zapatos

It is no more insane than the fact that future observers will have no way to detect you.

Does anyone have any idea when all of the CMB photons that are capable of reaching us will have done so? That is, when will we no longer see the CMB?

I often know I am dreaming while still in the dream. Usually I figure it out if the dream is causing a great deal of emotional distress, and I'll suddenly realize that what is happening is a dream. At that point I can choose to continue in the dream, or choose to wake up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octopus After you talked about them I just looked them up in Wikipedia to learn more about them and ran across that reference.

I saw a reference that stated octopi have four pairs of arms, rather than saying they have eight arms. Any idea what that means?

I remember sometime during my undergraduate studies when it occurred to me that every single course I took, no matter what level it was, was simply an introductory course to some more advanced topic. It seemed like every chapter in every book contained a topic that by itself could be the focus of years of study.

Stop the snarky comments please. Enough is enough.

How do you differentiate between 'an arguably large mass' and one that is not arguably large? What is the 'force of the forces'? What do you mean when you say 'forces possible'? What makes a force possible or not? And again, why would forces need to exist? I don't think you answered my question.

Why does gravity 'need' to exist if there are planets?

Do you have any other wireless devices you can check? For example, if you have a smart phone or wireless on your computer, when you turn on Wireless access on that device, you will see what wireless networks are in your 'neighborhood' that you could potentially connect to. If you see yours, which is the same one you connected to on Netflix, then your wireless is active.

That seems to be at odds with what elfmotat is saying and in agreement with michel. Is that correct? EDIT: Sorry, I edited while you were responding.

If Michel is wrong, does that mean that the expanding space between the sun and the earth is 'flowing' past us?

Guess I need to work on making my tongue in cheek comments more obvious.

Ah! So it was Ireland you were poking fun at. And here I thought you were criticizing Americans for jumping to conclusions.

Has someone ever actually calculated that sort of ROI? I see similar claims but I've never actually seen any evidence.

I can't answer your question but I do have a couple of comments. I don't think there is anything called 'perfect English'. 'Going' into the future is common in other languages, Spanish being an example.

I think what is important is not how many prisoners the US has compared to other countries, but how their ratio of black (or minority) to white (or majority) prisoners compares to ours.

Congratulations! A very exciting time. My only advice is to take the advice you get from everyone with a grain of salt. Remember that most advice is anecdotal.

You were not invited to this site as a guest lecturer. You are not our instructor and we are not your students. From what I've seen thus far you are far from the most knowledgeable person who is posting. If you'd like to discuss science with the people on this site we'd love to have you join us. If you continue to treat us as you have so far, I don't believe the interactions will be very fruitful for anyone involved.

Just so long as you follow the rules nearly anything is fair game.

Thanks, but I don't see where there is any 'fine tuning' involved. All we are measuring is the way the universe is. We are not measuring any sort of tuning. I don't see where this particular configuration of the universe (what you are calling a tuned universe) is any more significant than any other possible configuration of the universe. If gravity was stronger or weaker, or if there was no strong nuclear force, (or whatever) the universe would be just as fine tuned and empirical and repeatable as it is now. It is just that the universe would be fine tuned for something else. In fact, the same could be said for EVERY possible configuration of the universe. So it seems to me as if you are saying that THIS configuration of the universe proves a god simply because we happen to be in it. If not, then it seems as if you are saying ANY configuration of the universe proves a god, because that configuration is fine tuned also. Either way, it seems as if the existence of us, or the existence of a universe, is proof enough for you that god exists.

What do you mean when you say the degree to which our universe is 'fine tuned' is empirical? I understand that, say, gravity is measured to be consistent, but what is the 'fine tuned' part? That sounds like you are saying we can measure that someone tuned, or adjusted, the universe from one state to another.

<snarky comment removed>

You seem to misunderstand the situation here. The risk is not that you may quit talking to us and that we will be deprived of what you have to say. The risk is that the people on this site will quit talking to you and you will be deprived of what they have to say.

Sorry but I must have missed it. In what way has MigL misrepresented Latinos and the big deal in the South? I was under the impression that MigL was just saying that there is a difference between how legal Latinos and illegal Latinos are treated in this country.