zapatos

Who is Bugs Bunny?

Then don't make it. No one else did.

No. That is what got us a geocentric view of the universe.

This is a science discussion site. Not a place to publish. People come here to discuss, not just to read papers. That is why you were not able to simply post the entire paper without setting a topic for discussion.

We want to discuss something. Phi's question is a good place to start.

There is NO evolution if length does not exit. Therefore length drives evolution. And while we are at it, width drives radioactive decay, and depth drives fermentation.

Thanks. I was having a hard time coming up with a response.

What would you like to know about time?

The question was not "what is the purpose of zapatos", the question was "what is the purpose of life".

"Purpose" implies a reason for being. There is no more 'reason' or 'purpose' to life then there is a 'reason' or 'purpose' for a rock. They are both just different manifestations of matter that are a possible configuration given our laws of physics. For something to have a purpose there must be some thought or motivation preceding it. Unless of course God exists, then I'll change my vote.

There is no purpose of life.

I assume you are using Heartmath as the same "scientific" source for this claim as you used for your claim regarding the ability to download information from the EM field created by the heart.

If a trash can of nuclear waste is motionless relative to the sun, it would be simple to push it toward the sun. The same would be true of a trash can motionless relative to a black hole. But any trash can on earth is not motionless relative to the sun; it is orbiting the sun at 67,000 mph. Imagine you were at the end of a rope and I was swinging you around at 67,000 mph. Think of how hard it would be to climb up that rope to me. In order for the trash can to become motionless relative to the sun, we would have to launch it in the opposite direction of the earth's orbit at 67,000 mph. It is this amount of energy needed that people refer to when they say it is not worth sending the waste to the sun. On a related topic, this same principle is one of the reasons we tend to launch missions to planets further from the sun than us (Mars, Jupiter, etc.) rather than those closer to the sun than us (Mercury, Venus)

Welcome newbies! Glad you've joined us. I hope we can share information and conversations that are beneficial to all.

It wasn't a question about containing something that has no boundary, it was a question about your assertion that it is impossible to imagine such a thing. I can imagine lots of impossible things. What is the basis for your assertion that this particular bit of imagination is impossible?

The strange feeling I get is generated by the number of first time posters in this thread who have joined simply to add legitimacy to the other first time posters. It's amazing that this many people have a strange self-induced feeling that drew them to this site for some reason.

I assume you have some scientific basis for this assertion?

Good point. I imagine if AK-47s were in the hands of every New Yorker they could be taken with only a few weeks of carpet bombing. I'm not sure that would pass Constitutional muster but it certainly would be in "short order".

Like England swept away the IRA in short order.

Tell that to Al-Qaeda and the resistance fighters during WWII (just to mention a couple).

Yes, that would do it. Or perhaps if we have a war and guns are confiscated as part of a national emergency, and simply not returned.

I don't think there is anything that will be enough for a significant portion of the population. The reasons people don't want to give up their guns are varied: "It's my Right goddamnit!" "Don't punish me for the actions of another." "Yep, people die. Just like with cars, power generation, sunbathing, and saturated fat in food." "Hunting, trap shooting, target shooting, plinking, etc. are all fun." "If you take away my guns you put me more at risk." And of course many others. Any solution is going to be nuanced and complex, and will never be accomplished with appeals for people to do the "right thing".

Then you are inventing your own definition of the word "insane". Best we all use the definitions that are already in place so there is no confusion.

So you think that everyone who kills multiple people, say during a drug deal gone wrong or in a terrorist attack, is insane?

'Zero' and 'nothing' are not the same thing.