Anjruu

You need one to three for many universities, and the ones you take depend on what yuo are going to major in. For example, someone who wants to major in Physics is dvised to take an SAT-II in physics, but not one in English.

In a book i was reading, the author stated that one of the biggest things that knowing the amount of matter in the universe would tells us is how it is shaped. If the constant that showed us this was less than one, it would be a saddle shape, while if it was equal it would be flat, and if it was more than one it would be a sphere. Though I hope not to be associated with the late zazzzom, I am curious what "shaped" means in this context. If you all would like, i can go find the exact quote, but that was the general idea. Also, wasn't the Anthropic Principle "created", not so much that the universe exists because it can be observed, but to put to counter the idea that it was so unlikely that the universe would come around in this way. The whole "a slight shift in a atom's weight would cause the big bang not to have happened, or the general 'consitancy' of the universe would render our life not possible" was countered by the idea that, had it happened, we wouldn't be here talking about it. This was my idea of it, put in perhaps not the most eloquent way.

Yeah, the idea of "nerves"is a very recent one. I imagine that the ancient Chinese found out that acupuncture worked, through very painful trial and error, and adapted an idea to it. If you think about it, "energy" flowing through "meridians" sounds very similar to "signals" traveling through "nerves". The whole yin-yang thing was adapted or created to explain why it works. Balancing energy, yin energy, yang energy, its like what my bio teacher told us about Lemarckism: the only thing wrong with it is that it was wrong. Or, in other words, its a very intelligent idea that works insofar as it explains what happens, however, it is totally incorrect.

Is it possible for plants to photosynthesize with an average light bulb, or is the higher-energy non-visible light that the sun emits in addition to the visible light also necessary?

YT2095, it was used 2000 years ago, like justsuit said, and that was their explanation back then. I mean, that is "still" the explanation, but yoga is also supposed to unleash the chi, or whatever, while in reality it is stretching and good exercise. Same idea. The way acupuncture was explained to me was the really long nerve cells in your body, when they have a needle stuck in one place, they stop aching in another, or they stop telling you to go smoke, or something along those lines. It doesn't really make sense when I look at it written here, but there you go. The Wikipedia link on Medical acupuncture

There was an article in Scientific American, perhaps, maybe Time, about Tiwanese people who can see under water by contracting their irises to compansate for the changing conditions. So its not just a useless parlor trick. Though I'm not sure the time and effort is worth the 15 bucks needed to get a cheap pair of goggles.

Actually, the only crap shouted out was the last part. Which I feel is totally justified. And, in my health program at school, we were told it stands for "auto". Dunno why. But we were.

Really? I had thought there was definite proof. Can you line to a site where it backs you up, please? This is interesting.

AIDS is Auto Immunity Deficiency Syndrome, not Aquire Immunity Deficiency Syndrome, and while it is possible to get and immunity deficiency, it is not AIDS unless it comes from HIV. Other immunity diseases have diffrent names. At least, I think. And, in response to Hope-boy, let me just say that A. This is NOT the place to bring any breakthroughs. B. Everything does NOT need to end in ellipses. C. Other languages do NOT constitute proof. D. Corruption does NOT extend to phones or Internet, so emailing or calling another scientist isn't ruled out by corruption. E. Is it really likely that there are any people with AIDS on this forum? F. For god's sake! Gr8 is not, has never been, and never will be the same as great.

Just out of curiosity, what gaps does evolution have? And what data is Mr. Richard Thompson refering to here: "This is not a case of science versus religion, but science versus science, with credible scientists now determining that based upon scientific data, the theory of evolution cannot explain the complexity of living cells"?

Sorry, that was discussed far before I joined.

"One Universe contains me writing this post while the other has me deciding not to write this post. Of course, on a quantum level there are infinite number of decisions being made and would therefore create an infinite number of parallel universes." No, I think that that is impossible. As one author put it "What comes before determines what comes after." Period. "Free Will" is just an illusion, because all of your experiences and genetic makeup cause you to write that post. You posted that post. Why? Because you knew that from reading an article. Why? Because you are interested in science. Why? Because your parents brought you up that way, or at least circumstances led you there. If you knew everything, down to the quantum level, you could figure out how the universe will evolve. If you KNEW me, to the core, you could tell what I am going to do next. Of course, it is impossible to KNOW that at that level, but this cause-and-effect theory sort of rules out this doppelganger notion. I came up with this on my own, so its probably wrong, but I hope I at least explained it well... "If you role a die, for example, and get a one, there are also at least five other universes in which you rolled a two, three, four, five and six." See, I also disagree with that. Because when you role a die, you role it in a certain way. The way the dice bounces on the table, how much barometric pressure there is, how humid it is, all cause the die to land on a certain number. Since we cannot calculate this, there is the illusion of luck, but in reality, there isn't any such thing. This means, in my view at least, that from the big bang there was no other course. The way the big bang happened, all has lead inextricably to this point, which will lead to another point, on and on, until the very end of the universe. Since what comes before determines what comes after, period, free will and luck are illusions, and rule out parallel universes of type III, and what Dany said.

"Alpha and Omega, The Search for the Beginning and End of the Universe" by Charles Seife. (His other book, "Zero, the Biography of a Dangerous Idea" is also highly recommended, but it doesn't have much to do with astronomy.) "The Whole Shebang" and "Coming of Age in the Milky Way" both by Timothy Ferris. Both are old, but awesome. And, as ever, Brian Greene's first book, "The Elegant Universe," is pretty sweet. I thought "Fabric of the Cosmos" was more playing off his success of the first book, but it is still a good read. Oh, man, "The Road to Reality" is killer. I couldn't read it, but I'm still in high school, some of the math was over my head. If you can read it its great though.

Nothing. I have only known it has a beautiful relationship, I was curious if there was more to it.

I've seen this book in a couple of places, and I've been sort of curious about it. Actually, there has been a link to the website on these forums a couple of times. I went there and read the opening chapter, and it seemed not entirely accurate, some contradictions he brought up were misrepresented. Has anyone read it? What did you think about it? Should I get it?

No, the shuttle fleet is grounded, but now we need the next "thing." The Saturn 5's were grounded after the Apollo, or shortly thereafter, and the shuttle was developed. We need to scrap the shuttle entirely and work on a cheaper way to get into space. There was a design awhile back that was launched off a 747, but NASA scraped it, I forget why. And about this whole, turning our back on the future thing, what about Deep Impact, the wildly successful mars rovers, Huygens and Cassini, and all the other probes? Just cause they're not manned doesn't mean they're useless...

Why are string theorists wackos?

What are parallel universes? Do we think they exist, or is there more proof? What is the current theory on how they form? Do we think they exist at all?

That was sarcasm, Bettina. As seen in the rest of the paragraph. It was supposed to make that section of the argument less important. "Religion closes minds." While certainly true, so does anything taken to the extreme. And believing that Halloween is the devil's work is definitely extreme. I'm not saying creationism has anything to do with Science. However, neither does unnecessary strife. Hellbender, what do you mean science is not a democratic process? Of course it is! Everyone who is qualified to chip in does so, and the "law" is changed, or not, according to the results. People offer evidence both ways, and we move from there. What would have been more accurate is to say is that creationism's arguments have been weighed against evolution, and evolution has won, at least in the scientific community. .

Well, **** all you all, you say that the world is round? You perpetuate lies! You say that gravity is an attracting force between two masses, versus a warping of spacetime?? You perpetuate lies!! You say that gases are made out of tiny particles, whose pressure, volume, temperature and number of particles vary in various ways with each other??? You perpetuate lies!!! Basically, science, as a general rule, has held a paradigm, some person overthrows that paradigm, is mocked and ridiculed, dies, another person finds out he or shows right, and names some law after person A. While creationism, I agree, is flat out wrong, and religion is certainly a tool, some version of god may or may not have "sparked" the big bang. Its not that we don't know, we can't even begin to think about it yet, with our level of understanding. If you make fun of people who believe in creationism, then you close you mind to other, perhaps more rational ideas that may come up. Also, sad to say, we're in the minority now. We can continue to actively fight, or we can calmly wait for logic to win. The harder someone pushes against closely held, illogical ides, the more strongly those ideas are held, and then we lose.

Calling it dishonesty is a bit harsh. They honestly believe what they do, however wrong we think them, so lets try and be a bit understanding, shall we? Open-minded and all... But perhaps not too open-minded, eh hellbender?

Yes, half-integral is math. If you have a number, it is math. On topic: I think you are looking at it too "big". The electrons and quarks are made out strings, maybe, and all strings are are little vibrating loops of energy. This means that anything made up of electrons and quarks is made from energy. Right, so, DNA is coded protein, and protein "tells" cells what to do. Since protein is made of atoms, it is made of energy. Everything is just reactions according to the ruls of chemistry and applications of the four fundemental forces. Matter/energy doesn't have intelligence, but the things it forms follow rules that cause the matter to react and form things in diffrent ways.

e^(i*pi)+1=0. What is it used for? Why is it special? Ok, it relates pi,e, i, 1, and 0, but does it have a practical application?

In that case, what is the exact definition of conservation of energy?

Well, that's just the definition of "work," in the physics sense versus the average way it is used. Regardless, force is exerted on the weight, just the net is equal to zero. Also, the theory is conservation of energy, not work. Oh, and I apologize for the "gravuty" error. "U" is pretty close to "I" on the keyboard, in my defense.