JaKiri

Shall I reinstall the BIOS again? I have downloaded one.

It's almost certainly a physical error. And how are you going to install the BIOS if the computer doesn't start up?

You had been warned.

Try to move off this subject when you get back.

apparently there is mathematical proof for it' date=' however have you ever seen another universe? NO, so can you prove it physically exists? no![/quote']

 

This is extremely badly written. The 'so' implies that, since you can't see it, you can't proove that it exists, which I hope we all know is not the case.

 

You also preclude scientific advance; 'under current technology' you say. 'Current technology' is a short lived beast, nowadays.

 

apparently there is mathematical proof for it' date=' however have you ever seen another universe? NO, so can you prove it physically exists? no!

However have any of us seen air no but we can prove it exist!...Yes[/quote']

 

The problem is suprisingly similar. Until we developed the science to test the existance of air, we couldn't prove that it existed.

Anything counts, as long as the defense method isn't cost effective for the likelihood of it being targeted by that weapon, and its effectiveness when it is.

It would help to know what 'T' stood for.

everyone says reproductive cloning [of a whole person'] is wrong, but why? whats sooo bad about making a copy of the person, thats what i wanted to know when i started this thread

The main problem (at the moment) is a combination of two factors:

1. The ABSURDLY low success rate, even for 'lower' mammals.

2. The suspicions that clones may be more succeptable, possibly through the cloning method, for certain types of genetic diseases.

uh, lower temp=lower energy=lower mass=lower gravity.

That's an unbelieveably insignificant change, you realise?

mhm

A fine post sir!

To those who question whether the players deserve the salaries: where would you prefer the monies in sport to go? To the owners of the clubs? That's the only other destination.

Whatever..

System Shock II!

I said not to make more posts on this topic. Posting a nigh-on exact replica of post 42 from the closed thread does not a new topic make.

Do it again, and I will do more than just close the thread.

All energy is not lost at absolute 0. Free energy is lost (including temperature, obviously), but there is still structural energy.

And it's not just string theory that would fall if all energy were lost at absolute 0; matter being energy is in Special Relativity and the Standard Model of Quantum Mechanics, too. String theory just includes it because it's true.

thats weird

Of course it's not; what if we started measuring human height at 6'; someone 6'1 isn't half the height of someone 6'2.

huh? i always thought that Celsius was a linear scale?

It's a linear scale, but the zero point isn't at, well, zero.

20 degrees C is ACTUALLY twice as hot as -126 degrees C, you see?

Ok, If Matt cannot do it, then let us continue.

Nicely dragging the argument down to an even lower level.

Frankly, I've had enough of this. No progress can ever be made if both sides in the argument feel that they are immutably correct.

Thread closed, and do NOT start another one on this topic. Take it to PM if you like, but this really is pointless.

Sorry about that. However, your post was operating on a purely semantic level; there's no reason not to call other universes 'universes', although it would be technically incorrect.

Has your sense of humour deserted you today?

I'm dehydrated, and when I'm dehydrated I get crotchety.

Kelvin sucks too. We need a temperature system not based on the percent of water freezy boilingness.

 

Celcius was stupid to begin with... Kelvin is just an elaboration of a poor system.

It has to be measured in terms of something, and water is just as good as anything else.

The only flaw in Celsius is that it's only suitable for addition and subtraction; 10 degrees C isn't half as hot as 20 degrees C, but 100 Kelvin is half as hot as 200 Kelvin.

That's not a reduction in rights, because it's based on the choice of the individual. The repurcussions of an individual's actions cannot, by definition, reduce the rights that he has.

Reduce choice, yes, but that's not the same thing.

uni=one.

If there is more than one then they are not Universes.......

Don't use the root of words to try to derive their physical meanings.

In answer to the thread:

We only know of one universe, the one we inhabit. There may be more, we just don't know. Some people have thought of ways in which multiple universes could exist, but since its untestable, it isn't science.

Frankly, not knowing if one exists is worse than knowing you're protected against one that does.

A BIOS virus could easily destroy things; change the voltage settings of different components, for example.

Indeed, all GROUPS OF HUMANS (from 2 upwards) restrict eachothers' liberties.

What's an infinite fraction?

Nonterminating, should I say.

Something like 0.333333333333333333333333.... = 1/3.

Einstien clearly stated with some fancy mathematics that gravity does travel at the speed of light

That doesn't matter in the slightest. Until it has been reliably tested, and found to travel at the speed of light, we don't know. Mathematics can be based on wrong assumptions, there is no dogma.

I am a Doctor of Naturopathy

And you come to a SCIENCE forum?