hounds which ultimately rip animals apart...this is not a humane form of hunting. I',m solely referring to a specific style and specific format which has no purpose other than as a sideshow to the real purpose which is socialising and having a "jolly old time". Let's not mix this up with other forms of hunting that serves a justifiable purpose and is done with a view to causing the quarry as little distress as possible. I think you would agree that white jodhpurs and scarlet jacket is hardly the attire of a serious hunter. http://www.wilton-hunt.co.uk/