iNow

I found this site some time ago, and it helped me to work through some issues in my own understanding. Maybe it will help you as well. The issue of the train and simultaneity: http://faraday.physics.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/SpecRel/Flash/Simultaneity.html More general overview available at the following: http://faraday.physics.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Relativity.html

I'm confused by the question. What do comets have to do with the water on Earth? Are you suggesting that all [ce]H2O[/ce] on our planet is a result of cometary action? If so, that seems to ignore a pretty significant amount of, what can only be described as, basic chemistry.

Well, I suppose we'll all have to wait and see what happens if one of them gets elected, huh? Unless, of course, you have a newer model of crystal ball than I do.

Ahh... the intense, umatchable rush of learning new things and engaging in discussion with intelligent people from all walks of life. Give me another hit!

Hmmm... You sure? I cite the following: http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=165746&title=dick-move-of-the-week I've seen plenty more, but this was just this week, so easy to find.

I have a friend who does it, but he is miserable since he always has to work on someone else's stuff instead of his own. However, YMMV.

Wow. That brought back some memories. I haven't used SPSS in a while. Great post, and good help, Glider. Well done, sir.

I see it more as spam for his site than trolling. I saw a purple unicorn in one of his pictures, which is clear insight that leprechauns are up there performing fellatio on one another.

Oyy... One is on "Comedy Central," the other has 24 hour news cycle presentations and ticker... I'm not sure the comparison you suggest is appropriate.

The Daily Show actually did a mockumentary on Fox news last night. It seems appropriate here (2 short [3-5 min] parts): http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=165990&title=the-meter-is-running-pt.-1 http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=165991&title=the-meter-is-running-pt.-2

I still don't know why this was in response to my post. It seems like little more than racism.

Better to have redundancy in a system... a fail safe. One gets clogged, the other still allows for respiration.

What are you talking about? I live in Texas...

Unethical?

I believe it has to do with surface tension and distribution of weight. Snakes and other such animals push their weight onto the surface of the water using a greater force than the surface tension can resist.

I agree that it's not necessarily obvious what the Dalai Lama's take is on a boycott, but I am certain he wants less suffering in all of it's forms. One thing I like about China hosting the Olympics is that they ARE improving their actions as a result of both international pressures and awareness. They ARE improving their human rights approach, and they ARE improving environmental policies. It's not necessarily at the rate some would like, maybe not even the scope, but improvement is improvement, and is far better than nothing. If the Olympics were not to happen, it's quite possible that neither would all of the improvements they are implementing. The Chinese are an honorable people, and they do not want to be seen as dishonorable in the eyes of the world. We all need leverage of some sort. Letting the Olympics happen may be the best thing possible for the Chinese people and the rest of the planet.

Hello mechanic. Welcome. It's not too hard to figure it all out after a little while, but if you encounter difficulties, there are a lot of really helpful people here who are willing to assist, so don't hesitate to ask if you get stuck somewhere. Enjoy.

Swansont's link covers the issue quite well. Thank you for sharing it again. http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/update_on_the_nine_alleged_err.php

I haven't yet read that one, myself, but have heard it's quite good too. You concur?

Ah. Understood. It basically made a huge number of people who didn't study physics or cosmology aware of this work, interested in it, and provided a basic understanding of it. It was the first "physics-ey" book I ever read. I think I was 17 or 18 when I did. It turned me on to this marvelous wealth of knowledge and ideas (and MANY others, too!), and you check it out if you ever get the chance (you're probably already familiar with much of what it contains, but it's still worth the read). Cheers!

This strikes me as more of a "the complexities of language" question than a physics one.

Maybe the question has something to do with his mention of the objects themselves. When one walks around a block, it is not consistent. You could run, you could be sluggish, you might have longer or short legs than the next guy... so the duration is variable. However, the earth around the sun is very precise and consistent. Very few extraneous variables, which is why we call a year a "year"... it's consistent... very consistent... and measurements are the same... However, we don't call a trip around a building anything really, becauase there are so many dynamic variables involved... However, with all of that said, I'm quite in agreement with the two posters before me. I'm not very confident that I've understood the question.

I didn't know the pope had a degree in biology!

Okay, in that case, you presented a false dichotomy. Whatever. I used the quote button, so your comment was right there for context. I could equally have pointed out the subjectivity and lack of evidence about your "not doing homework" comment as well. My interpretation of the nine errors was that they either did nothing to detract from the primary thrust of the presentation, or were (like you mentioned) strawmen anyway. That really is the primary reason I brought in the extra information after it was presented originally by skepticlance. It helps to bring some context, as opposed to just a short list.

Where is your evidence that Al Gore was deliberately deceptive? How is it possible for you to have such unquestionable insight into someone else's mindset? </rhetorical question to show the ignorance of the suggestion> Your subjective label is just that... subjective. You seem to treat your personal interpretation of "minor" and "massive" as somehow important to the rest of us. They are not... I assure you. What does this mean? Additionally, why does this matter? If a graph is representative of a given dataset, how is it possible that you can suggest what is "normal" or what a graph "should" look like? A graph is simply a plot of data points. I'm confused, and it's your fault for being confusing. You continue to act as if your subjective interpretation has some sort of merit. I've got news for you. I (and others) don't care what you think. You are arguing with rhetoric, not substance. Unless, of course, you wish to define "deliberately deceptive," "minor," "massive," "angular" graphs, "normal," "unscientific." You are a condescending twit, Lance, and your points would have greater merit if you defined the terms you consistently use as the premises supporting them.