StringJunky

We can't talk about reality in analogue because that is one continuum and in order to communicate about it we must 'digitise' the world (attach labels to arbitrarily defined boundaries) in order to share our experiences which, as a consequence, adds complexity to its description.

How can the universe expand if space is not expanding and preserve isotropy and homogeneity (or don't you think so?)? Your apparent alternative implication is an expanding 'island universe' in a sea of pre-existing space. Also, if redshifting galaxies are accepted, they can't physically move at superluminal speeds (Re: SR), so, space expansion is the only other option or do you assert physical objects can move FTL into a pre-existing space?

It looks like John Cuthber's watching your back. Keep learning mate...I know you are not knowingly irresponsible. For future reference, it might be better to word a practical idea that you are not familiar with, like you just did, in a hypothetical sense so that it might be corrected ie "What if we...?", then you should be covered against any sharp criticism.

Are you hitting the 'back' button on your browser after submitting?...this does it.

I agree. Regular posters here, particularly n Chem, really should think twice before making practical suggestions...some passing reader may just try it with life-harming consequences.

Bad: When the astronauts are assembling the American flag, the flag waves. Kaysing says this must have been from an errant breeze on the set. A flag wouldn't wave in a vacuum. Good: Of course a flag can wave in a vacuum. In the shot of the astronaut and the flag, the astronaut is rotating the pole on which the flag is mounted, trying to get it to stay up. The flag is mounted on one side on the pole, and along the top by another pole that sticks out to the side. In a vacuum or not, when you whip around the vertical pole, the flag will ``wave'', since it is attached at the top. The top will move first, then the cloth will follow along in a wave that moves down. This isn't air that is moving the flag, it's the cloth itself. New stuff added March 1, 2001: Many HBs show a picture of an astronaut standing to one side of the flag, which still has a ripple in it (for example, see this famous image). The astronaut is not touching the flag, so how can it wave? The answer is, it isn't waving. It looks like that because of the way the flag was deployed. The flag hangs from a horizontal rod which telescopes out from the vertical one. In Apollo 11, they couldn't get the rod to extend completely, so the flag didn't get stretched fully. It has a ripple in it, like a curtain that is not fully closed. In later flights, the astronauts didn't fully deploy it on purpose because they liked the way it looked. In other words, the flag looks like it is waving because the astronauts wanted it to look that way. Ironically, they did their job too well. It appears to have fooled a lot of people into thinking it waved. This explanation comes from NASA's wonderful spaceflight web page. For those of you who are conspiracy minded, of course, this doesn't help because it comes from a NASA site. But it does explain why the flag looks as it does, and you will be hard pressed to find a video of the flag waving. And if it was a mistake caused by a breeze on the set where they faked this whole thing, don't you think the director would have tried for a second take? With all the money going to the hoax, they could afford the film! Note added March 28, 2001: One more thing. Several readers have pointed out that if the flag is blowing in a breeze, why don't we see dust blowing around too? Somehow, the HBs' argument gets weaker the more you think about it. http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#flag'>http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#flag If you want any other questions about the landing addressing: http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

There is much greater variation in barometric pressure during the winter than during the summer. On average, high pressure systems are higher pressure and low pressure systems are lower pressure. This leads to a more rapid flow of air between the systems. This fluctuation is caused by much greater variation in temperature during the winter. While most summer days are roughly the same temperature, winter temperatures fluctuate dramatically. The charts linked below show the seasonal variation in temperature, barometric pressure, and wind speed for New York City in 2008. Note how as temperatures become more stable from May to October, barometric pressure also becomes more stable, and wind speeds decrease. Source: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_is_it_windier_in_the_winter_than_in_the_summer Just my unqualified thought: Molecules move from high pressure to low pressure…if you are situated in a low pressure area there are more opportunities for greater temperature and pressure gradients than standing in a high pressure area and thus you will have the wind coming at you more often.

You may some form of Google Redirect malware on your PC.

Found this simulation of galaxy formation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=VQBzdcFkB7w

Is a galaxy spiralling inwards or outwards energy direction-wise?

As is commonly said about gravity in GR: matter tells spacetime how to curve and spacetime tells matter how to move, so, spacetime behaviour is the mediator between two bits of matter...they aren't exchanging anything so they aren't, strictly speaking, attracted to each other, like in magnetism where there is an exchange of virtual particles. I think there are ideas being worked where there is an exchange of virtual particles (gravitons) but it's not, as yet, mathematically sound.

I tried it about a dozen times ten years ago as part of drug rehabilitation. Needles were inserted in various points on my ear for forty minutes. The effect for the first eight or nine times was similar to having a low dose of opiate or tranquilliser which lasted maybe half an hour after the needles were removed. My thoughts at the time why it does this was a combination of my consciously relaxed state and the needles triggering endorphins to be released. After the eighth or ninth time the needles felt very hot in my ears and hurt so I stopped. I surmised that my body could no longer be tricked into producing endorphins at the sites of the insertions so the needles hurt. I think there is a very strong placebo effect in this method but it 'works' if you want it to. I haven't studied acupuncture in depth so can't say anything more.

What's wrong with it?

There's no point spending hundreds of millions putting a product through stringent time-consuming safety trials then chucking them out in less than ergonomic containers that don't seek to maximise shelf-life...it could compromise safety, accessibilty and drug efficacy.

You have possibly noticed something that was symptomatic of a more racist past...if that's the right way to put it. Probably doesn't happen now...people now don't think: I'm not having my children named the same as the Jews.

There might be some substance in the OP as it's mentioned in a letter to an editor that may provide a clue: To the Editor: In his stimulating article concerning “Jewish First Names Through the Ages,” Rabbi Benzion C. Kaganoff refers to the assimilation of names by Jews in America. This phenomenon is, perhaps, best illustrated by names like Milton, Sidney, and others which have become “Jewish” names in the United States because Jews have used them so frequently. In pre-World War I Germany and the Austrian monarchy, a comparable development took place. Siegfried, Siegbert, Sigismund, and similar names also became “Jewish” names and, for that reason, were eventually avoided by non-Jews. In fact, the combination of these names with typically Jewish family names produced strange bedfellows as, for example, Sigmund Freud or Siegfried Moses (a veteran Zionist leader in Germany). While French and Italian Jews use both Hebraic and non-Hebraic first names, there appears to be no case where a non-Hebraic name has come to be considered a “Jewish” name, probably because of the small number of Jews in either France or Italy. Ernest Maass New York, N.Y. http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/jewish-first-names/ There was anti-Semitic element historically whereby if a name became popular in the Jewish community it was avoided by non-Jews hence the Jewish association with certain names.

I came across that link myself and looked around a bit more and it was about 2.5 billion years ago when 97+% of the Earth was possibly underwater. When the Earth was hotter the lighter molecules, including water, would have been in the atmosphere and on the surface I think...the bible is only out by about 2 499 996 000 years.

...and I doubt would only take a year or so which it apparently took to recede in the bible.

Yes, like you, he asked where did all the water go? What about the Great Flood mentioned in the Bible? Leonardo doubted the existence of a single worldwide flood, noting that there would have been no place for the water to go when it receded. He also noted that "if the shells had been carried by the muddy deluge they would have been mixed up, and separated from each other amidst the mud, and not in regular steps and layers -- as we see them now in our time." He noted that rain falling on mountains rushed downhill, not uphill, and suggested that any Great Flood would have carried fossils away from the land, not towards it. He described sessile fossils such as oysters and corals, and considered it impossible that one flood could have carried them 300 miles inland, or that they could have crawled 300 miles in the forty days and nights of the Biblical flood. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/vinci.html Pat yourself on the back for thinking like Leonardo.

Leonardo Da Vinci came to the same conclusion.

In the broader scheme of preventing a much more catastrophic conflict (M.A.D.), Nagasaki and Hiroshima are real and poignant reminders of what nuclear weapons can do. If they hadn't been bombed a nuclear war would have probably been much more likely because the world would be in ignorance and the outcome, especially now, would have long-lasting global consequences...the world would not be the same again. To surmise: it cost tens of thousands of lives to save billions of future lives and also keep a habitable planet for much longer...I hope. My thoughts may seem cold but we must learn from history so that those lost Japanese lives were not totally wasted and may have actually helped to preserve the existence and state of humanity as we know it...I think so.

I think Epigenetics is about as far it goes...a parent's experience via their exposure to environmental influences, like exposure to some chemicals, can influence their progeny without altering their DNA.

Nee...Naw...Nee...Naw...Skitt's Law alert! I have yet to see a post that picks up on someone's error and not fall foul themselves...this law is apparently infallible!

I concur, especially with first-timers. Even with long-timers in their opening post I'd like to see a summary of the video posted with it. TBH I ignore threads that start on a video with speech content but might contribute if they put something in writing...I am severely deaf is the reason. It also strikes me as a bit lazy.

M.A.D. is doing its job and has done it for half a century...no credit due to anyone imo.