StringJunky

Calling an idea a theory in science is the very highest accolade that can be bestowed upon it in modern times. Science doesn't do "facts" because it only takes one piece of evidence to render an idea false or incomplete. It is a measure of the worth of the scientific method that it will not sit on its laurels about anything ...it measures the validity of ideas with degrees of confidence which can never be 100%. If it did, it would be no better than religion would it not?

Have a read of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_protective_clothing On a side but related note, make sure any sunglasses you wear have the sides blocked, or are wraparounds, because UV rays can bounce off the inside of the glasses into your dilated pupils. The combined effects of dilated pupils, which increases the acceptance angle, and internal reflection originating from the unblocked sides cause your pupils to take in more UV than if they were naked where they would be very constricted and thus protecting your eyes better.

Learnt something new Michel. Thanks.

Very Heath Robinson then. Well done.

I think this is the most likely answer.

Here's a real example of your scenario that occurred in Industrial England:

We are not all local to each other and English is not all posters native language so the chances of problems arising are fairly high. Intent can be lost or ill-will disguised. It's best to communicate with forms of address that appear to be common and accepted across international borders. Yes it is more formal but, at the end of the day, science is a formal subject which requires as little ambiguity and as much clarity as possible. "Bro" and science just don't jive, Man. Everything has it's place and time.

Where it comes from apparently is the grades were reversed and he actually got top grade but just prior to the time he got his it was the bottom indicator, so people not being aware of the change thought he was thick. He was actually two years advanced in his education.

Tell her the truth so that she may have the chance to come to peace with her destiny. Not telling her will lead to a worse final outcome.

Although it's morally pure and philosophically satisfying to say yes the outcome in the real world may suggest otherwise. Pragmatism rules the day, assuming one's desire is inflict the minimum of distress and their aim is for an amenable outcome, perhaps over the long-term, which might justify lying. In short, if the truth is going to hurt and no good is going to come out of it, lie.

Not literally like they do in Islamic countries for all levels of crime but for such crimes against humanity that are beyond thoughts of considering rehabilitation as an option for the offender.

What's wrong with plain and simple retribution as a reason for justifying its application? Note: I'm only talking about the principle of judicially applied revenge or retribution and not considering here the complication of proof of guilt.

It can be a metaphysical question but because it's been asked in the physics section it will be in the context of established physics and how it is viewed or modelled from a scientist's point of view rather than a philosopher's.

Moon I have noticed a rather large difference of reaction regarding creationism, and religion in general, between atheists in Europe and your side of the pond. I appreciate that you get hammered by religious stuff much more than we do, hence our more mellow general attitude to it. Even in the face of outright dogmatism we should not turn into that which we disapprove of - ironically.

Cloth is not perfectly smooth - it has gaps in it - so UV rays can reflect between individual light-coloured threads, following a complicated path of internal reflections through to the skin, more than dark fibres which will be less internally reflective between threads in total.

Cool.

Just to add a bit to iNow's post, which is very good and I hope you'll take notice. We appreciate you're only 14 and calling people "Bro" that are around your age is probably customary for you but in a place or forum populated by people from a lot of different age groups and cultures it's not really considered appropriate because it can rub some people up the wrong way. The thing about scientific discussion is it is quite a difficult subject when you get into it properly and not using generally accepted forms of address and terms can lead to confusion and irritation often .leading to poor quality discussions and misinterpretation. There's a saying that I think might be a good general guide for you is: When in Rome, do as the Romans do. If you keep reading here you can watch the hard-core members and notice how they relate to each other and follow their lead. It's not all perfectly-mannered discussion of course but you'll see the general 'rules of engagement' which is quite consistent. Learning to adapt to different groups of people, of which this is one, and the customs within them, is a very important part of our maturation into adulthood. We can't behave in exactly the same way with all the different groups we encounter if we want to engage with each and keep them happy. It works the other way, you don't want to be talking to your closest friends like we talk to each other do you? They would probably ridicule you for being all "snooty and proper"! This is life. Go with the flow ...wherever you are. Wear a different hat for each social situation.

Look up the temperature range, atmospheric pressure and atmospheric composition of Pluto and compare it to Earth. See if there is any similarities and what organisms might possibly survive...if they can.

They are equivalent in the strict sense of their dictionary definitions, which is the point I was putting forward, but whether one view or another reflects reality is subject to scrutiny and one may be more valid over another. I think in these sorts of conversations it's best not to use faith and belief to represent any cause or process of science ...leave them for describing those that hold and are committed to non-scientific viewpoints. When you think about it scientists don't have faith, regardless whether a theory is evidentially rock-solid, they have degrees of confidence. Faith and belief, to my mind, imply a strongly committed sense of certainty which is anathema to proper scientific practice and discourse. Let's voluntarily self impose an arbitrary distinction. in this part of SFN A lot of problems in discussions could be avoided if people defined their terms from the outset and whether or not conventional definitions should be adhered to. It should be noted I'm not aware of Pears' religious affiliations, or if she has any, so may have interpreted her comments different to you..

They are equivalent because it's all in the mind of the beholder ...it's subjective. The scientific veracity of where 'trust' or 'faith' is applied is irrelevant. If something or someone imbues a person with trust it does not matter if it is scientifically verifiable ...they are committed that it is true and real, and therefore, fulfils the conventional definitions. I don't see anything wrong with what Pears said. Your distinction appears arbitrary and not conventional as far as I'm aware.

In Chrome, Settings is in the 3-bar icon to the top right. You can enable the bookmarks bar, show home button and set home page there which are not showing by default..

I meant simplest as in with the least components but I'm wrong any way as Swansont pointed out. I think you hit it on the head why people probably think this, it's because they are massless.

Try Firefox and Chrome, flitting between all three, and see which one you like. You can have as many as you like. There shouldn't be any problems they act just like any other program. You can easily uninstall the ones you don't want after. To try and fix it in IE11, click Alt key > Tools > Compatibility Settings > Copy/paste site URL into the box > Click Add > Close.. See if that brings up the sales data.

Would it be right to say that a photon is the simplest form of an energetic system? If this is true, isn't it why many people consider light to be energy itself because that's the most fundamental system that can exist possessing it?.

Why get irritated? It's only a simple misinterpretation.