fuhrerkeebs

no, i have been tickled by someone and been mad and it still tickled.

But were you mad at the person or not care for them?

I think it has more to do with approval, I mean, if you are on good terms with someone and are in a good mood, being tickled usually...tickles. But if you aren't on good terms with someone, and they tickle you, or you are pissed of and don't care about their approval at the moment, then it doesn't tickle. Logically if you tickle yourself it won't tickle, because you already have your approval...(just a guess though)

well considering all energy is potential i just used the mass of the universe to be 10^24 and plugged that into E=MC^24 Solar masses (SM, times the mass of our sun).

That is mass, not energy. They are "convertable", but not the same thing. If they were the same thing, we would've solved the inertia complex already. And, all energy is not potential. Who told you that?

The gravitational and electromagnetic field both have an infinite range...

Or, you could approximate the area under the curve of 2*sqrt(1-x^2)...

If it's the taylor series part you don't understand (and it must be, because that's the only part too it), then check this out for some help: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/TaylorSeries.html

Expand arccos into a taylor series and plug in -1. You get something along the lines of pi/2=1+1/6+3/40+5/112+35/1152...and you just keep expanding it. I don't know how rapidly it converges though, and I don't feel like checking right now...though it's not hard to do.

Hahaha only partially--alot of free mathematica-like programs use Taylor series still, such as Maxima

As a side note, CORDIC can also be used to calculate functions other that sine and cosine, such as logarithms and square roots.

Yes, Taylor series is slow and has a limited range. It's much more common to use an iterative algorithm that locates the position of a point x degress from the axis on a circle, and derives the sin and cosine from that, or, as has been mentioned above, the CORDIC algorithm. To generalize, CORDIC is an iterative process that usually uses a tangent table, but can also be done with smaller and smaller vector rotations. You can read about it here: http://www.worldserver.com/turk/computergraphics/FixedPointTrigonometry.pdf

Because entropy is allowed to decrease in local, open systems, such as a galaxy, or a planet.

I know when he said Lucy he was referring to hominid fossil...but they've found other hominid fossils from time periods previous to Lucy, so I was assuming that he had confused his references. In fact, they've found other Australopithecus afarensis (the same hominid species as Lucy) fossils that are dated around .2 million years older than Lucy.

Not necessarily...you are probably thinking of the fact that we the mitochondria we all have was originally from one women, however, that doesn't imply that we all descended from one women.

Cap'n Refsmmat, you are right about the xenoturbella...it is believed to be the common ancestor amoung all vertebrates, not just humans. We are still more genetically similar to chimpanzees.

What's lame is your constant attacks on those who know more than you and can prove you wrong.

haha i can always count on you sayonara,a word of advice when you constantly pick on someones post have the good grace to realise that someone might have just a little more knowledge than yourself, you quoted utter crap to my second point that you have more in common with a worm.Unfortunately its 12.45pm im drunk but tommorrow i will give you the worms name.as for not understanding natural selection (evolution)you have chosen the wrong backside to chew.I will openly debate anything you chose regarding this subject.

Hahaha oh well, you are wrong. The reason most evolutionists claim that we share a common ancestor with chimpanzees is because they are our closest relatives, genetically, of course. And, it is not only your lack of understanding of natural selection, but your lack of understanding in population genetics and evolution in general that causes holes in your posts. For example:

Im a creationist yet im not religious.I believe in god but not as an old man with grey beard.You actually have more in common biologically with a worm than a monkey.Taken at face value i dont believe survival of the survivors is a good enough theory.Perhaps if evolution (which implys evolving into a better creature suited to a changing environment.When in fact my knees are not too good painting these skirting boards today)was scrubbed from the records and simply called Darwinism it would be recieved better .The only niggly reservations i have with it though is i wish my ancestors had given me a bigger penis

For someone who has your kind of arrogance about your knowledge of evolution, you must have a bad memory. Evolution is no longer a Darwinian theory, but it is referred to as neo-Darwinian because Darwin did not know about, and obviously did not include in his writings, genetic drift. Given a reasonable population size, genetic drift can, and often does, have a bigger effect on evolution that natural selection. Get your facts straight before you consider yourself more knowledgeable than someone else, especially someone who has shown that they know what they are talking about, such as sayonara.

It's not guaranteed, for I know of at least one person who took the PSAT and met the criterion you described above, but received no such scholarship.

Yes, you only qualify for the scholarship if you're a junior.

Is General Relativity not considered well-established? It predicts that gravity acts at c. There was an experiment[/url'] about 2 years ago, though there was criticism that the results weren't interpreted properly.

I was referring to yourdadonapogosticks proof when I said his proof did not use well-established theoroms...if you were not posting to me, then please ignore

Ah, let's quit it...we're obviously not going to convince each other of the others viewpoint...and I'm damned tired...

I was merely pointing out that your answer wasn't based on an actual proof.

Which would imply that you actually did not what is meant by proof in physics. Wow...

A quick refresher: A proof is anything that proves a conjecture correct using well-established theoroms. Your proof didn't work. Gravitons are conjecture, not well-established theory.

Hahaha this caught me off guard. Don't you think it is a little immature to resort to Kantian philosophy when backed into a corner? You know what was meant by proof, you're not that stupid.

Exactly, it kinda says 8 minutes. The main thing to look at in that sentence is "if they exist." No one has observed one, there is no proof they exist, and the only reason they were though of in the first place was for the purpose of symmetry. AlGore was asking for proof, and proof requires the use of established theoroms.

here is a simple explaination. information cannot travel at speeds above c.

Your explanation only demonstrates that it is only possible for gravity to reach the earth in greater than or equal to 8 minutes.