iNow

Here ya go: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/search.php?do=finduser&u=27409

I'll stipulate up front that you know far more about each of those concepts than myself, but I would argue that your quote above is precisely why my previous comment that "laws are for math, not science" remains entirely accurate. Science can use and benefit from those mathematical laws, but the laws themselves reside entirely in the domain of maths.

No... not really. You got a chuckle out of me.

Did you really just suggest that Mooeypoo is silent, but deadly?

Laws are for mathematics, not science. Science deals in theory, which is the pinnacle achievement. (Principle would probably be an axiom, not an outcome)

It was a vast conspiracy designed to frustrate you and cause you pain and suffering. Everyone was thinking about you and how you would react when the decision was made.

I'd say that, no... selfish gene theory does not make intelligence and thought irrelevant. The selfish gene is one which finds methods to maximize its chances at moving forward into future generations. Intelligence and thought have proven themselves to be very effective methods of surviving an environment and passing on genes to future generations, therefore selfish gene theory has made intelligence and thought not only relevant, but vital. See if that helps. Maybe it will get the ball rolling for you and you can run with it.

You'd be better off freezing it. http://www.gasinnovations.com/literature/MSDS-Sheets/MSDS-BUTANE.pdf

The greenhouse blanket effects, predicted by models, turns out to be over estimated compared to the real data that was published. There is still global warming but the rate is slower than the models predicted since heat escapes easier than expected. You should try actually reading your sources, Pioneer. The source you cite actually debunks the claim you are making. Good stuff, that. Stop cherry-picking sentences which affirm your preconceptions and start reading what the information actually says. You'll look much less foolish... http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/03/31/lindzen-on-climate-feedback/

LOL! Your own source negates your conclusions and assertions. That's classic, right there. http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/03/31/lindzen-on-climate-feedback/ Perhaps you should try actually reading what those articles say instead of cherry-picking the parts which you mistakenly assume affirm your preconceptions.

My thoughts keep returning to something like they had in Star Trek TNG. People have access to food, resources, and healthcare without cost or limitations based on status/social hierarchy, they have occupations which are based on their own interests, aptitudes, and merits, and it's all centered around a passion for exploration, learning new things, and connecting with others.

AFAIK, blackholes do NOT crush matter into infinitely dense bits, but instead rips apart matter into infinitely small pieces. This is due to the tidal effects. The gravitational pull on the part of the object (or particle) which is closer to the blackhole center is stronger than the gravitational pull on the other side of the object (the part farther away from the blackhole center), and hence the object gets spaghettified. It's pulled and stretched until it rips, then the pieces which result from the rip get pulled and stretched until they also rip... and this process continues until there's simply nothing left to rip.

Vision [math]\ne[/math] Visual Information Sound [math]\ne[/math] Auditory Information Sound does not require a receiver. Auditory reception does. Without a receiver, the pressure wave still traverses the medium. That's really all there is to it.

Definitely in the short-term we are unable to satisfy energy demand without fossil fuels, due simply to the density of that demand and the breadth of products/scope or use. I'm not referring to economic challenges, but practical ones. We use fossil fuels in far too many applications to replace it overnight. In addition to the short-term challenges, I foresee that there will still be applications in the long-run where we'll need to use fossil fuels. For that reason, taken as given that its use will never go to zero, we need to focus on cleaner methods of putting it to use. I'd love for us to never again burn a single drop of fossil fuel for all of eternity, but I know that will never happen. We need to take steps to minimize its use, do so quickly, and work in parallel to clean it up for all of those times where we still continue to use it in the meantime.

I'm glad at least one of you caught the humor in that. Precisely.

Interesting article in the NYTimes this weekend. The Evolution of the God Gene ... During 15 years of excavation they have uncovered not some monumental temple but evidence of a critical transition in religious behavior. The record begins with a simple dancing floor, the arena for the communal religious dances held by hunter-gatherers in about 7,000 B.C. It moves to the ancestor-cult shrines that appeared after the beginning of corn-based agriculture around 1,500 B.C., and ends in A.D. 30 with the sophisticated, astronomically oriented temples of an early archaic state. This and other research is pointing to a new perspective on religion, one that seeks to explain why religious behavior has occurred in societies at every stage of development and in every region of the world. Religion has the hallmarks of an evolved behavior, meaning that it exists because it was favored by natural selection. It is universal because it was wired into our neural circuitry before the ancestral human population dispersed from its African homeland. <...> A propensity to learn the religion of one’s community became so firmly implanted in the human neural circuitry, according to this new view, that religion was retained when hunter-gatherers, starting from 15,000 years ago, began to settle in fixed communities. In the larger, hierarchical societies made possible by settled living, rulers co-opted religion as their source of authority. <...> Religion was also harnessed to vital practical tasks such as agriculture, which in the first societies to practice it required quite unaccustomed forms of labor and organization. Many religions bear traces of the spring and autumn festivals that helped get crops planted and harvested at the right time. Passover once marked the beginning of the barley festival; Easter, linked to the date of Passover, is a spring festival. <more at the link>

How about you tell us what YOU think about each, and then membership here can help you correct you on anything you've done mistakenly? We will not do your homework for you.

It is correct much more often than it is not, and they are on par or better with the worlds best encyclopedias. They also have references. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia#Assessments

Yes. We will not be able to completely replace fossil fuels, so we need to be able to handle them more cleanly. Further, it will take some time to scale up renewable energy to such a point where it can support our population, and we can start carbon capture almost immediately while we move down that path. We need to do both.

You're in less control when running quickly, and more likely to harm someone else. We are a social species, and we need to adhere to certain social norms. People generally see you as a potential threat to their own health when you are running... you could knock them over, or push them out of the way with all of your momentum, or any number of things... That's why. When you are young, your parents are trying to teach you social norms, and further, they'd be the ones in trouble if you (as their child) ran into someone and knocked them over.

I, too, thought about Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution and its relation to "general welfare" of the public. However, my own conclusion is that this fails on two primary fronts. One, that article describes Congress' ability to collect taxes and spend it for the general welfare (on things such as roads, military, healthcare, etc.). When we consider the scenario presented in this thread, where commerce and income are absent, there is nothing for Congress to tax, so (much like the commerce clause and 16th amendment) that argument is rendered moot. Two, the science does not back-up the idea that this substance is detrimental to the health of the people, ergo it cannot be validly stated that their welfare is being protected by making use and possession illegal. It's non-sequitur. Prohibition of alcohol required constitutional amendment, and I'd suggest that so, too, does prohibition of cannabis use and/or possession, especially when factors such as commerce, distribution, and income are removed. Note: In case it is not clear already, I am not disagreeing with ParanoiA's point, but supplementing and reinforcing it.

I think history tells me this sounds similar to homework, and science informs me that you should provide evidence of the difference by showing some work of your own.

If you're referring to the homeopathy where they take something and dilute it down 7 trillion times and claim it will heal you, then the process you are suggesting is crap, and fully bunk. At best, homeopathy can cure dehydration. Erm... Dieticians are. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietician