pwagen

Maybe is that tiger a delusion or an illusion haha , or just simply a psychosis , schizophrenia ... : 1 single person seems to be 'aware " of its "existence" , a bit like kids who believe in Saint Claus...

Now apply that same thinking to your own beliefs.

I can say this and that about the subject ,but without the removed link and without any reference , it would be like thin air, don't you think ?

Gut feeling tells me it will be, either way.

 

Disregarding the ancient philosophers, Islam scientists were indeed the first to make use of an experimental scientific method. So one has to wonder why, to reiterate, the Quran states fresh and salt water don't mix. After all, using the scientific method, it takes around at most a minute to disprove. Maybe a few minutes more to see if the two separates.

You are confusing 2 different things with each other : fairy tales or illusions with a real -"entity" -to-believers-at least : God .

Fairy tales can be real to-believers-at least.

I can understand that you would consider God an illusion or a delusion ,but you cannot prove that as such ,never .

You cannot disprove the tiger John Cuthber mentioned, never.

It does not mean that that lack of evidence is the evidence of abscence of God .

It does not mean that that lack of evidence is the evidence of abscence of the tiger.

God is unlike anything or anyone God had ever created or will ever create : meaning that God is beyond reason, let alone empirics.

Special pleading, a logical fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

Not to mention that there are what can be called rational beliefs ,you do not seem to know the existence of ...That does not mean they do not exist as such

There are no evidence of a rain god. Since it rains, belief in such an entity would be called a rational belief. Then why don't you believe in such?

All it means is that there is a chance that God exists and there is a chance that God does not exist .

The former is supported by the historical evidence of the existence of some prophets at least ...

Unless you want to also claim that there is evidence of Santa because some kids get presents in the winter, then no.

Worse : those thousands of years of philosophy ... have proved that attempting to either prove or disprove the existence of God rationally was a silly stupid habit inherited from the ancient Greeks ,the modern analytical philosophy had abandoned altogether , for obvious reasons .

Because you can't prove a negative.

P.S.: You confuse 2 things with each other : the impossibility to either prove or disprove the existence of some things rationally or empirically like a tea pot behind the sun (Russell's argument ) and the impossibility to either prove or disprove the existence of God rationally , let alone empirically .

If you're using Russell's argument with the tea pot, why did you arrive at a different conclusion than him? Could it be because you don't understand philosophy?

 

Another user on this forum (krash661) uses the following question a lot, in various forms:

What's the difference between a god that doesn't exist and a god that can't be detected?

If we can't detect your god empirically, then why conclude that it exists?

Further more , i think that the historic evidence of the existence of some prophets like Jesus , Muhammad at least and their received and transmitted revelations are evidence enough for the existence of God .

Can you name any written works naming Jesus that were written during his lifetime?

 

We mostly form our beliefs psychologically , culturally ...so .

So belief is a cultural construct which emerge from our culture, and is not passed to us from some deity?

My link proves , beyond the shadow of a doubt , that the scientific method had islamic origins, thanks to and not despite of islam .

I'd agree with Moontanman in that you don't know what science is. The scientific method isn't about following the person with the best theories, it's about the theories themselves. You claim Islam suggested evolution (I never get to see your link, so only reading what you claim here), but so what? Is everything Islam says infallible because they seems to have gotten one thing right? How about the claim in the Quran that salt water and fresh water doesn't mix? Shall we believe in that on the merit of your evolutionary claim? If not, then why are you mentioning Islam like it's some method of clairvoyance?

 

http://old.richarddawkins.net/discussions/551812-fresh-water-salt-water-doesn-t-mix-according-to-qur-an-prof-dawkins-in-real-time-with-bill-maher

 

http://councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=4537.0

 

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/denis_giron/islamsci.html

Nicely done.

 

Was it all down to the bad transistor?

Let's not involve conspiracy theorist fantasies, shall we?

If you vote the Earth is flat, the Earth would remain round.

Bad? Those are absolutely amazing!

From the site:

The Gen1 Enterprise can arrive at Mars within 90 days of leaving earth's orbit.

What, it won't have a warp engine?

I wouldn't say useless. After all, your idea led to you asking a question, which in the end hopefully led you to a better understanding (assuming I explained it properly and correctly) of the theory behind what made you ask the question in the first place.

 

As for looking down the path of a ray of light; a ray of light isn't an actual, solid ray, but consists of photons. Once a photon reaches a receiver (such as your eye), it was by necessity sent out in the past.

Sure. Let's say you write a message on a tennis ball. You then start a timer when you throw the ball towards a wall. After 1 second, the ball will hit the wall. It will then return to you 1 second later, and you can read the message you sent to yourself from the past.

 

Looking at a mirror 2 light years away is pretty much the same. After a photon (light) is emitted from Earth, it's not affected by anything happening here. So a bunch of photons will still "show" what went on here at the time they were sent out. So when you flash a light towards the big mirror 2 light years away, the photons will travel for 2 years, hit the mirror, be reflected, then come back here 2 additional years later. It will not show what happens 20 years in the future, because those photons have not been emitted yet.

 

Now, time dilation when it comes to space travel and the like is something different. It does not, however, mean you can work around cause and effect.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrocausality

because there are 4 (or 6) batteries

My point exactly (I think). Whatever battery or charge left in the box won't be enough to turn on all 4 simultaneously.

2 years ago, some photons were emitted towards the mirror placed 2 light years away. In 2 years, we would see the photons coming back to us, after bouncing off the mirror. This would mean we would be able to see 4 years into the past, because that's when the photons were sent off from Earth.

 

How does dark matter not obliterate matter?

Any reason it should?

 

M theory is wrong in its current form is my next assertion. Im not aware of its actual current form(...)

...what?

 

To elaborate, I don't think saying "X is wrong" immediately followed by "I don't know what X is" lends credibility.

Why doesn't he turn on all of the lamps simultaneously in the end?

But when I disconnected this Ignition Coil from my circuit....... the Pin 3 showed a potential difference of around 11.86 V! Pin 8 and 4 showed 12.26 Volts!.......

This 11.86V reading appears only when the 5.6K ohm resistor is disconnected from pin 3 of 555 IC!

Ok, so you need to disconnect both the coil and the resistor to get that voltage? Or is it enough to just disconnect the coil? Sounds a bit like the coil might be the problem then.

You seem to have a very poor understanding of how electricity is supposed to work. I suggest you remedy this before trying to get anything else peer reviewed.

Ah, no. The link didn't link to the correct section. I fixed it now, but here's the first part of section 3.1:

The mane of the adult male lion, unique among cats, is one of the most distinctive characteristics of the species. It makes the lion appear larger, providing an excellent intimidation display; this aids the lion during confrontations with other lions and with the species' chief competitor in Africa, the spotted hyena. The presence, absence, colour, and size of the mane is associated with genetic precondition, sexual maturity, climate, and testosterone production; the rule of thumb is the darker and fuller the mane, the healthier the lion. Sexual selection of mates by lionesses favors males with the densest, darkest mane. Research in Tanzania also suggests mane length signals fighting success in male–male relationships. Darker-maned individuals may have longer reproductive lives and higher offspring survival, although they suffer in the hottest months of the year. In prides including a coalition of two or three males, it is possible that lionesses solicit mating more actively with the males who are more heavily maned.

Not quite. It's actually the females that do the hunting in lion packs. Let's say the males have manes for social reasons. Read this section of the Wikipedia article on lions, and see if you can pick up the reason from it. Otherwise, ask away.

 

Lion mane

 

Edit: fixed link

ohh to camoflauge?

That's basically it! Both tigers and lions have adapted their furs to blend in to whatever habitat they've evolved for. Then it's down to the actual process of how it worked, but I'm sure you'll work that bit out. Here's a small list with other differences that may or may not be noteworthy in the context:

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Lion_vs_Tiger

 

Are you sure about the teeth? I haven't investigated it, but they look pretty similar to me:

http://www.skullsite.co.uk/Tiger/tiger_lat.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/Skull_lion.png

 

Any apparent difference is probably minor enough to not worry too much about.

 

Did you think about why males would have manes?

The manes are a different matter, most likely to do with the way lions live in packs, as opposed to tigers. Most lions live in Africa, so not really a cold place. In a pack with one male and several females (and it's only the males that have manes), can you think of any reason a big furball for a head would be beneficial? Would it help if I suggested you look at similarities between lions and peacocks?

 

As for the vegetation, think about it from the prey's point of view. It's easier to avoid carnivores if you can see them, right? Now, how would a tiger's stripes help in areas with vegetation (not necessarily trees), and how would a lion's golden color help on a sandy savanna?

You'll have to show what you've come up with so far, and people will attempt to guide you in the right direction. Nobody will do your full homework for you.

 

That said, tigers usually prefer habitats with more vegetation than lions. How would the different habitats favor the characteristics of either species?

It's kind of hard to know what's wrong without actually having a look at your setup. The obvious thing to do would be to check if you've made a mistake. Is everything rotated the way it's supposed to? Is everything connected where it's supposed to be?

 

After that, start measuring. Make sure pins 4 and 8 are supplied with the right voltage (should be 12 V if you're connecting it to a car battery). Make sure pin 3 is around 1.7 V below what you measured at pin 8 (if I'm reading the link below right). Make sure your components can operate at 12 V, so they don't burn.

 

I'll look into the resistors you changed for 27k, see if they'd make a difference.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/555_timer_IC#Astable

Oh yes it is.

I'm sorry, but I'm crying with laughter right now!