StringJunky

I think what you might be experiencing is an excessive lag caused by a too slow internet connection...if this happens a lot I would disable Instant. So that you don't have to keep disabling it repeatedly after you've cleaned your computer crap and cookies download Ccleaner and after using Google a few times go into Ccleaner's Options > Cookies section and move the Google cookies into the Cookies To Keep section.

To disable Google Instant click on the cog icon in the top right corner of the Google page and scroll down to the Instant section and choose the option not to use it. If you clear your cookies later the operation will have to be repeated unless you use something like Ccleaner to clear your cookies which gives the option to ignore chosen cookies.

If it was the geologists and not biologists that engaged in the original dialogue I prostrate myself and humbly apologise to you and your professional brethren.

What's just worked for me is to highlight the text you want, right click and choose Copy then highlight it all (except quote tags), and delete it all including the bit you copied then paste in between the quote tags to put in the bit you saved.

It makes even less sense to me that something as complicated as a human could just 'pop' into existence as we are now in one go...if you really think about it it's quite absurd from a scientific and even 'common sense' perspective. It's going to be a long haul but Evolutionary Theory is on the right track. IIRC it was dialogue between the evolutionists and cosmologists that helped the cosmologists determine the age of the Earth because the evolutionary biologists understood the minimum necessary timescales for certain biological events to occur and therefore the minimum theoretical lower bouind for it's age. Evolution is a story that will take scientists a long time to understand and tell.

After reading and sometimes contributing to many threads here in the last two years or so, you realise that many threads are repeated by new people (same old so-and-so... different actors! ), but as Ophiolite says, the role of this forum as a proponent of scientific methodology, is to educate those that want to learn and, usefully, the ardent naysayers are often the unwitting focal point for demonstrating how their versions of reality don't pass muster. The naysayers most likely stay the same at the end of a discussion but the watching bystanders get something useful from it...hopefully. If SFN blocked the creationist argument it would be as guilty of dogmatism as them. Other stricter science forums block them out without a second thought but they've taken the easy road and can be accused of dogmatism. I admire SFN's scientific members for taking on all comers and patiently putting forward the scientific view. The dissemination of science is an exercise without end and you personally should just get off the educating merry-go-round when you've had enough and pass the baton...there's the best part of 6 billion people to sort out, so, globally 'winning' the scientific argument, I think you will agree, is unlikely in our lifetime.

Gotcha, thank's.

I should work through what's in Martin's thread on Cosmo Basics to get yourself up to speed: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/33180-cosmo-basics/

Jesus is a prominent figure in Islam as well; are there historical documents in that quarter? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_Islam Are Islam and Christianity drawn from a common religion that diverged?

You should have wrapped your post in quote tags with the link: or italicise the post with the link attached: THE thought of wind power brings visions of giant turbines, high-altitude kites and graceful sailboats to mind. But the breeze has a more sinister side, full of turbulence that can wreak havoc with bridges and other structures. Now Hyung-Jo Jung and Seung-Woo Lee at the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology in Daejeon, South Korea, plan to harness these destructive forces to generate energy. They have built a prototype that produces energy using a specific type of unstable airflow called wake galloping. Wake galloping is a form of vigorous vibration that affects cylindrical parts of structures, such as the cables on suspension bridges, exposed to seemingly harmless airflow. When the wind passes a horizontal cylinder, eddy currents called wake vortices are created on the lee side. These induce a lifting force on a cylinder in the path of these eddies - but only if the two have the same diameter and the second cylinder is three to six diameters away from the first. The leeward cylinder's weight counteracts the lift by pulling it back down again, resulting in the cylinder repeatedly moving up and down as the wind continues to blow. It is this movement that Jung and Lee hope to harness as energy. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028145.700-wind-power-harnesses-the-energy-of-galloping.html or even just quotation marks at each end with the link to make it clear it's not your work...then you will avoid accusations of plagiarism. As far as I know only partly quoting an article is permissible which is ok with your post here.

I suspect there is an an element of serendipity involved in the making of a recognised genius. Einstein was born in an era when moving pictures was in it's infancy and the height of technology then was to see films executed at various frame rates with things moving faster/slower and it caused him to wonder if time itself was like this...the rest is history.

In a similar vein, It's the ability to find relations between apparently disconnected things that most people would not see.

You are absolutely correct. I was just advising the OP not to look at all the possible future obstacles at once and deal with each step as it arrives then it doesn't look so daunting...this has been a failing of mine the past. I've given him a link to learning Multiplication in his other thread.

The quickest way to give up is to put obstacles in your way before you have got to them....you don't know your potential until you have reached it.

As imafaal has already pointed to I would start here: http://www.khanacademy.org/video/multiplication-2--the-multiplication-tables?playlist=Arithmetic'>http://www.khanacademy.org/video/multiplication-2--the-multiplication-tables?playlist=Arithmetic The main list is here: http://www.khanacademy.org/

Would it be correct to say that time is to space and matter as a wave is to water...you can't take the wave out of water?

Let's get rid of the "Balloon Analogy" and start using "The Doughnut Analogy" or, even better, "The Inflatable Ring Analogy" then we can get rid of the middle! http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1566 The link goes into the differences between topology and geometry amongst other things

Probably the notion of the universe being a very small point should be got rid of and just say it was much smaller and denser than it is now...it's better to express its earlier state in a relative way. The idea of it being an infinitely small and dense point signifies a breakdown in GR apparently anyway.

I don't know how many boxes this one would tick but Swansont mentioned dioxygen difluoride in his blog once which is explosively reactive even at sub -150c. FOOF is only stable at low temperatures; you'll never get close to RT with the stuff without it tearing itself to pieces. I've seen one reference to storing it as a solid at 90 Kelvin for later use, but that paper, a 1962 effort from A. G. Streng of Temple University, is deeply alarming in several ways. Not only did Streng prepare multiple batches of dioxygen difluoride and keep it around, he was apparently charged with finding out what it did to things. All sorts of things. One damn thing after another, actually: "Being a high energy oxidizer, dioxygen difluoride reacted vigorously with organic compounds, even at temperatures close to its melting point. It reacted instantaneously with solid ethyl alcohol, producing a blue flame and an explosion. When a drop of liquid 02F2 was added to liquid methane, cooled at 90°K., a white flame was produced instantaneously, which turned green upon further burning. When 0.2 (mL) of liquid 02F2 was added to 0.5 (mL) of liquid CH4 at 90°K., a violent explosion occurred." And he's just getting warmed up, if that's the right phrase to use for something that detonates things at -180C (that's -300 Fahrenheit, if you only have a kitchen thermometer). The great majority of Streng's reactions have surely never been run again. The paper goes on to react FOOF with everything else you wouldn't react it with: ammonia ("vigorous", this at 100K), water ice (explosion, natch), chlorine ("violent explosion", so he added it more slowly the second time), red phosphorus (not good), bromine fluoride, chlorine trifluoride (say what?), perchloryl fluoride (!), tetrafluorohydrazine (how on Earth. . .), and on, and on. If the paper weren't laid out in complete grammatical sentences and published in JACS, you'd swear it was the work of a violent lunatic. I ran out of vulgar expletives after the second page. A. G. Streng, folks, absolutely takes the corrosive exploding cake, and I have to tip my asbestos-lined titanium hat to him. http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2010/02/23/things_i_wont_work_with_dioxygen_difluoride.php

Here's the Wiki on Lithium-Ion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery

That's a good idea but it also means they are directly scanning all your data transfers which might possibly slow things down your end when lines are being heavily used...it probably wasn't feasible before due to the maximum bandwidth limits available previously. MS has just brought out an offline malware scanner that can be booted from a usb stick or cd when your PC is locked out or too messed up to use by malware...it's in beta so it might have a few glitches at the moment. http://connect.microsoft.com/systemsweeper For those that don't know, an offline scanner is it's own mini operating system/antimalware on a disk or stick that does its work on an inactive operating system so malware can't stop its operation.

And it has a very annoying voice notification after it has updated. I haven't tried Avira yet so can't comment.

MSE uses about 37MB in the background and you can set how much % of CPU it takes up for scanning. As long as a W7 or Vista machine has 2GB minimum RAM it should run fine. AVG is a notably heavy user of resources and can cause quite a few problems apart from not being as good as it was compared to others. In the free ones I would try Avast, Avira and MSE to see which suits best. I think MSE is the best thing MS ever made...it's small, fast, gets the job done and doesn't annoy with ads or unecessary notifications. N.B. You can check resource use yourself if you install it by right-clicking on the Task Bar > Start Task Manager > Processes > Look for 'MsMpEng.exe'.

MSE is as good as any other AV on on the whole. All AV's have their particular strengths and weaknesses. It's best used in combo with other antimalware but not another AV which can cause conflicts. A good setup that I use (all free) is MSE, Spywareblaster (passive and sets killbits), Trusteer Rapport (anti-keylogger,anti-screenlogger...major UK banks use it), Superantispyware (on-demand scanner), Malwarebytes (on-demand scanner), Windows 7 Firewall (Default). Last and very important if this all goes awry including catastrophic software failure is Macrium Reflect Free, or the like, which is for imaging system copies to another partition or external hard drive...recovery only takes me 20 minutes using this and saves me wasting time trying to fix things. If a system gets infected it will never really be the same again so a reinstall or, much preferably time-wise, complete image restores are the only really good options, McCafe SiteAdvisor or WOT website checkers are also good browser addons to have to help warn you against clicking on dodgy links in the first place.

From what I've read so far there has never been a time in the Universe's history where it has had uniform density in the sense I think you mean. When cosmologists talk about homogeneity in it's structure they mean over large scales so wherever you are in it the structure looks more or less the same. Like this: Even in the very beginning it is thought the universe was permeated throughout with quantum fluctuations (non-uniform density) which ultimately lead to the present structure shown in the image above. In quantum physics, a quantum fluctuation is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space,[1] arising from Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. According to one formulation of the principle, energy and time can be related by the relation[2] That means that conservation of energy can appear to be violated, but only for small times. This allows the creation of particle-antiparticle pairs of virtual particles. The effects of these particles are measurable, for example, in the effective charge of the electron, different from its "naked" charge. In the modern view, energy is always conserved, but the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian (energy observable) are not the same as (i.e. the Hamiltonian doesn't commute with) the particle number operators. Quantum fluctuations may have been very important in the origin of the structure of the universe: according to the model of inflation the ones that existed when inflation began were amplified and formed the seed of all current observed structure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation You might want to read this on the Cosmological Principle which has things to say about homogeneity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle