swansont

If it exists, then you should have no trouble measuring its properties, and our speed as we travel through it.

No? That comes as a great surprise to me. Was I hallucinating that whole time I was on talk.origins back in the usenet days? The parallels between creationism and climate science rejection are quite striking

So you keep asserting. The problem here is that the plural of "anecdote" is not "evidence" If your estimate ends up only good to a factor of 10, but you show that it's still several orders of magnitude smaller than what would be required, then that's accurate enough. Scientists do this kind of estimation all the time. Space is a pretty decent vacuum, so: what pressure?

We are part of nature, so why is a man-made concept not natural?

In the US it's even worse: 1 in 80. We drive more. Is it? there is no context to the number. Even in the US, it's down the list of causes of death below cardiovascular disease, respiratory problems and various cancers. See the above comment on death statistics. Nature does a worse job of keeping us alive. Did you ever stop to think that the reason for cramped road conditions where you live is that the roads sprang up when transportation was ox and cart, and cities sprang up around them? Gosh, why didn't they consider the future when we'd have automobiles? Using a motorcycle is a choice, and cars are currently engineered to be much safer than they were. They are crash-tested, and there are standards they have to meet. But that's all function, so I don't really know what your argument is. Adding soft bits to make cars safer – if that worked – would still be an example of function. Still not understanding your point. You need to do a better job of defining "form". I was supposing it meant "make it look aesthetically pleasing", whereas function meant "make it work". But now you're telling me a fat cow or pig is an example of good form, owing to their soft parts. I'm not seeing it. Yes, it's beautiful. I've been there. It's a cathedral. I think the reason that most buildings aren't cathedral-like is economic. I also don't think that's very hard to figure out. And what of the function. Is a church or cathedral an example of good function? I don't think so. Lots of wasted space and it's empty a lot of the time. You could build a really gorgeous car that had gothic ornaments. But it would probably have lousy gas mileage. Bad function, and would people buy it?

If Alice gets heads up in all 3 orientations and Bob gets heads down, then that's 100%. One is always up, another is always down. That's not 5/9, that's 9/9. If you flip the directions, you once again get 100%. That's not ignoring the case, it's recognizing that it's the same condition with a - sign out in front, and so one need not waste time on it. (It's a video, and he's a fairly polished video maker. You omit irrelevant details that would make the video unnecessarily long) Including those new conditions don't change the answer Since you botched this part of the analysis, your final answer will likely be wrong. Especially since it doesn't look like you defined the hidden variable condition. It looks like you are freely moving back and forth between the QM analysis and the hidden variable analysis. No wonder it's all jumbled up. OK, you are completely missing the point. There is no such thing in QM. The orientation of the detector doesn't matter. If the state is undetermined, there is no such thing as being aligned or not with the detector. If it's a hidden variable, that result is baked in for each possible orientation.

Who saw it in Jan 1811? This page has the discovery in March 1811. http://cometography.com/lcomets/1811f1.html Well, no, there is no mention of a comet on that page, so don't pretend that this supports your thesis. There was extreme weather. Any connection to the comet has yet to be established. Then go and compile this into something that is useful for a statistical comparison. Do a science. I could envision such a calculation being given as an exercise to first-year physics students in a university course. You can estimate the mass and distance to get a calculation good enough to say whether or not this could possibly have the gravitational effects you claim. What is the effect of this in space? How big of an electromagnetic effect does a snowball have?

Your skepticism seems to be coupled with an unwillingness to learn the science, which means it's more willful ignorance than skepticism. This is a science discussion board. Is it that hard to see why we would not want to let that persist?

But we've discovered that's not true. You can't tell if something is in motion or at rest, as long as the motion is inertial. Claiming that if motion stops so does time is pretty empty, since there is no way to stop all motion. Additionally, there is no trend toward time stopping as things slow down. It's the opposite - time runs fastest when things are at rest. So you can't even argue with an extrapolation in the limit of no motion. It's an untestable claim, and therefore of little scientific value.

! Moderator Note That's a "no", then. Just an article that says black holes exist in the voids. (First link didn't even mention black holes in the article)

! Moderator Note Tangent on push gravity has been split http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/92809-push-gravity-split-from-how-gravity-is-created/

I did. There is nothing called gm there. So I ask again: what is gm?

! Moderator Note Any science (models, evidence, citations to such, etc) you can offer to back this claim up? (The status of the thread depends on your reply)

what is gm? There are two named accelerations, and they are of equal magnitude. There is no information given that would lead you to deduce any kind of rotation.

I refer you to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Probably not, as assuming that would be idiotic. Models are run under a set of inputs, and do not account for actions of government, or other events. If the conditions of CO2 generation change, you re-run the model with the new data. This is similar to a mental model of "I will be at work in 30 minutes" when you commute. It assumes a set of conditions. If there is an accident, especially one involving you, then you have to update your model with the new data. The insinuation from you statement is that even though a typical commute is 30 minutes, that you have no idea whatsoever of when you will be in to work. And yet, you probably leave about 30 minutes before you need to be in. All of that assumes the initial claim was true and not just fabricated. Which it seems to have been. No citation to back it up, that's for sure. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html

Intrinsic ability? Sure. Everything can be moved. But they do not cause themselves to be moved, it is cause by outside factors. Using "ability" makes for awkward phrasing – the two conditions are not mutually exclusive. No. As Einstein showed, merely having mass (at rest) means you have energy.

Bosons can and do.

No, studiot's point (to which I was alluding) is valid: if the box is filled with liquid, it is not free to move around. Its angle will be that of the box. Why would the box tilt under the given accelerations? Something is missing from the problem.

Sorry, I was on the road at the time. Why do things have to exist in reality? Or, more to the point, why does not physically existing in reality make them supernatural? It's a concept, an abstraction, an ideal. It's not like circles are the only example of abstractions in life.

I think we have a much better idea of where the atoms and molecules came from. You're just moving the goalposts. Ultimately the answer is going to be "we don't know". We observe that the things in the universe have energy. Because of that, there is motion.

And, of course, you have the data to back this up. So let's see it. How many earthquakes happened in this time frame? Probably not, as that would be inaccurate. It was more like twice the size of the sun. Let's see your calculation of how much of a gravitational effect such a comet would have on the earth. And I don't recall seeing your explanation of how the comet caused earthquakes but apparently did not affect the tides.

You present no evidence that this isn't happening, just that it doesn't happen universally. You could discuss why it didn't happen with specific cases. That might be illuminating, but your central thesis is vague and unsupported. Alos, consider that Plato ended up not really solving any science issues.

Yes, again. Google for thin foil electron scattering, and you'll get lots of results. Such as http://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.121.461 http://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.38.1321

Conduct electricity? Yes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betavoltaic_device