iNow

Here's a press release from Keck: http://www.keckobservatory.org/article.php?id=114

Does this mean that creationists don't get horny? EDIT: Maybe that's not such a bad thing.

You do realize that by starting a thread like this you've effectively made those few females who post feel ever MORE ostracized? Who here hates science and likes creationsim, eh? Don't be shy... raise your hands!

When I was preparing for my blackbelt test (hehehe... I love saying that), we would engage in a form of training which translates roughly as "Iron shirt" training. Basically, it was a series of techniques to make the body more... well... more iron-like. In addition to some isometric techniques known as an active form of meditation called "I chin-chings," we would do things like finger tip pushups, jamming fingers into buckets of stones, punching rock bags, hitting each side of our forearms against wood posts, and rolling iron bars (30lbs to start, 150 to 200 lbs after years of training) across our shins. This was a benefit in a number of ways (but I strongly suggest to all readers... very strongly... to find a teacher who earns your trust to walk through such things... doing this at home could... well... cause you some significantly increased hospital bills). The bones would become denser, the body would become more solid (I would always laugh when the other person would grimmace during a shin to shin sweep), and the mind more adept to accept the pain. There's a neat little spot in the spine where the pain signal, on it's way to the brain, can actually be shot off consciously. However, I've derailed this thread enough. Find someone who you trust. Be patient with yourself. Don't expect to blow up overnight. Good results are earned, not requested. Make it a lifestyle choice, not a hobby. Take care of your body with fluids, protien, and rest. Martial arts is not about fighting or warriorship. It's about realizing and nurturing your body, your mind, and your relation to the universe around you. Now... if the pain continues for more than 3 or 4 days, you probably did something wrong and need some repair work.

Don't lawyers go by "Esquire?" I personally do believe (without support mind you) that you were wrong to call him "doctor." You don't go to the courtroom to be defended by a doctor unless it's medical case.

Not really. Generally, when one picks up porn, it's to satisfy an existing desire. The desire, however, was there prior to picking it up. Now, the question should be, "does looking at porn increase or decrease the urge which caused one to pick it up... are the desires sated or not?" The answer to which, of course, is "it depends on the individual."

That's quite an interesting question, John. It's akin to asking if Boston monkeys sound different than Georgia monkeys? I think, though (and correct me if I'm wrong) that CDarwin is trying to determine if the monkeys in the wild have a different style, pacing, and timing (etc.) of calls from monkeys in the zoo. So, he's looking to see if the monkeys in the wild sing "jazz," and if monkeys in the zoo sing "blues." Your question implies that they are all singing jazz, but that some are baratone and others are soprano. Bada Bing.

I do argue this. I'll show you why: http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/content/h844264320314105/fulltext.html The above was published in the proceedings of "The Royal Society" just 3 weeks ago. [bold added by me]

It's not always a bastion of honest advertising, but you might try Craigslist. Also, if there's a local college/university, check there... whether they have a film department or not.

I suppose you missed the point I made above. I don't think this particular thread is about the economics of it all. It's about the environment itself, and the damage we are doing to the system in which all living organisms reside. So, to be clear, your comments about the economics seem off topic, since this thread resides in the "Ecology and Environment" forum, and the OP specifically asked: Yet you, Jackson33, continue to respond "Redistribution of wealth! Political spin! Trickle down economics!" Don't trolls live under bridges?

Well, I see an edit link. Either you missed it, they've locked your ability to make edits, or I'm special. I dunno... maybe some combination of those. Btw... you linked above to a sub-article. Here's the main page for "definition of a planet:" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_planet Why is that chimpanzee throwing feces on passers-by?

It's a good thing there are admins. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators

Take your time, friend. It's not an easy topic, but it's not impossible either. Look here: http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html#q3

Why don't you log in and fix it then? That's the beauty of wiki. It's only wrong until someone who knows better puts the onus on themselves to make a correction. I suppose it's easier to complain than to do something to improve a situation. Btw... that's not wiki's definition, it's the IAU's. http://www.iau.org/ http://www.iau.org/iau0603.414.0.html

Was anybody arguing that one should?

And again a creationists tunnel vision without regard for fact manages to derail a thread. Super job, religion. Thanks for advancing society so well. Why are hate of homosexuals and creationism problematic? Who cares! Creationism stands in the face of science! Yay! I do believe TB has managed to convince me further that homophobia is not as bad as creationism. I suppose that's pretty sick, since homophobia is so very awful.

Actually, no, because that has zero to do with this thread. The OP asked for sources which described the science of global warming, not an off topic rant or argument about how poorly we've made decisions as a result of our drive to obtain wealth and money. Redistrbute wealth all you want, I'd rather spend time discussing the redistribution of our impact on the planet... preferably, toward the positive.

See Chandra X-ray Observatory. Could be that they didn't work. That's the beauty of science, it's amenable. However, perhaps you'd be so kind as to give more information on the Weinberg Interpretation you reference, preferably a few links? It seems, upon quick search, to be related to the many-worlds interpretation of QM, and I'm not sure how/why it would apply here in this discussion. I'd prefer not to email you, but thanks for your PM. Please post here if you have further information. Huh? Relative to what? Why do you think we have tides in the oceans here on Earth? There's a relative difference in the effect of gravity at the two ends (while this results from the moon, my contention relates specifically to tidal forces). Same with an object falling into a blackhole. Can you support your comment that "gravity can't get any stronger than at the EH?" You see, the EH is simply the point where the effect of gravity overwhelms the ability of light to escape... it's being pulled into the BH faster than it's velocity in the opposite direction (much like a spaceship must have a greater upward thrust than the gravity at the surface of earth pulling it back down, the light's "thrust" is not great enough to escape... it's escape velocity is too slow... once past the event horizon). This does not mean that the effect of gravity cannot still become greater further into the BH. I too would like for us to better understand the nature of the cosmos, but you seem to be arguing against well established information which has been consistently replicated. In the spirit of Einstein's work improving that which was done by Newton, can you instead propose something which works better? To see the publication which really prompted our current discussion, be sure to check out the following: http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v61/i13/p1446_1

Ooh! I know! It's your desire to actually learn something and work it out on your own, and only ask specific questions when you get stuck!

I agree with your position completely. Differing opinions are wonderful things. However, if I wanted to discuss religion, I'd got to a site dedicated to doing so. Mommy... why does the preacher touch me in my special place?

Well, if half of the gold is gone every 2.7 days, how many days will it be until 75% of it is gone?

I'm kinda new here, so my opinion won't necessarily carry as much weight, however... You want religion, go to church. You want discussions on religion, hang out with people who think the same or go to church groups. You want science, read journals. You want discussion on science, come here. I don't go into churches every Sunday and try to yell louder than the preacher why evolution is correct and belief if the flying spaghetti monster is a silly, childish, waste of curiousity and intellect. Why should folks be allowed to come here to do the equivalent?

If you read the actual science journals on climate, or you go to any university and speak with professors in the climate or meteorology departments, there is no doubt that a significant portion of global climate change is the result of human activity. If you were, however, to watch the news, you get about 50% saying it's due to human activity and about 50% saying it's not. There really is no disagreement among those who actually understand the climatology, just among those who do not. It's really the media, and the insanity which is our current political process who say most of the issues with climate we are experiencing are not anthropogenic in nature. Are there natural cycles? Of course there are. Are we humans causing a major impact on those cycles? You bet your hindquarters. In response to your question, "What's going on here?" ... It's a really really big problem, and it's really really hard to fix, so many of our government officials who are in a position to actually do something would rather bury their head's in the sand, cause doubt in the populace that it's happening, and ignore it until they are out of office and somebody else has to step up to make changes. Fortunately, the global consciousness is really waking up to this issue, and those in power will not be able to ignore it for long. It's no longer in their best interest to ignore it (which, I suggest, they did previously in order to protect their own "pocket-books" and "wallets). Even major corporations are "going green," because they know that they will lose money if the public thinks they are not taking actions to help resolve the issue. If only people in power had listened to what was being said in the 60's. Instead, many were just called names and made fun of for loving those around them and the sphere on which they stood.

While your statement might be true *relative to an outside observer,* to the object falling into the BH everything would seem to progress as normal. I concede that our current models tend to break down when trying to accurately describe what happens inside of (what we currently call) a singularity, but there is a lot of great work being done right now on quantum gravity to amerliorate this issue. If you really want to argue that an object cannot successfully fall into the center of a BH, you'd do better to discuss the issue of tidal forces. The influence of gravity at the bottom of the object would be much stronger than the influence of gravity at the top of the object (relative to the center of the BH), and the object would stretch so much that it would eventually get torn apart. You've said this twice now, and stated it as if it were fact. Can you support this with some sort of credible evidence? Now this is wrong on a number of levels. Time and space are inseparable. The two are inextricably linked. Further, you travel through time with each passing moment... forward, like an arrow. Time and space are different dimensions of the same coordinate system. So, if someone were arguing to you that you did not exist at all, and you... standing right there beside them knew, without a shadow of a doubt, that you did exist (since you were right there listening to them)... you may come across to the other person as hostile, but that would make your refutation of their stance no less valid or accurate. Most everybody gets hostile once in a while. It's part of our evolved neurobiology and physiological emotional state. I also ask that you recall the fact that human flight was once only science fiction, as was travel deep into the ocean, or computer technology, or the ability to travel to outer space. One must first have vision in order to achieve it. ......~Michelangelo

You definitely raise a good point that there seems to be overlap in the two, however, I'd suggest that Septic reaction (poison) is where the poison directly damages the systems and Anaphylactic reaction (allergic) is where the bodies own response to a stimuli causes the damage. So... mowing the grass is not directly harmful, but when my throat closes up and I get all itchy for doing so, that is. Yet, were I to swallow some bleach, the bleach would be directly causing the harm. I'm guessing here, but I think that sounds reasonable.