iNow

I suppose that's what happens when one tries to oversimplify things. I do appreciate the clarification. Spacetime is not some sheet with a bunch of bowling balls on it.

So, all of those scientists they brought in to discuss the issue prior to making their decision, were they merchants of doom and gloom too? This is a blatant strawman. Who said ANYTHING about taking away all CO2? The point is that we are increasing it's concentration at such a rate that we are harming ourselves and other life on the planet. Come on, dude. How is it now 2007 and we're still arguing the extent of human impact on the climate and ecosystems effected by it? Don't mind the pink elephant in the room, there's a pterodactyl over there!

I don't know if this will or will not help you to visualize it better, but I keep picturing an extremely tall mountain with two roads going to the top. One road is a straight road with no turns, pointing directly toward the top with no curves. It has a very steep slope. The other road is full of twists and curves, and wraps around the mountain like a piece of abstract art. It has a very minimal slope, but still goes upward (just little bits at a time). Now, hop in your truck and head toward the top of the mountain. If you take the straight road, you'd have to push the gas pedal harder and harder as you went up. Your wheels would likely start spinning as gravity pulled you back down. So, you push the gas pedal even harder and burn your fuel more quickly. If you took the curved road, you'd actually travel a greater distance, and it would take a bit longer, but you'd use less energy since the truck doesn't have to work as hard to get progressively higher. Now... if that doesn't work, take the truck out of the equation and picture yourself walking up the mountain. What would be "easier?" Walking straight up, or taking the meadering path? Same with the shuttle. Is it possible to go straight up if enough energy went into the system? Absolutely. However, it's a lot easier to soften and spread out the energy being used to break away from Earth's gravity.

This is still being researched, but (my own rough interpretation of) the current ideology seems to center around multiple universes. However, it's important for you to recall that Hawking himself announced his own change in position (that he does NOT believe a blackhole destroys information) at the GR17 conference in Ireland in July 2004. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3913145.stm Click below for a transcript of his talk and some commentary around it: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week207.html

While this particular proposal of his may be wrong, I do believe calling him an idiot may be a rather extreme and difficult to support position. At least Lou Gehrig got to play pro-ball.

The shuttle actually does need to tilt to a different angle than "verticle" to ensure proper orbital insertion. Also, you'll notice the shuttle rolls to minimize the stress caused by the atmosphere. Here's an article I found on a quick search, but I'm sure there are better ones available: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/spacecraft/q0127a.shtml

Hi Joshua. It's helpful if you press the "Quote" button on the post to which your responding. I had to do a search of this thread to find that your first paragraph referred to the post I linked below. Recall that as smart as the membership here is, only about 35% are mind readers. http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=343370&postcount=9

The dust particles each, being a source of mass, pull things toward them gravitationally. As dust particles get closer and closer, they start to lump together (or, aggregate). This aggregate then has a higher mass than any of those dust particles alone, so the "lump's" gravity gets increasingly stronger, hence attracting more dust particles, hence increasing it's strength of gravity again, hence attracting more dust particles... and sooner or later, many of these "lumps" become galaxies. Yes, Pluto is effected by the Sun's gravity (that's why it orbits around it). However, the strength of the Sun's gravity is much less at Pluto than on Earth (or, in fact, anywhere closer than Pluto is to the sun... like Neptune, Jupiter, Mars, Venus, etc.). As the distance increases from the strong gravitational source, the strength of gravity drops by 1 over that distance squared. ... [math]\frac{1}{d^2}[/math] ... where d = distance. It's called the inverse square law. http://www.discoveryofpluto.com/newton.html Here is a link with a mathematical visual and some formulaic demostrations: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/isq.html#isqg The link below has a much more approachable explanation of the same: http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSCI/PHYS/CLASS/circles/u6l3b.html

Exchange.

Dominate every market in which they have customers and maximize profits for their shareholders. Simple really. Did you have a harder question, as I'm pretty sure this is not the response for which you were priming the reader.

So, the Supreme Court of the United States, when they ruled on April 2, 2007 that carbon dioxide was to be treated as a pollutant per the guidelines under §202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act, were feeding us a line of bull? Wow. Thanks, Pioneer, for bringing this blaring irrationality and deception to my attention. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf Upton Sinclairian...

How do you justify this, considering his entire schtik is trying to get people to think instead of continue being spood-fed?

I studied economics and psychology with a heavy emphasis in statistics and research design. Minor in education. Having been corporate for a few years now, and advancing through the food chain, I'm considering an Executive MBA, but need to find funds first. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, but not if it's a CAO Brazilia.

Wow... so you're right and those folks at NASA and other well researched areas are wrong? Who'da thunk it? http://observe.arc.nasa.gov/nasa/space/stellardeath/stellardeath_3.html Seriously. If you're going to make such outlandish claims, at least offer some outlandish evidence, or better, some real research supporting your position.

Erm... Yeah. That's about how I thought you'd respond.

To Farsight's point, some off topic discussions are required when providing detail on the discussion at hand. However, they should be brought back into the scope of the thread quickly. If these diversions from the primary topic cascade into further and further tangents, the appropriate choice is to open a new thread for these separate discussions. Posting Etiquette or Netiquette. It's like Kleenex versus tissue paper.

It's important to look at the answer to this question controlling for population and sources of "dirty air." The standards were set to improve the air, but there were fewer cars back then. The standards helped improve the per car output of each vehicle. Today, there are many more cars (and other non-automotive pollution sources). So, yes, the per car contribution to "dirty air" is less than in the 1970s, but due to the greater number of cars on the road today, the air may, in fact, be less clean than it was then. However, without these standards in place, the air would be EVEN dirtier than it is now.

Why not discuss it here then? I would suggest that such discussion would not only benefit the OP, but also the general membership. I, too, would enjoy it.

Why do people let go of their adherence to evidence in favor of social grouping?

Yes. You just keep taking half of what remains, then take half again. You take half over and over until you are left with the undefined. The question then becomes, how does one take half of undefined? It's called absolute zero. It's like celcius or fareheit, but is zero on a scale called Kelvin. It translates into zero motion. No movement, as movement is molecules banging and hence friction... hence heat. The issue is that absolute zero, in many senses, implies stoppage of time. Now, if your question related to humans, we can only get so cold before our physiology breaks down and we cease physical existence. The heart dies, the brain dies, and we remain only memories to those who have not reached the same state... So, metaphyiscially we don't die in the minds of those still alive, just in our own reflectance of the universe. This is a philosphical question. One would imagine that, after a certain point, matter broken down too far itself no longer is matter. However, there is a lot we still do not know. If anyone offers you an absolute answer, they are a liar... Unless, of course, they tell you that they do not know. I don't follow this question. Sorry. Too many glasses of red. It seems to touch on entropy, which is a constant (you don't leave your room with toys all over the floor and return to find them in their proper place unless energy was added to the system), but regardless your point... Energy is constant, just changes forms. Heisenberg was not named Martia nor was he a Changeling.

What an interesting question. Everything is energy. A photon being no exception. Just a different form. Your question of "where" it gets it's energy is almost religious, but gosh, how I despise the idiocy which is religious lack of curiousity. We too are energy. Mass equals energy... if we multiply ourselves by the speed of light squared. What exactly are you asking? Why can't we travel at the speed of light? What is energy? Why do we ask questions beginning with the word why? Try Bud dry.

Pas de probleme, monsieur. Avez-vous des examples?

Tell me vato, what is the exact middle of the universe? Vacuum has two u's.

Perhaps there is no such thing as zero either? [/TongueInCheek] Try quantizing love. When you fail, it does not indicate it's nonexistence, only your own inability to quantize it.

Reading the posts they've made during the past hour, I'd suggest it's: Vocabularial Obfuscation of the Intentional and Self-righteous variety, complete with superiority complex.