SkepticLance

iNow The reason your question is sillier than 'do you believe in God' is because enormous numbers of people believe in God, but almost none believe in Thor, in spite of the amusing answers so many have given. I respect your intelligence and knowledge, so I know you are fully aware of this, and wondered why you should want to ask the question?

David Attenborough said that New Zealand's meat eating mountain parrot, the kea, was the most intelligent of all birds. Check this and see if you agree.

iNow Can you please come clean and tell us what you are actually after? This is a rather silly question, since almost no-one in the 21st Century world actually believes in the existence of Thor as a living god, and I know you are fully aware of that. So why ask the question?

CO2 is the main greenhouse gas (after water vapour). When infra red passes through the atmosphere, it hits the ground and warms the ground. The ground then re-radiates that heat energy at a different wavelength. CO2 in the air stops that new wavelength from radiating out into space. Thus, it warms the air instead. CO2 in the air has increased over the past 150 years from 280 parts per million to 350 ppm. This increases the effect of warming, and makes the whole world warm up. Over that time, the world has, on average, warmed by 0.8 C.

Quantum mechanics is a very broad topic, with enormous ramifications, and requires a lifetime of study to even begin to understand. However, your question might be answered more simply. Quantum physics began with the understanding that light had a quantum nature as well as a wave nature. That is : under some circumstances, light appears to act like a stream of particles. The word 'quantum' refers to a discontinuity. This occurs when light appears to be particles rather than waves. Light particles (photons) can be envisaged like a stream of bullets from a machine gun. Since the particles are discrete, there are gaps between them. It is this 'gappy' nature that is described by the word 'quantum'. Albert Einstein won the Nobel prize with his work on the photo-electric effect. He showed that, for light to push an electron free and generate an electric current, the light had to come in 'lumps'. Each 'lump' kicks out an electron. Thus, light is quantum. Of course, it is also a wave. Of course, that was the mere beginning, and many other things in the world of the very small have now been shown to be quantum in nature. It is the ongoing study of how very small 'quantum' objects behave, and how we make use of their incredibly weird properties that is the scope of modern quantum physics.

Cameron As you say, there is no sound in space. Thus no energy gets converted to sound. Instead it takes different forms, such as heat and the energy of movement of all the flying debris. Whatever happens, the energy is not destroyed - merely converted to other forms of energy.

Cameron No-one really knows what happens inside a black hole. We may never find out, since it is impossible in theory to look inside one, or carry out any tests or measurements beneath the event horizon. The idea that energy just gets destroyed inside a black hole is not an idea that is widely believed. It probably converts to another form, such as the energy of movement by making the black hole spin.

Sayonara My point is that we should not focus too much on any one food, or even a few foods. Sure, add flax seed to your diet. But keep it as only one small part, and get as much variety as possible. And do not get sucked in by the con artists who overclaim for any supplement or food. There are lots of excellent foods that are over-hyped. I have commented in other threads about wolfberries and about blueberries - each of which has a following by obsessed foodists. They are good foods, but must be only part of a wider diet.

Cameron You cannot create energy, but you can transform it into other forms, and you can release energy by destroying matter. Matter can be regarded as a kind of stored energy, and it can be converted to energy during nuclear processes. Where energy came from? Initially from the Big Bang. And do not ask me how that happened, because there are so many theories, and no-one really knows.

Sayonara It is worth remembering that there is a massive, multi-billion dollar food swindling industry out there. That is, all the people selling unnecessary food additives, or so-called health foods that have never been demonstrated scientifically to have the slightest health value, except for placebo effect. Billions are spent on such things as evening primrose oil, which when tested scientifically, showed no effects above placebo. These have no value to the recipient. I regard this kind of thing as one of the biggest con jobs of the 21st Century, and it needs no encouragement from us. The rational and responsible approach to this is to teach how to create a simple balanced diet. It is not difficult, and it does not require 'fad' foods and additives. Flax seed no doubt contains valuable nutrients, but it has its limits. As part of a wider diet, flax seeds or flax seed oil has a certain value. However, it must not be over valued. There are con artists who will promote it to get $$$ off those who do not know better. Much more important is to get a wide variety of fruit, veges, oils, and seeds, along with a little animal protein and foods with starch and fibre.

Sayonara Your view is correct, yet 'dangerous'. Dangerous in that it can lead to certain people becoming obsessed with diet and nutrition when there is no need. This results in spending lots of money and time indulging unnecessary dietary indulgences in the mistaken view that they will be healthier and live longer. As you said, it is easy to obtain a good balanced diet. No food supplements, vitamins or 'fad' foods are needed. Just a good variety, mostly from your fruit and vegetable store.

Cameron The gravitational pull depends on the mass of the object, and the distance from it. If these do not change, then time will not alter the gravitational pull. If an object falls, then it will end up with less gravitational potential energy. Just to complicate matters, sometimes the opposite happens. If energy is added, the object can move further out, gaining more gravitational potential energy. The Earth's moon is doing this. Extra energy that comes from the spinning of the Earth is transferred to the moon, moving it further out, which leaves it with more gravitational potential energy. If something encounters friction, it loses energy as heat, and falls inward, as it gives up its gravitational potential energy. Man made satellites in low orbit do this, as they rub against the thin outer atmosphere. This creates heat from friction, and the satellites lose their gravitational potential energy (it turns to heat energy) and fall inwards.

Cameron Gravity does not create energy. It merely releases stored energy. Think of it like this. If you lift an object up off the Earth, against gravity, it takes energy. That energy is stored by the position of the object high above the Earth. When the object falls, the energy is released again. The same in astronomy. The Earth's position in relation to the sun is the result of a hell of a lot of stored energy. If the Earth were to fall, that energy would be released, and it is a lot of energy. The universe is full of energies of this nature (known as gravitational potential energy.). Where did it all come from? Originally from that ultimate source of energy - the Big Bang, when all objects in the universe were thrown apart. The energy used to separate everything in the original explosion is now gravitational potential energy, and is recovered when things fall together.

Just to clarify a point. Zeus, Apollo, Thor, Woden etc are gods. While they are mythological, they are also current. Very few people worship them today, but you may be surprised to know that there are still a small number of people who worship those gods of antiquity. Thus they all have to be seen as genuine gods.

It is actually very easy for anyone living in the wealthy West to eat a pretty good, balanced diet. Every day, eat a little animal protein. Some starch that is associated with lots of fibre. A few bits of different raw fruit. Some green, yellow (or other coloured) vegetable. Occasionally some nuts. Cook with oil rather than fat. Avoid McDonalds and similar. The human body is actually quite flexible in terms of dietary requirements, even though there is a whole fad foodist industry out there trying to convince everyone of the opposite, and telling you that unless you eat their special (and expensive) additive, you will not be healthy. That is a load of bushwah! The whole of human history is full of entire societies that eat 'inadequate' diets, and yet remain healthy. It is not worth getting paranoid about food. Eat a good diet, balanced as above best you can, bearing in mind your financial situation. If you eat less meat, or more starch, that will not harm you. Maximise the fruit and vege component, and the variety - but that can be done by buying what is seasonally cheap. Health food shops are not the best source of good food. I never set foot inside them, regarding them as a bunch of swindlers out to take your money with false and misleading claims. The best source of good food is greengrocers and the vege section of your supermarket (not the 'health' food section). Remember that diet is only one of the many factors leading to good health. Some other factors that are equally vital are : - exercise - social factors (do you lead an enjoyable social life) - managing stress - getting enough sleep and rest - genetics There is so much unscientific nonsense out there, by commercial interests after your money. Bewaaaaare!

DrDNA I take no food supplements whatever - just concentrate on a good balanced diet, and regular healthy exercise. At age 60 my HDL is very high, my LDL is very low, my blood pressure is very low, my resting pulse is very low, my ECG is excellent, my lungs X ray totally clear. Food supplements for normal healthy people are simply a way for a bunch of con artists to make a lot of money. The only ones who need them are those with special medical needs, who are put onto supplements by their doctors. In other words, food supplements are for sick people - not healthy ones. The only exception is folic acid for pregnant women, because pregnancy is not ill health.

This question is only relevent to those who stated they were believers (11 people, last time I looked). Atheists do not believe in any god, and agnostics refrain from final judgement for any god, Abrahamic or otherwise.

I do not think that reference to any non-Abrahamic god is at all sneaky. Most human cultures over the past few thousand years have believed in non Abrahamic gods. The natives of my land believed in Rangi (sky god), Papa (Earth goddess), Tane (god of the forest), Tangaroa (god of the sea) and so on. The Hindus currently believe in a pantheon of various gods, with Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva at the top. If we are talking about human belief in god, we cannot ignore the very real belief in a range of gods and goddesses held by numerous human cultures. Otherwise we are indulging in religious chauvinism.

Mr Skeptic is correct. There are numerous gods that are not considered creators of the universe. There are many that are worshipped today, such as those in the Hindu pantheon. I do not know of any clear definition of god or goddess, except to say that they are beings with powers far greater than human. Even wisdom is not necessary, since many minor gods have been portrayed as foolish.

To Glider Going from God-like to God is easy, due to the limitations of our human perspective. However, from a practical stand point, God-like becomes God if that is included in the definition, and my post was about the definition. In other words, we must define 'what is a god?'

And for Captain Panic The maximum time that waste has to be kept safe is 10,000 years - a factor of ten less than his figure. At the end of 10,000 years, it is still radioactive, but no more than natural granite (which contains uranium). My second idea of how to deal with waste is Western and Southern Australia. There is a point about the junction of these two states that is more than 1000 kms from the nearest city, and hundreds of kms from any town. It is extremely arid, unpopulated, and geologically so stable that we can expect no earth movement for a million years or more. Simply dig a bloody great hole - perhaps 3 kms diameter, and one km deep. That will hold all the nuclear waste all the people in the world can make for the next 10,000 years. The fees to collect such waste would make Australia the richest nation on Earth. Like all such great ideas, though, this will not happen, due to the lobbying of thousands of idiots.

I agre with the need for better definition. Without such a definition, one possible argument goes like this. There are 100 billion star systems in our galaxy, and about the same number of galaxies in the universe. At least, that is the current best estimate. This means a total of 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 star systems in the universe. The probability that somewhere in that lot lives an alien civilisation so advanced that it is God-like is almost 100%. Thus, God exists. QED.

According to the article, the companies that offer these DNA tests carry out a limited set of tests, which are enough to demonstrate infidelity or paternity, but without revealing any medical details. It would probably be possible to do further tests with medical implications, but that would be at an added cost. I tend to be biased in favour of anything that reveals truth, and I have little sympathy for spouses who 'play around' and later get caught. Nor do I have sympathy for a woman who is married but has sex with another man and bears the other man's child, while hiding that fact from her husband. My view is that, if a sneaky DNA test can reveal the truth, then that is good. However, the law in the UK and certain other places disagrees with me. It is called the right to privacy. But what about the right of a man to know that the child he raises is actually his? And we all know that, if a woman has had a child to another man, she is not going to give permission for a DNA test.

Charon According to the New Scientist article, it is illegal to collect a sample for DNA testing without the knowledge of the original posessor in the UK, and in Alaska, Florida, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, and Oregon. PS. A follow up article is found at : http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126934.300-special-investigation-could-your-dna-betray-you.html?DCMP=NLC-nletter&nsref=mg20126934.300

The 24 January issue of New Scientist has an editorial article about DNA tests on people, using samples taken without their knowledge, and used to demonstrate marital infidelity, or to determine paternity of a child. It is now possible to collect enough DNA in secret from such things as a toothbrush, hat, chewing gum or comb to carry out such tests. They are cheap. Less than $US 300. The question is the ethics of such practices. It is illegal in the UK and in a few USA states. Do people here think that such testing is unethical and should be banned? Personally, I am inclined to the idea that revealing truth should not be considered unethical. If a person has reason to suspect that his/her spouse has been 'playing around', and sends off a piece of their underwear to test for someone else's DNA, is this unethical? If a man has reason to suspect that a child born by his wife was not fathered by himself, has he not a right to find out?