StringJunky

If one says that the universe always existed logic doesn't fail because there is no cause to look for. Besides this, until there is more hard data we are just hand-waving.

Because you don't like seeing it? I have no problem with seeing them kiss as in one of a very short duration... it's seeing snogging I can't stand, even with the opposite sexes involved. It's not for my eyes as far as I'm concerned. It's ok to not like seeing something and yet still be accepting of it. You are not being weird.

If it was always here you don't need to ask that question. You are stuck in the position that it did come into existence, so you are trying to find a solution to a problem that may not actually exist....based on the conservation of energy it had to always have existed. Even if that energy came as consequence of some factor external to the universe as we know it, it was not created, it was transferred. We don't know what the mechanism was but there was one and when a scientist says it came from nothing, or makes statements implying this, he really means he doesn't know.

How about, if possible, putting a word limit on the opening post...that'll stop the walls of text and it'll make/teach people to think about word efficiency/information density.

Try this thought: The problem with asking about “the beginning of the universe” is making a possibly erroneous assumption that time, as measured by clocks, even existed pre-big bang and that events then followed a conventional cause-and-effect sequence. If time is a function of space, as per Relativity, and space (or space-time) didn’t exist – everything was at maximum density and, I hazard, simultaneously causally connected - then it follows that time may not have either, so, the ‘rules’ governing the order of events in the evolution of the universe were possibly quite different. If there was no time then the notion of ‘a beginning’ doesn’t really make any sense in our big bang world after time-zero, which was the first moment of the inflationary epoch. Don't forget, you are a subject of the universe and thus cannot actually consider yourself, albeit philosophically, distinct from it and so must view it's evolution from within i.e. if time, as I suggested for example, didn't actually exist pre-BB then you must ignore it as a parameter in your musings about its evolution at that phase. Cuttng to the chase, I am of the view that Michel mentions: it always existed and the problem of a beginning goes away. The Conservation of Energy dictates this and, thus far, is inviolable, so to my mind, this is a logical conclusion that is in accord with the universal rules we are aware of at this time.

Target and survey that group of women who might have the aptitude to do science and see if there is a trend to the reasons why they didn't do it or don't want to do it? One could look at A level students (or equivalent) and those further up the career path but not in science but use skills that are compatible with science like accounting, actuaries or engineering for example.

i agree. As long as there is equality of opportunity between the genders, the gender distribution in any given field is what it is and nothing to be concerned about imo. Those concerned about it and who wish to engage in social engineering to even it up may ultimately find out they are trying to push square pegs through round holes.

Yes. How one says something is as important as what one says. The former determines how well it will be received.

Has it ever occurred to you that it might be your own attitude towards your female counterparts that invites a stubbornly contrary position from them? Maybe they feel embattled when engaging with you. I don't think contrariness is gender-specific.

Does it really matter if there is a visible gender imbalance in biology? i would expect there to be proportionally more females because I think they are naturally more inclined in that direction...let people be where they want to be and be damned with statistics. and the artificial need for equal representation.

Not so and the heading on the Wiki article states it's out of date.

Isn't that mostly the case? History tells us that Science gets closer to the truth but never arrives at it so it will follow that any idea is eventually found to not be all-encompassing and is only valid within certain limits. I think any experienced scientist expects an idea will be superseded eventually but it is 'right' for now.

I think CharonY was being humorous.ie that the internet is NOT important. I think these sort of discussions we have here is a relatively safe extension of play-fighting or sparring etc but at the cognitive level and, by and large, it possibly suits the male psyche more than females.

In one way I agree but in another it's only a prize and dead people can't receive them. In the annals of science and its institutions I'm sure his contributions will be mentioned...this is the important thing.

In any closed system there can only be a finite amount of available energy so output can never exceed input to perform limitless amounts of useful work because it takes energy out of the system. Even without getting the system to perform useful work and just run itself it will eventually stop due to energy leakage from the system via phenomena, like friction, which produce heat.

About the author of that quote: Not without killing them.

Loaded at an acceptable rate this morning. 9.53am UK.

Regarding Polonium 210: Professor Dudley Goodhead, Medical Research Council Radiation and Genome Stability Unit, said: "To poison someone much larger amounts are required and this would have to be man-made, perhaps from particle accelerator or a nuclear reactor." Where would someone obtain polonium-210 from? Although it occurs naturally in the environment, acquiring enough of it to kill would require individuals with expertise and connections. It would also need sophisticated lab facilities - and access to a nuclear reactor. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6181688.stm It seems a supplier won't give you enough to cause a problem but obviously treat it with due respect and apply safe behaviours for what it is.

Phi and Dave, what I meant in my post was: if a casual person came here feeling the same way I have on this issue at times it would very likely put them off, but I myself, am not yet ready to give up one of my few sources of brain-food just yet....you lot are my substitute for my non-existent T.V.

Going by my own feelings, and I come on here everyday, I would say yes. I think it needs to be addressed with some concerted effort and concern.

The slow response of the site is really testing me today.

If you are thinking of the cosmic expansion, it only separates things at the supercluster level... groups of galaxies about 200 million light years or greater apart. We aren't going to be moving boatloads of people off this planet ever... the best we can hope to achieve is to sustain samples of Earth-life, including humans, by sending them away into space, like airborne spores, in the hope that they will land on hospitable terrain.and propagate.

Gravity is a function of both space and matter: Matter tells space how to warp. And warped space tells matter how to move (Wheeler).