toastywombel

I believe I covered that in my answer, you may see "Greek philosophers" is included.

We'll here is what wikipedia says on the subject: "Evolutionary thought, the conception that species change over time, has roots in antiquity, in the ideas of the ancient Greeks, Romans, and Chinese as well as in medieval Islamic science. However, until the 18th century, Western biological thinking was dominated by essentialism, the belief that every species has essential characteristics that are unalterable. This began to change when, during the Enlightenment, evolutionary cosmology and the mechanical philosophy spread from the physical sciences to natural history. Naturalists began to focus on the variability of species; the emergence of paleontology with the concept of extinction further undermined the static view of nature. In the early 19th century, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck proposed his theory of the transmutation of species, the first fully formed scientific theory of evolution." From that I would arge that the first actual concept of evolution was conceived by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. Who was a member of the French Academy of Sciences. Just though I would answer that for you to prevent any future confusion by other readers.

I agree with your point. Here is one similar nearly all liberals complained so heavily about the deficits under Bush. Many of the neo-conservative economists defended Bush and deficit spending. Now the liberals defend Obama for deficit spending (although I think Obama's spending: Stimulus is much better than Bush's spending: War and tax cuts for the rich). But you are right Pangloss the party positions often change after new elections. I personally do not see the problem with deficit spending. Inflation will happen with time, that is just a fact. It really seems blown out of proportion. As for the stimulus' effect on my community? We'll my uncle and cousin got hired to help repave many of our roads here in New Mexico because of stimulus money. We really needed the road fixes too. It started about six months ago I would guess, since then they have repaved five major roads, and several other smaller roads. I know that might be anecdotal, but that is actual evidence of the stimulus money helping my community directly.

I mentioned that I was reading this a while back, and I admit I have been going through it quite slowly. I am about half-way through, and I was going to wait till I was done to talk about this book but it is just an amazing read. Author Ken Auletta does a great job of bringing the reader into the whole story. It really feels as if you were there; as if you knew Page and Brin (founders of Google). That may sound typical but it is quite an enjoyable book. I recommend it to all.

Sure all news networks are bias to some degree, but I don't know how it is not obvious to everyone that Fox takes the cake. No other network has a one sided line-up like Fox: Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly, Cavuto, Gretchen, Kelly I mean really. Check this out, the time is 4:30 AM Mountain (US). I just visited the Fox Politics site right now, and this is the featured story on there: "President Obama's new envoy to the Organization of Islamic Conference, Rashad Hussain, is at the center of a controversy over remarks attributed to him defending a man who later pleaded guilty to conspiring to aid a terrorist group" As opposed to CNN's featured political story at the same time: "Washington (CNN) -- The fight over health care reform burst back into public view Tuesday as four Democratic senators asked Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to hold a vote on a government-run public insurance option." Or MSNBC's top political story: "WASHINGTON - Senator Evan Bayh’s comments this week about a dysfunctional Congress reflected a complaint being directed at Washington with increasing frequency, and there is broad agreement among critics about Exhibit A: The unwillingness of the two parties to compromise to control a national debt that is rising to dangerous heights. " Which one of these seems like the most partisan/ least important story? I wanted to, initially, avoid commenting on this, but bascule is right people have to be accountable for what they say. Opinions should be allowed, but I think it is important to let everyone else on the forum know if someone's opinion is a complete misinterpretation of reality. But since un-substantiated opinions are allowed I would just like to say that I somewhat agree with this one: "And as long as you aren't against people voicing your opinions, I think the political predisposition of certain moderators of the politics forum have affected said individuals moderation skills, now and in the past. But that's just my opinion... an unsubstantiated opinion, but my opinion nonetheless. You recently expressed that people are allowed to state their opinions, even if they're unsubstantiated."

I apologise for misinterpreting. Thanks for the clarification.

I totally agree, it may be somewhat expensive and inefficient now, but there are already some advancements that have taken place that really improve the potential of solar technology. For example, placing photo-voltaic cells on small spherical objects that are placed in a grid, as opposed to a flat surface. Or directing some of the sunlight into a small frame, which would allow us to make smaller solar panels. There might be other forms of harvesting energy, though, that we have not even conceived yet because of technological limitations.

I got this from here: "The passage of time is measured in three principle ways: rotational time, dynamic time, and atomic time." Rotational time, which could be described for example a point (our earth) moving around another point (our sun). Dynamic time, which can be described as the position of the moon relative to the backdrop of stars and our earth, which requires a point for our moon, a point for our earth and many points for the positions of the stars. Atomic time, is kept by the fluctuations of caesium-133 through different energy levels (could be plotted as a wave). So by measuring from one point (observation device) you can track the vibration of the caesium-133 and determine the time. You can see from the above that time can only be measured if there is more than one point. It would not be possible to determine time with one "zero spatial" point by itself. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Yes you can. But the point would no longer be alone, through the parametrization you are placing the point in a system of other points that make up a model or a geometric shape.

I don't think time already exists just because you have determined a point. If there was a zero "spatial dimension" point, how would time be determined at that point? Time is determined by the movement of matter and energy relative to an observer. How could you determine time if where you are trying to determine it (the point) has no space? I think it would be possible to determine time with two points, but just one point no.

Two atomic clocks were synchronised, put on separate planes and flown around the world in opposite directions. According to relativity the clocks should be a little off. When the planes landed, the clocks were a little off, when they were synchronised before. I would look into the Hafele and Keating Experiment. Here

Watch this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkxieS-6WuA. It is obviously hard to explain how one can visualise beyond the third dimension, my visualisation kinda follows this video. It is a really good watch if your interested in string theory/ super-string theory/ m-theory/ f-theory.

This is the definition of frame of reference: "A frame of reference in physics, may refer to a coordinate system or set of axes within which to measure the position, orientation, and other properties of objects in it, or it may refer to an observational reference frame tied to the state of motion of an observer." Essentially a frame of reference is a coordinate system based on the position of the observer. Like if you created a frame of reference around yourself, you could imagine a coordinate system emanating from you. With your position being 0,0,0 (at the origin). Refer to the following image: As for the twin paradox this is from wikipedia as here, I also believe it was linked by swansont. "In physics, the twin paradox is a thought experiment in special relativity, in which a twin makes a journey into space in a high-speed rocket and returns home to find he has aged less than his identical twin who stayed on Earth. This result appears puzzling because each twin sees the other twin as traveling, and so, according to the theory of special relativity, paradoxically each should find the other to have aged more slowly. How the seeming contradiction is resolved, and how the absolute effect (one twin really aging less) can result from a relative motion, can be explained within the standard framework of special relativity. The effect has been verified experimentally using precise measurements of clocks flown in airplanes.[1][2]" Only one twin ages though, this is because only one of the twins actually changed their frame of reference. The twin who took the journey would age more because he underwent the acceleration, as opposed to the other twin who stayed on Earth. Because light is a constant to all observers that means time cannot always be agreed between two observers, especially if they are travelling away from each other near the speed of light. This is called time dilation. I suggest you watch the set of videos here, they offer a good explanation of how time works per say.

I would not think so. Of course this would depend on the amount and size of the drop ships. The reason I would doubt that it would dramatically heat the Earth's atmosphere is that many objects (space junk, rock, small asteroids) from space fall to Earth every second and burn up before hitting the ground most of the time. And, these objects don't cause dramatic heating. So I would fail to see why drop-ships, designed to land on the planet would cause more heat than random objects. Drop-ships like that would most likely be designed to reduce the amount of heat and drag caused by re-entry. However, the larger the ship and faster it is going, the more heat it will produce. So, theoretically it is possible, but improbable. Of course this is my educated opinion, I hope this helps.

Thank you for responding, I will try to make it more clear when I am stating an opinion of mine in the future.

My comment seemed quite well received by Jackson, and when I said I could go and find articles showing how Palin is absolutely corrupt, you might notice that I added that he could find articles to say just the opposite. My point was that with politics, you can find any poll or article or review on the Internet to back up your statements. I feel that my post was completely acceptable. Let me also note that I enjoyed reading your reply Jackson.

Jackson, you seem like a fairly intelligent individual. It amazes me that you seem to defend the platforms put forward by right wing politicians in the United States. I mean seriously? Of course I could go out and find articles and information showing about Palin is absolutely corrupt and self-serving. Of course that would not be enough. You would find articles supporting your claims and then the topic would stray from point to point, with you taking an ideological stand to the right nearly every time. Furthermore, Frankin has made some comments as a comedian that may not be "politician approved", however what popular comedian has not? Frankin seems somewhat involved in our world. I have listened to Frankin on the floor, he is a rather educated man who has a sharp debating style. Palin, on the other hand, could not list a single paper or publication that she read on national television. The funny part is that Palin went to college for guess what? Journalism! Furthermore, lets get real. Palin was Governor of the second least populous state with the most federal funding per capita for one term. She has been under numerous ethics investigations and is either rather forgetful, incredibly obtuse, or a liar. This is obvious by the numerous contradictions one might see if they reviewed her career. This might be why she is not accepted as a credible political figurehead here. I remember watching Chris Mathews after it was released that John Edwards had a child out of marriage. I remember one of the commentators mentioning that Edwards was not much a reader. I am not a huge fan of Chris but he said something very appropriate for the situation, and I am paraphrasing of course. He asked how people like Edwards and Palin, who both were relatively close to becoming President and big political figures, made it all the way up the political ladder without being avid readers. "Aside from this Palin, continues to amaze me on her ability to energize both advocates and opponents of Conservatism." I would like to comment on this statement last because it is quite possibly the most appalling. It is appalling that a political figurehead can amaze you simply by their ability to energise their base and their opposition. This statement says absolutely nothing and it reads like an atrocious Fox News talking point. I mean really one could fit almost any political figure head into that statement by replacing the subject and the political affiliation of the subject. Observe: "Aside from this _______ continues to amaze me one his/her ability to energise both advocates and opponents of _________." I cannot imagine the criticism you might cast on me if I tried lending credibility to Obama by saying, "Aside from this, Obama continues to amaze me on his ability to energise both advocates and opponents of progressivism." Or how about this? "Aside from this, Hitler continues to amaze me on his ability to energise both advocates and opponents of fascism." Or "Aside from this, Lincoln continues to amaze me on his ability to energise both advocates and opponents of abolition." Or "Aside from this, Chairmen Mao continues to amaze me on his ability to energise both advocates and opponents of Communism." Hopefully you are getting the point here. Nearly anyone who is either charismatic, wealthy, powerful, or in the spotlight at the right time could fit into this rather "say-nothing/sound-good" statement.

“This is quantum mechanics in a biological system,” says study coauthor Gregory Scholes, a physical chemist at the University of Toronto. Check it out! Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI have to say I am quite surprised not many people are interested in commenting on this article .

I think that this is a great statement. Philosophy, the academic discipline, is actually a very useful subject. Especially when it comes to the notation of thought processes. A lot of laymen like to use the term philosophy very loosely. They don't actually follow philosophical rules and they don't notate their thought processes to look for flaws or contradictions in their own arguments. Really they just like to sit and think, and after thinking for a short period of time they determine a conclusion and hold onto it. I would not call that philosophy as much as ignorance.

JRyan you seem to be on this side of the debate and Horza, you earlier used the argument that we are responsible for 2% of the CO2 emissions. It is easy to shout that out and say, see its so small! In reality the other 98% of CO2 that is released is absorbed by plants and other forms of absorption. Our 2% causes an imbalance, and makes it so an amount of carbon generally equal to what we released stays in the atmosphere and is not absorbed. Furthermore, were cutting down the rain forests around the world! That means even less CO2 absorbed Essentially our 2% CO2 a year carries over year after year. This makes the CO2 concentration higher and higher. Plus water being a greenhouse gas is irrelevant to the debate here. Water doesn't get trapped in the atmosphere indefinitely. The debate is whether rising CO2 levels, and rising temperatures are caused by human release of CO2. Also you do realise water in the atmosphere is not as dangerous as CO2. You can go outside and survive 100% humidity. If you tried walking outside and there was a concentration of CO2 above 3-5% you most likely would pass out and die. The current concentration in the atmosphere of CO2 is 0.038%. Why do you feel the need to debate global warming so vehemently. There are theories that are less proven than man made global warming and they are more widely accepted. I really don't understand it, why is it so controversial for everyday Joe's.

I think that if the earth and the planet were the only two masses in our visible universe, and if there was no cosmic expansion, they would slowly draw nearer. It would take a long long time of course. I briefly researched gravity before posting. In Newtonian gravity, the force can be equal to zero, meaning there is a set limit to how far gravity reaches. However, according to general relativity, the force cannot be equal to zero. This means that gravity reaches across the whole universe. As the distance increases the gravitational force between the two objects would decrease, but never reach zero. This is my general understanding after brief research.

Oh please, this article doesn't disprove the concept of man made global warming at all.

It is kinda hard to make out your thought clearly, as your sentence structure is a little odd to me. It is rather common in the science community to refer to matter as stored energy. Kinda like what you are describing above, but that does not in anyway disprove string theory. First it is important to ask what string theory are you talking about? Superstring theory? M-theory? In either case, I don't see how the concept that matter is stored energy would violate or conflict with any of the string theories.

Maybe this article is already out there, I have not checked yet, but I don't think so. http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/01/quantum-computer-hydrogen-simulation/ Quantum Computer Simulates Hydrogen Molecule Just Right

A. There is no such thing as Einstein Theory B. Relativity states that light can move through space at the constant 'c'. So far relativity has been proven to be quite accurate, probably one of the most tested theories of all time. C. Relativity only predicts the actions and properties of large celestial bodies, not sub-atomic particles. Responding to the OP, I think you are talking about quantum entanglement. Quantum entanglement is when two or more sub-atomic particles are created at the same time, and if one exhibits a certain property the others will exhibit a certain property, regardless of their position in a state. This is from wikipedia's article on Quantum Entanglement "(Quantum Entanglement) is a property of a quantum mechanical state of a system of two or more objects in which the quantum states of the constituting objects are linked together so that one object can no longer be adequately described without full mention of its counterpart—even if the individual objects are spatially separated in a spacelike manner. The property of entanglement was understood in the early days of quantum theory, although not by that name. Quantum entanglement is at the heart of the EPR paradox developed by Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen in 1935. This interconnection leads to non-classical correlations between observable physical properties of remote systems, often referred to as nonlocal correlations." I don't exactly know if there is an answer as to why quantum entanglement can lead to information transfer that is super-luminous (faster than light). I would imagine that is where string theory/ m-theory come into play. The idea that the particles or strings are connected through a higher dimension, therefore the information is not transferred through three dimensional space-time, but through a higher dimension by folding space time. Because the information is not transferred through space-time as we know it, it would appear to be super-luminous (faster than light), in actuality it is kind of taking a shortcut. Its like if an ant was moving across a paper, if you folded the paper the ant could reach the other end of the paper very quickly as opposed to travelling the whole paper. A two-dimensional observer on the paper would see the ant as teleporting or moving very fast along the paper, when it is actually the fold in the paper that is moving the ant.

I just have to voice my frustration here. Blood_Padron what is your point here. You come onto a science forum, attempt to engage in scientific discussion, but you always have to inject Jesus or God into the discussion. Religion is called faith, do you know what faith is? Faith-Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting solely and implicitly on his authority and veracity; reliance on testimony. This forum tries to be about hard facts in science, we do have a speculation channel. Really though, one should not need science to back up their faith, if they truly have faith in their god(s). Furthermore, seriously. . . What are you hoping to achieve. You come in here and say something like "I disagree" or "God breathed the universe into existence". Really what do you expect from that? I can assume you knew we would disagree with you? Then what is your motive? Its cool to have beliefs but try to keep it separate from a science forum maybe? If you want to talk about scientific things (tested by experiments and/or valid concepts) I think it is totally your right to speak your mind, and I hope you do! But again, just religion is not a good topic on a science forum. I mean its not like I am going to go onto a Christian Forum and start talking about evolution and telling them they are all wrong. Just try to think about it from our shoes. I think everyone does there part in trying to educate people who ask questions or who are misinformed on something. It is really rather frustrating when you go to that effort and the reader just brushes it off as if he re-fused the theory from the get-go.