iNow

Every single test I've seen has shown the theory correct. Can you please be more specific about which exact conclusions should be discarded? If you simply want them questioned, have at it, but be specific as to which conclusions you are questioning and on what basis, otherwise, you're hand waving and contributing nothing at all. No, it hurts how far from the truth that comment is. Einstein actually made the effort to teach himself the math and describe his ideas appropriately, which is part of the reason why they were ultimately accepted. Further, he was quite ferociously challenged by all sides, and it was only after he supported his assertions, after empiricism proved them accurate, that they were finally accepted. Considering all of this, I strongly suggest that you freshen up on your science history and understanding of the method/process, because you really couldn't be more wrong on both content and tone. Finally, just a side point, my response was to north, who was dragging a thread off topic (so far off topic that the staff here ultimately split it into its own thread), and he'd been regularly making unsubstantiated claims throughout the Physics forum. I simply requested he back up his assertions (per site rules and the method of science) or that he shut up altogether. He was not coming into Speculations to offer up a new idea, he was posting baseless assertions as factual in someone elses thread, a thread on a different topic and in a forum which requires hard evidence and math in support of claims (Physics). Hence, my challenges were more than appropriate, and he has still failed to address them.

Nice find, waitforufo. I've always enjoyed the writings and dialogs of Hitchens. I especially liked these bits: As Barack Obama is gradually learning, his job is to be the president of all Americans at all times. If he likes, he can oppose the idea of marriage for Americans who are homosexual. That's a policy question on which people may and will disagree. However, the man he has chosen to deliver his inaugural invocation is a relentless clerical businessman who raises money on the proposition that certain Americans—non-Christians, the wrong kind of Christians, homosexuals, nonbelievers—are of less worth and littler virtue than his own lovely flock of redeemed and salvaged and paid-up donors. This quite simply cannot stand. It is an event that belongs principally to the voters and to their descendants, who are called to see that a long tradition of peaceful transition is cheerfully upheld, even in those years when the outcome is disputed. I would myself say that it doesn't need a clerical invocation at all, since, to borrow Lincoln's observation about Gettysburg, it has already been consecrated. But if we must have an officiating priest, let it be some dignified old hypocrite with no factional allegiance and not a tree-shaking huckster and publicity seeker who believes that millions of his fellow citizens are hellbound because they do not meet his own low and vulgar standards.

While it would improve the confidence in your probability, you would still only legitimately be able to say that every swan you'd personally observed was white. Any suggestions that all swans are white would certainly rest on solid evidence, but such an absolute declaration would still (in it's heart) be false and unproven. The point is, you cannot know for sure. Further, as fredrick rightly mentioned, how would you know that you'd observed all swans on the planet? You wouldn't, and that's another hole in your position.

That's not the point. The point is, it demonstrates your existing knowledge that your own assertion above is mistaken. Seeing white swans means just that. That you've seen white swans. You cannot, based on that, "establish a rule that swans tend to be white," which is why I corrected you and why I reminded you that you already seemed to know this.

timetes - I think you probably need to obtain and provide more information. Based on what you've said thus far, it's simply not very plausible. It may, of course, be something else (something more physical than neurological), but it's nearly impossible to tell based on what you've shared here.

Oh yeah, you're the guy who thinks he's getting shocked in his bed based on electricity travelling through the wood floor. Forgot about that.

No, it doesn't. All it means is that you have observed white swans. You, yourself, appeared quite aware of this type of interpretation when you posted this: Granpa's comment about sheep as indicated by a common math joke which he shared in the spacetime foam/fabric thread

What exactly are you talking about?

Are you talking about the weapons described in the thread below? If so, you might ask there. http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=33408

You cannot avoid the request for a reference, citations, or supporting mathematics with a question to me. Please address my request or stop posting. I want to remind you that you're posting in a physics forum, not a metaphysics or philosophy forum. Why does it feel like I'm repeating myself?

And I, like the founding fathers, think all men (humans) are created equal, and should be subject to equal rights and priveleges of the law. I'm not sure what makes you think that I'll be "very upset" if I don't get 100% of the change I want, but it really matters not. There really are some things on which we should not accept compromise. I see institutionalized bigotry against homosexuals supported only by religion to be one of those things on which we should never compromise. Seems the founding fathers agreed with me on that one, too, otherwise we'd not likely have an establishment clause.

Nope (unless maybe it's different for staff). All we see are three columns. One, a link to the post. Two, the date/time rep was given. Three, the comments from the person giving it. No name, unless they were included manually within the comments.

You jackass.

You cannot avoid the request for a reference, citations, or supporting mathematics with a question to me. Please address my request or stop posting. I want to remind you that you're posting in a physics forum, not a metaphysics or philosophy forum.

Yeah, doG described this process to me on the last page of this thread. I'd never seen it before, and it was cool. However, the suggestion is a bit like telling me to split a novel written in Swahili into individual sentences. It doesn't matter how small I make the chunks I'm analyzing, I don't speak Swahili. Yeah, I may be wrong, but I don't think this is the problem. I set most of it up using the wizard. I didn't write a single line of code. I just changed the values in the Properties window. Like I said, I was really close before opening this thead, but just couldn't get it to work. My gut tells me that the reason the title is populating the code field in my output table is that I set the textbox "Control Source" equal to "Code." I am pretty sure that doing so told Access that I wanted whatever value is in the Title field of the form to be entered into the Code field of the output table. It makes my form look good, but seems to miss the intent on my output. Anyway, thanks for the offer to look at my code, but as I mentioned above, I haven't written any. Any code I entered was a copy/paste job from truedeity and doG. Unfortunately, none of those got me where I needed to be (or, more accurately, I didn't understand it well enough to make it work), so I reverted back to my previous approach which at least had the form working as I wanted. line[/hr]

My first thought is that it would heat the disk through which it passes, but I'm really not certain.

North, Considering what you've said is counter to the previous posts in this thread, you need to share some evidence in support of your position, or, at the very least, some math describing the gravity in the center which supports your claims.

Nonsense. You may as well have said that purple unicorn farts cause erections in leprechauns. Let's see some evidence in support of your claims, north.

Are you in charge of hanging the Mission Accomplished banner? That's pretty sweet, dude. I hope you enjoy the experience.

This is wrong. If you care to prove your assertion with citations and/or evidence, please have at it.

OTOH, the way it's currently set allows users to choose for themselves. I don't care either way, myself.

Some of us prefer to sign our messages of thanks.

One major incorporating both is an interesting idea, hence Mokele's suggestion of biochem.

This is simply false, and can be rejected on its face. Your argument implicitly suggests that even people born with genetic brain disorders have the same potential for achievement as people without said disorders, and that is just untrue.