StringJunky

If we define that nothing is the absence of all things, it follows that, nothing lacks potentiality, therefore, something can not come from nothing. It’s a trivially correct logical argument...one does not need to be informed.

10 years out from what Mississippichem set admittedly, but what he achieved was way out of proportion to what could be expected from his qualifications that he formally trained for though wasn't it? When you think about it I bet there aren't or weren't many physics professors, and historically notable ones at that, with just BA's. I would set the bar at Bachelor's, not PhD, as the minimum for potentially presenting noteworthy work because graduates do read peer-reviewed papers don't they and so should be aware of of the required standard..they just need to come up with an innovative idea to write about.

John Freeman Dyson didn't have a PhD...he got a BA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson

I would go and consult an ophthamologist.

This article seems informative. http://www.allaboutvision.com/conditions/spotsfloats.htm If after reading this you still feel concerned take steps to seek expert advice.

Stardust - John Gribbin

The 'SFN' part of the logo made the right size and embroidered in the right location on dark blue or black main material could work on a tie quite well I think.

What does a stopwatch do? We can measure out a certain amount of time with it and we can measure the duration between two events. It is exactly analogous to a ruler.

We will probably never know the true essence or nature of things because they are beyond our physical grasp. Einstein came up with an idea that has thus far matched observation in terms of describing and predicting the behaviour of things...what's not to like? Science, through Quantum Theory, is also working on the idea of some sort of virtual particle exchange between attracting masses to describe the gravitational force but for reasons beyond my knowledge at the moment they haven't cracked it yet, if they ever do. GR doesn't work below Planck dimensions so they really would like QT to work for gravity. Two things; Science is a continuum of change in the face of emerging anomalies but any new theory must agree with GR where it is valid because the numbers will stay the same...GR will never be wrong within its domain of validity so scientists are confident and happy with it where it works. The point is, it does not matter if Gravity is due to a virtual particle exchange, curved spacetime or indeed any other phenomenon as long as the theory accurately describes and predicts behaviour.. Physics, when you distill it down, is the study of energy not objects. I think physicists would be happy to work with the description of invisible pink fairies holding hands, or flying to and fro, from one mass to another to describe gravity as long as the numbers work and it predicts what they can actually see.

If the natural language of science is mathematics, I don't see how one can philosophise about it with any degree of reasonable authority or validity if one can't speak it...certainly, at least, one shouldn't be dogmatic about ones views on this subject in the face of people that do speak the language. Is Philosophy relevant to Science? Yes, I think so, provided it's being spoken about by people that understand the consensually-agreed processes that scientists work with, otherwise, "Philosophy of Science" just amounts to ephemeral and insubstantial navel-gazing.

Here's some proper radioactive material containers..shouldn't be too difficult to conjure up your own with a suitable box and the lead sheet they sell: http://www.imagesco.com/geiger/containers.html

I think so...the extent of its meaning all depends on which things you define as absent and that then becomes the definition of nothing in a particular scenario.

If you ever want the radioactive hydrogen isotope Tritium, buy a Betalight which is a phosphorised capsule with the gas inside like this: http://www.fishingmegastore.com/fox-beta-light-fo0462~chap_6833.html Also note, fishing weights below 1oz are not lead because in the UK it is illegal to use lead for weights in fishing below that. This may be to your benefit if you are looking for Tungsten as some split shot is made with it..they can also be made of Tin or alloys of it. To guarantee that a fishing weight is lead in the UK buy one 1.1oz or more. http://www.shopwiki.co.uk/Tungsten-Split-Shot/products/Tungsten

OK...my apologies. I was connecting with Dr Rocket's post about binary stars.

186.000*3.14 = 584.0400000000001 (your units are in miles here going by the 186 000 figure for the speed of light you gave) 584.0400000000001 meter (should be miles here not meters) = 6.173307671e-14 light year

Here's a wiki explaining it.

You might find this site useful. On the math side you could start with Arithmetic, then Pre Algebra and take it from there... Browsing here regularly and asking specific questions will help you find a direction as to what interests you as well.

You are just saying things without supporting your assertions. Read THIS which is in support of Swansont's post about GPS....if the effects predicted by SR and GR were not accounted for it would not work. From my link: If these effects were not properly taken into account, a navigational fix based on the GPS constellation would be false after only 2 minutes, and errors in global positions would continue to accumulate at a rate of about 10 kilometers each day! The whole system would be utterly worthless for navigation in a very short time. This kind of accumulated error is akin to measuring my location while standing on my front porch in Columbus, Ohio one day, and then making the same measurement a week later and having my GPS receiver tell me that my porch and I are currently about 5000 meters in the air somewhere over Detroit.

Me no comprende.

You are not talking science any more. You are making bald assertions with no evidence to support them.

Science can only work with the available evidence and that's what scientists like swansont is doing. It will never be right, only less wrong with each new discovery.

I meant it in the sense of not being aware. If cause and effect is the correct sequence of occurrence then it follows that an apparent absence of observable events beyond T=0 is due to lack of knowledge not that there was an actual total absence of things before it. T=0 is the beginning of a set of events but is not inclusive of those events that precede it, which at this time are invisible to us. Just because we don't know something doesn't mean it doesn't or didn't exist...it is only apparently that way.

"Nothing", in that scenario, is just an indicator of our ignorance.

He meant, if phones could cause damage at that rate (1w/KG) then physical exercise would as well because exercise can generate as much heat as them. We are not damaged by the heat generated from exercise, so it follows, that we won't be damaged by the equivalent heat generated by a mobile phone.

The UV used for sterilisation is UV-C and is very dangerous to your eyes and skin when directly exposed to it so don't go and cobble together your own unit will you?...buy one made for the purpose. Reading up on it in surgical situations, it can be used for maintaining instrument sterility after autoclaving so it seems to be a pretty good micro-organism inhibitor.