StringJunky

If in doubt ask for research papers to be cited or links to authoritative websites of relevant disciplines. On the whole, it's pretty clear when the scientists and mods here are expressing an opinion and also a lot of the long-termers enjoy and respect the scientific process so it becomes natural to pursue that ethos in their responses. Time spent here eventually indicates to you how much gravitas to give to any particular individual's response. If you want a more strict and formal forum setup them Physics Forums.Org indicate in each expert's profile their academic status but the guys here are good enough for me. Ultimately, I think, the 'truth' is a slowly shifting goal-post with the appearance of each new piece of evidence and you really have to make your own mind up what to conclude from it because there will quite often be more than one expert interpretation available at any given time as to what it means...I'm talking about the 'bleeding edge' stuff here.

The oral consumption of colloidal silver is a very bad idea. From the NIH National Centre For Complementary And Alternative Medicine on colloidal silver. Bolded emphasis was not added by me: http://nccam.nih.gov/health/silver

You could ask yourself, what if there were observers at the first period when life began on Earth, what would they have seen or known about the universe 3 billion years ago given the equipment we have now? They would probably think they were in a special epoch and the information is lost to us now in the present. You could go back even further when the whole universe was causally connected...now that would be the special epoch would it not and all we are actually seeing now is an illusion restricted by the Hubble boundary and CMBR? It's also rather anthropomorphic.

You can only understand from the information or data you have before you. The Krauss Observer, assuming an ubrupt discontinuation of acquired knowledge from the past, will not know and therefore could not understand nature as we in the present understand it.. It's not nature playing tricks, it's just that information has been and gone.

The fact that it has the word "attempt" in it would suggest so, strictly speaking. It would seem to me though, as only a layman mind, that 'theory' is used sometimes for models that have a widespread degree of consensus and not just ones that have been experimentally verified. It does muddy the waters a bit.

From.

Yeah, you are only about 40 years too late. Any organism that has only mitotic division at its disposal is not evolved to reproduce with variation. I think only random mutation can bring this about in them. Progeny variation, as an intrinsic feature of a species' evolution, needs meiosis available to them I think.

It annoys me when people put positive and invariably wrong claims of refuting well-established theories in their title. As far as I'm concerned the mods can have carte blanche to change it to whatever they think fit.

Thanks JC. At the QED level, this is because the electron receiving the incoming photon is sufficiently energised to reach the next energy level so the uv photon doesn't carry on passing through...is this right?

Cuts off wavelengths shorter than this?

Perhaps the minimum size or piece of the universe scientists use to determine isotropy and homogeneity is too small. Our Observable Universe is but one small piece in a much larger picture and any calculations or observations concerning the BB only relate to our OU.so that quasar group is probably not unique in the totality of the universe.

Here it is: http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.1081 Click on PDF top right.

Photosynthesis is the production of starches and sugars which uses carbon dioxide to make them but they still need oxygen to utilise the sugars to get their energy from by respiration. Photosynthesis makes the products that store the energy and respiration is the actual release of that stored energy. Photosynthesis: carbon dioxide + water (+ light energy) → glucose + oxygen Respiration: glucose + oxygen → carbon dioxide + water (+ energy) Higher plants are aerobes and depend upon a supply of molecular oxygen from their environment to support respiration and various other life-sustaining oxidations and oxygenation reactions. Without free oxygen most actively growing plants are unable to survive as individuals for more than a few hours or days and cannot develop sufficiently to reproduce either sexually or asexually. Accordingly, plants are endowed with anatomical and morphological features, such as numerous stomata, large surface to volume ratios and interconnected intercellular spaces that facilitate the entry and distribution of atmospheric oxygen. A plant's own photosynthesis can also supply some of its oxygen requirements during daytime. Despite these features, access to oxygen is often inhibited by environmental circumstances that restrict aeration of part or all of the plant (Hook and Crawford, 1978; Jackson, Davies and Lambers, 1991). When this occurs, the resulting tissue hypoxia or anoxia inevitably suppresses oxygen-dependant pathways especially the energy-generating system, disturbs functional relation-ships between organs such as roots and shoots, and suppresses both carbon assimilation and photosynthate utilization. Plant Adaptations to Anaerobic Stress Annals of Botany 79 (Supplement A): 3-20, 1997

Three in 24 hours is enough I reckon.

ajb Are you a physicist with a maths bias or mathematician with a physics bias? I know you are proficient at both but which side do you lean on more?

Yes indeed, the finery of the rider is incongruous and rather grotesque when contrasted with the final moments and conditions of the fox. Edit: I took this image down because it's not very nice but it does tell the truth of a fox's final moments. Click the link if you care to see to see what I mean: http://blog.dancallister.com/2010/12/15/fox-hunting-with-hounds-inhumane/

It's as strong as your password. .

Moon and Zapatos I was referring to hunting for pleasure by means of packs of hounds which ultimately rip animals apart...this is not a humane form of hunting. I',m solely referring to a specific style and specific format which has no purpose other than as a sideshow to the real purpose which is socialising and having a "jolly old time". Let's not mix this up with other forms of hunting that serves a justifiable purpose and is done with a view to causing the quarry as little distress as possible. I think you would agree that white jodhpurs and scarlet jacket is hardly the attire of a serious hunter. http://www.wilton-hunt.co.uk/

Moon and Zapatos Hunting by means of dogs, leading to them ripping an animal apart, for pleasure is cruel. I was referring to this specific activity. No amount of mental gymnastics can convince me otherwise. Riding with horse and hounds is a "jolly old time" on a weekend...nothing more. One thing I have noticed, we have to be careful to define our terms...'hunting' is quite a big umbrella. It's all to do with intent and purpose whether something is justifiable or not.

The ban on hunting was brought about by years of vocal pressure and lobbying from animal welfare groups and a series of private members bills from MP's...all very proper and democratic. People think it's bloody cruel. They don't think it's OK to have animals ripped to pieces by hounds. Our government invoked the will of the majority. Yes, it oppressed some people's liberty to derive pleasure from the avoidable distress of a hunted animal.Tough.

Twaddle.

www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/pb13642-rural-digest-2012.pdf This extract from the BBC link I gave earlier gives some historical context for the way we are I thought interesting: Arming the force would, say opponents, undermine the principle of policing by consent - the notion that the force owes its primary duty to the public, rather than to the state, as in other countries.This owes much to the historical foundations of British criminal justice, says Peter Waddington, professor of social policy at the University of Wolverhampton. "A great deal of what we take as normal about policing was set out in the early 19th Century," he says."When Robert Peel formed the Metropolitan Police there was a very strong fear of the military - the masses feared the new force would be oppressive."A force that did not routinely carry firearms - and wore blue rather than red, which was associated with the infantry - was part of this effort to distinguish the early "Peelers" from the Army Waddington says. Over time, this notion of guns being inimical to community policing - and, indeed, to the popular conception of the Dixon of Dock Green-style bobby[1] - was reinforced.While some in London were issued with revolvers prior to 1936, from that date only trained officers at the rank of sergeant or above were issued with guns, and even then only if they could demonstrate a good reason for requiring one. Today only a small proportion of officers are authorised to use firearms. Latest Home Office figures show there were just 6,653 officers authorised to use firearms in England and Wales - about 5% of the total number. [1] Dixon of Dock Green was a TV series that ran from 1955 to 1976 about a fictional East London police force.

Released Dec 25th 2012: Most Britons support fox hunting ban, survey finds Poll before Boxing Day meets shows 76% are against moves to make fox hunting legal, rising to 81% for deer hunting http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/dec/25/britons-fox-hunting-ban-survey David Cameron, our Prime Minister would dearly love to repeal the hunting laws (being a hunting-type toff himself) but he does not have the backing of the very large majority of the UK public. The hunting ban is most definitely not an expression of government oppression. This might put another angle on our general attitude in the UK towards guns for you which includes our police force:. A 2006 survey of 47,328 Police Federation members found 82% did not want officers to be routinely armed on duty, despite almost half saying their lives had been "in serious jeopardy" during the previous three years. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19641398 If our police don't want to be routinely armed, it makes sense that the UK public, shouldn't be...and long may that live. If we are armed then the our police will have to be and I really don't want that. I don't want to lose that freedom from being potentially shot or feel that fear from our police force...we have the fast response teams as and when necessary....that's how it should be for a free and civil society. It's not perfect but our respective countries statistics for per capita gun crimes speak for themselves which is actually the most sane..

All you need for your purposes is a 2GHz CPU and 4 GB RAM. The idea of video editing is RAM intensive, AND a good separate (not integrated) video-card is desirable so more the better, but 4GB (and integrated video) is plenty for everything else. Your internet speed is determined by your ISP and how many people are using the same resources. 99% of the time 2GB of RAM will be sufficient but more does allow you to have more apps open at the same time without lagging. Don't worry about future trends....the desktop tower modders aren't going away soon. Laptops. Pros: Mobility and small footprint Cons: Loads Desktops. Pros Loads Cons: Not mobile and have a larger footprint. I am an exclusive laptop user and there are no overwhelming advantages apart from mobility. Batteries only last a year or so and are expensive, as are the components relatively and access is tight. If you get one make sure you can access the fan from a hatch in the bottom for cleaning or else this is a technician's job if you have to take the laptop apart to get to it...not fun. The fan WILL need cleaning at some point. Just to note: A decent video-editing machine is £1000+ so don't expect a budget machine to be nippy in this department but it will be sound for Youtube and everything else. My opinion: Go desktop as you can deal with hardware problems and upgrades easier. A wireless adapter is not expensive if you want to do that for a desktop if it can't do it already. http://www.google.co.uk/products/catalog?hl=en&sugexp=les%3B&gs_rn=1&gs_ri=hp&cp=12&gs_id=1a&xhr=t&q=wireless+adapter&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.d2k&bpcl=40096503&biw=1363&bih=623&um=1&ie=UTF-8&cid=14454394448619283361&sa=X&ei=nb7kUInyO9Ga0QWq7ICgCg&sqi=2&ved=0CDAQ8wIwAA

Scientists are trying very hard to find discrete units in the structure of space as this would help them to unify gravity with the strong, weak and electromagnetic forces which, so far, stubbornly refuses to be described in any way other than as a smooth continuum,.. as per General Relativity. The other three forces can be described in discrete units ie quantised.This is one such experiment NASA did: "Physicists would like to replace Einstein's vision of gravity -- as expressed in his relativity theories -- with something that handles all fundamental forces," said Peter Michelson, principal investigator of Fermi's Large Area Telescope, or LAT, at Stanford University in Palo Alto, Calif. "There are many ideas, but few ways to test them." Many approaches to new theories of gravity picture space-time as having a shifting, frothy structure at physical scales trillions of times smaller than an electron. Some models predict that the foamy aspect of space-time will cause higher-energy gamma rays to move slightly more slowly than photons at lower energy. Such a model would violate Einstein's edict that all electromagnetic radiation -- radio waves, infrared, visible light, X-rays and gamma rays -- travels through a vacuum at the same speed. On May 10, 2009, Fermi and other satellites detected a so-called short gamma ray burst, designated GRB 090510. Astronomers think this type of explosion happens when neutron stars collide. Ground-based studies show the event took place in a galaxy 7.3 billion light-years away. Of the many gamma ray photons Fermi's LAT detected from the 2.1-second burst, two possessed energies differing by a million times. Yet after traveling some seven billion years, the pair arrived just nine-tenths of a second apart. "This measurement eliminates any approach to a new theory of gravity that predicts a strong energy dependent change in the speed of light," Michelson said. "To one part in 100 million billion, these two photons traveled at the same speed. Einstein still rules." http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/GLAST/news/first_year.html