JaKiri

If by 'good deal' you mean 'bad deal'? Orwellian doublethink ahoy

Hey, lets just get Athlon XPs and Radeon 9700 pros. You never know, it may work.

Just finished Dead Air (Iain Banks), and the most used book is currently Mathematical Methods etc by Riley Hobsen and Bence

AFAIK, there are very very few numerically predictable things in biology. Physics and stamp collecting. Where?

Show me empirical evidence and mathematical predictions and it may well be of great interest to me.

He's also a biologist who nearly failed his first year mathematics module. WHAT AN ALLY IN A PHYSICS THREAD. Statistics doesn't count, boyo. HOHO

Only by coincidence. And I don't go in for this biological nonsense.

Ditto

INDEEDY

This thread is rather fine imho

Dont scare him off, im enjoying this :\

You are a laugh a minute

LOLZOR

iirc slight varations in the density of areas in space time just after the big bang caused matter to condense, at least by current thinking.

?

The implication was that you are a fool.

Do you run your life by it?

I know about scientific method. You on the other hand appear to be working by some bastardisation of Thomas Aquinas.

Heh It's a bit of a laugh really

Almost?

I don't know whether to be insulted or not heh

The meaning of words in a scientific content is not 'just opinion'. This reminds me so much of a simpsons quote; Homer - 'Eggheads pphf. What do they know?'

Well, strictly speaking it's not me, its the head of natural sciences at christ's college cambridge etc. It's observations --> Mathematics --> predictions, not observations --> predictions --> mathematics.

Well, it appears you think that this is the point version of the Sword of Truth, but given that I'm in general appraising the points on an individual basis, and that most are flawed by this approach, I don't think it really matters. Cavendish experiment? In which case, when you drop, say, fine sand why doesn't it spiral instead of falling straight down? There is an explanation for the spiraling of water already. Find another example if you want to actually use something as a 'prediction'. Otherwise I could invent a theory where the gravity gnomes are pulling everything towards the ground because they want to put it in their secret hideaways at the centre of the earth (and so on), and create the model around what has already been observed and claim it to be valid. (Any similarities between the critique of this obviously stupid theory and any that may have been placed upon this board is, of course, 'entirely coincidental') Why would greater atmospheric pressure allow larger things to live? Surely the opposite would be true, as there would be less combined force due to gravity/air pressure? And that doesn't say why the atmosphere escapes given you said it was all acting as orbiting particles. 1. There is no such thing as centrifugal force. I don't care where you've heard it from, but there isn't. I have rather fine sources for this information. 2. Centripetal force exists, but its not A FORCE IN ITS OWN RIGHT. Centripetal force is the force required to allow an object to move in a circular path around a point, and is the result of OTHER FORCES. Eg, when spinning a mass around your head on a piece of string the centripetal force is provided by the tension in the string. There is no such thing as centrifugal force. Not really, no. And it was 14 you posted. ? Just because there are problems with the current model doesn't mean that any old tosh can replace it; it has to be better. Lets have a little example shall we? I don't see how point 14 in any way alters the fact that you are inconsistent. Similar for other points. The maths comes before the qualatative observations you know.

No, as the trees provide the more suitable path to earth; remember it's not deterministic at all, merely defined by a few parameters (and chaos to some degree).