StringJunky

Looks ok to me...point no.7 on your minus list would depend on how and with what they were pursing their point. If they are presenting a novel speculation and throw everything they've got, logically and amiably, in support of it then it doesn't deserve neg repping imo but I would expect them to concede when they hit an insurmountable counter-argument eventually.

Artificially influencing rep by the use of sockpuppet accounts or other 'illegal' method should be combed for if suspected...my point was really just towards people who use the system normally but whose pattern of choices one may not agree with...let 'em get on with it.

For better or worse, a person's usage of the rep system is their prerogative and the mods may take note but should not intervene imo...persistent undue demeriting is usually symptomatic of other negative behaviours anyway, I would guess, which are subject to open corrective moderation on the boards.

Ok.

What about the formation of Israel? This was a consequence of Hitler's actions.

An overwhelming sense of personal certainty is antithetic to good scientific practice and can blind a person to further advancement.

Happy birthday SFN.

Yes ok. My thought was that time is inextricably tied to process(es) and if there is none there is no time. If all the processes in all your hypothetical boxes-within-boxes stopped time would be no more?

If time is change and a system reaches equilibrium, would it be reasonable to say that time has stopped in the frame of that system so time only actually exists within systems that are in disequilibrium?

You put a period at the end of your link so it gives a "Page not found error". This is it I think; http://www.wfu.edu/~brehme/time.htm My attempt at a definition: a book-keeping or counting system used for sequencing and measuring the period between events.

That's probably the general agreement..."nothing" just means that they are stumped.

To my way of thinking "Expert" is subordinate to "Authority", so that statement doesn't make sense to me in your list. The expert appeals to authority when they need to...that is their reference. The difference is something like this I think: "I taught you everything you know but not everything I know.".

You appear to be perceiving a threat where there is none. If this is a frequent experience for you, you really should go and see your doctor who will get you the right help.

In an argument, like in fencing, we need to know when to say: "touche!"

You personally put a lot of effort into your posts, especially with the math's, isn't it nice to have some small symbolic recognition of that effort? For what it's worth, I quite admire your stance venturing into issues of the probability of the existence of a god and given that you are pretty strong on physics which is fairly unusual here. The only thing you need to deal with is to try and adopt a calm and measured response to those resistant to your ideas. If you get logically outwitted, take it on the chin with grace...there's always another day and another thread to try again.

Exactly: "When in Rome...". I don't think you've been here long enough to form a solid opinion about the rep system. To echo Captain Panic: you are only getting hit with neg rep because of the style of your delivery from what I can see.

Beyond a basic minimum, further respect in discussion needs to be earned and a congenially reasoned approach in ones responses goes a long way to accruing it. Edit: Lol! Nice one Arete.

Yes, I read it the other day....it seems he was an avid DIYer with little apparent regard for his own safety. From today's perspective of Western Europe's acknowledgement and acceptance of gay people, the official attitude then seems quite bizarre now it struck me reading that article. How far we've moved on.

There is a need for them or else those models wouldn't have been proposed in the first place. Mainstream science doesn't just dream up "dark stuff" for fun.

With apologies to Banksy : http://ryanproof.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/121.jpg

Thanks. A post in another thread got me wondering if the "Dark" part of the name was just a placeholder name until scientists can get a handle on them experimentally. As you say, it probably is.

If scientists confirm their existence to a high level of confidence and can assign specific characteristics to them such that they become mainstream and generally accepted, will their names be changed or will they always be called such?

Here's a page with cyanobacteria media recipes...if you study the makeup of a bunch them you might see some commonality between them that is lacking in yours. http://www-cyanosite.bio.purdue.edu/media/table/media.html On light levels: Illumination Generally, cultures should be grown in a 16-hour light period alternating with an 8-hour dark period. Ideally, the cultures should be illuminated by 40-watt cool-white fluorescent tubes on a timer. A 40-watt fluorescent tube at a distance of about 15 cm will provide roughly 500 foot candles of illumination. At a distance of approximately 50 cm, the illumination will fall to approximately 200 foot candles. An inexpensive light meter calibrated in foot candles can provide a simple and accurate way to regulate the light intensity in your lab. Freshwater algal cultures should be grown under a light intensity of 400 to 500 foot candles. At this light intensity, cultures will reach optimum growth in 7–14 days, depending on the species and condition of the initial algal inoculum. After this period, reduce the light to 50 –100 foot candles.Marine algae grow best in slightly lower intensities than those required by freshwater algae — 200 – 300 foot candles. The light cycle and growth period are the same as those recommended for freshwater cultures. http://openwetware.org/images/8/85/Working_with_algae.pdf

I found this thread which says there are no Einstein Rings visible from Earth but you can see a Double Quasar with a 16" caused by the same phenomenon: http://www.astronomyforum.net/deep-sky-objects-forum/135896-any-amateur-visible-einstein-rings.html

What DH has shown you in the photo is an Einstein Ring and the effect seen in the 1919 experiment was not so spectactular; I think in that they were just saw normal looking stars in different apparent positions, as predicted by GR. The Einstein Ring is with the light source more or less bang in the middle behind the object and the observer and the other one is with the light source just to one side and behind the object.