StringJunky

Shotgun or razor blade? .

Yes, that's how I understand the Universe models from the inside out when the more knowledgeable people here talk about it and have no real problem with apparent absence of edges in their models. I can easily put an imagined space around the model whilst simultaneously acknowledging to myself that this surrounding 'space' I created is not part of the model; just an aid to objective (outside in) visualisation.

The problem of proper conception in a lot of people's minds is maybe because our thoughts exist in a 'space' and the only way to visualise nothing is to empty ones mind but we are still left with the sense of space where our thoughts resided hence the error because this 3 dimensional construct which has boundary but no content is not removed as well.

Have you tried system restore?

?

'Nothing' is that which does not exist. Period. You are guilty of giving 'nothing' the spatial property that I mentioned in my earlier post by saying: "I think ‘nothing’ contains something like four sided triangle,". You are giving it three dimensions. You cannot imagine nothing because there is nothing to think about. I wonder if a discussion on The Ontology of Nothing would get anywhere?

If you still have the program on your pc you could do a Deep Scan with Revouninstaller, follow the prompts to uninstall and it will remove all its associated registry entries. http://www.revouninstaller.com/revo_uninstaller_free_download.html Get the free one down the page. Failing that, have you tried going back to a date point before you installed the patch with System Restore... assuming one is still there ?

One of the key resources that helps to maintain the homeostasis is the Earth's ice supply and possibly the final limiting factor. If you put an ice cube in a glass of water the temperature of the water will remain stable 'til it all melts then it will rise to ambient temperature. As long as the Earth's ice supply is available to act as a buffer to temperature rises and the heat absorption does not exceed the the total specific heat capacity of all the globally significant available ice homeostasis will help to be maintained...ice also has the property of reflecting warming radiation away from a its surface....so total surface area of ice is probably important too. If the colder seas at the more northerly and southerly extremes become too warm through loss of ice this will impact on the population of certain types of oceanic algae which produce dimethyl sulphide which is a significant nucleating particle in the formation of solar-reflecting rain clouds thus contributing to an additional negative effect on the Earth's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo. http://saga.pmel.noaa.gov/review/dms_climate.html

It may not be all sunshine and roses with wind power environmentally though: Large-scale use of wind power can alter local and global climate by extracting kinetic energy and altering turbulent transport in the atmospheric boundary layer. We report climate-model simulations that address the possible climatic impacts of wind power at regional to global scales by using two general circulation models and several parameterizations of the interaction of wind turbines with the boundary layer. We find that very large amounts of wind power can produce nonnegligible climatic change at continental scales. http://www.pnas.org/content/101/46/16115.full I'm not arguing against wind power but just highlighting that it's maybe not problem-free...it may impact non-negligbley on the very thing it's trying to mitigate but in a different way so the net benefit may not be as big as it's potential suggests.

How about the idea that once Life got a sufficient foothold on Earth it started to adapt its surroundings (including the atmosphere) to suit itself better and thus makes it seem almost perfect now about 3 billion years later since it emerged ie it's not all passive adaptation to a changing environment; there is active homeostatic management going on by Life as a collective? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daisyworld

I think it's a purely abstract concept that can have varied meanings depending on the context it's used in but the purest definition, like Spyman says, denotes the absence of anything at all and therefore cannot be visualised as an entity ... the only property nothing has is 'absence' which is another abstract concept...but some people still try and give it substance, usually some sort of spatial property, and often then become prone to conceptual errors contrary to current mainstream scientific knowledge as a result, especially in Cosmology discussions.

' Couldn't one of the factors that encourages the spread of AIDs in underdeveloped nations be simply that these countries are often economically highly volatile which causes frequent and relatively large-scale internal migration of people seeking work and essential living resources not common to more developed countries, so, the number of chance sexual encounters increases amongst the migrant population thus the 'window of opportunity' for infection across the general population is magnified...the migrant parts of a population are the vectors? Couple this with inadequate hygiene practices/resources and no physical barriers like condoms in widespread use, it seems to me, you've got all the ingredients for the proliferation of a pathogen. All the other sexual diseases are rife in these nations as well a cursory Google search reveals.

Have you read this wiki?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smokeless_powder

+1 on sunflowers, your nephew will be impressed with the height, growth rate and then there's a nice big sunny flower at the end of it.

Propagation is all of the methods that something can be multiplied with and cloning is one method of that. You've probably read some where that this method is also called 'vegetative propagation' so that's why you think that. http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/life/genetic/cloning1.htm Some plants have 'immortal cells' in the meristem...I wonder, if these were extracted, continuous viable replication of plants is achieved? There's a bit here about the Cox's Orange apple which has been around in its original form since 1825 but this is done by grafting the original apical meristem cells that Robert Cox bred on to hosts. Could this be done without using a host? http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ikRlsIIuZoQC&pg=PA40&lpg=PA40&dq=immortal+cells+meristem&source=bl&ots=yM2j9hQZgA&sig=4-q45omeDcDWFnfagutpqQSBYP0&hl=en&ei=oBS8TYvQBYKIhQeJzo3HBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=immortal%20cells%20meristem&f=false

I'm no expert on this but as I understand it the cloned plants are not 'new' or young plants but are actually the parent plant and is therefore subject to all the vagaries of age that the Mother plant would have if it was still alive ie eventual chromosome deterioration through multiple cell divisions...the total number of cellular replications is limited before chromosome defects start to occur. If a tomato plant is one year old when it is cloned the clone plants are also 1 year old genetically. You are also placing additional stresses on an ageing clone plant by forcing it to make new roots every time...from a gardener's perspective the quality of the produce will eventually suffer.

The paper didn't discredit present understanding at all, in fact, it was explaining it but it added an interesting and alternative conceptual scenario if our accumulation of knowledge were to suffer some abrupt discontinuity in the future. I might try and find it later.

Martin showed an interesting arxiv paper here once to help explain the cosmological expansion for us and it said (speculating) that eventually, in the extremely far distant future, the only stars we would be able to see were those in our Local Group because the light from the other superclusters would be outside the Observable Universe and therefore couldn’t reach us. One consequence of this, it went on, was that if humanity somehow lost all it’s knowledge via a global nuclear war or some massive catastrophe and had to start again the cposmologists of the future would conclude that we live in an Island Universe surrounded by space...it would have an edge! If we were having this conversation in that time, the people that are ‘wrong’ in this day would be ‘right’ in the future bercause that would be what the observational evidence suggests!

No I don't think so, that's a sensible and mature response if the situation is volatile and you re-assess when you or the situation has cooled down. Better to speak your mind with a calmer voice rather than an angry one. i can only speak for myself here but aggressive thought-scenarios don't work for me because there is no resolution of the real situation ie the perpetrator(s) of my distress is not being brought to rights about it because I haven't actually expressed myself to them. Aggressive thought-scenarios imo are actually a symptom of repression...it's potentially the beginning of all sorts of later personal problems especially if you make a regular habit of avoiding justified confrontation resulting in several aggressive thought-scenarios running sequentially or simultaneously!

A quick Google reveals that social science can be given the same rigour as any other science. This is from Dartmouth College: Courses 7. First-Year Seminar in Mathematics and Social Sciences Consult special listings 15. Introduction to Data Analysis 10F, 11S, 11F, 12S: 9L Methods for transforming raw facts into useful information. Directed toward students with an aptitude for mathematics. Emphasis is placed on the understanding, use, and both oral and written interpretation of exploratory data analysis within the rules of scientific method. With permission from the responsible department, MSS 15 may be used to satisfy some pre-medical, natural science, and social science departmental requirements in mathematics, statistics, and methodology. Limited enrollment. http://www.dartmouth.edu/~mss/courses/

It's the tone of the thread I find offensive, the slur is implied, and IMO not conducive to friendly discourse or reception by all of SFN's users. You are used to it here A Tripolation and can take it but newcomers and passers-by may take a different view. Ydoaps was religion-bashing subtle or not. You may take a different view but that's my take. I might be being a bit heavy-handed here but I felt compelled to say that I think this kind of thing is unacceptable in a public science forum that seems to have a mission to educate. I really get the feeling sometimes that science is almost a religion itself amongst its more fundamentalist followers with a similar attitude of intolerance and exclusion. Sorry to spoil the party guys...I'll get off my soapbox now.

I'm not religious but I don't want to see any group be ridiculed directly or indirectly. How can the scientific community hope to promote its methodology , of which this site is a bastion, in the wider community if it belittles the beliefs (like in this thread) of those it seeks to teach?

BS. Your timing of this thread is full of innuendo. "1. An indirect or subtle, usually derogatory implication in expression; an insinuation"

The conception of this thread is irresponsible and is IMO in breach of SFN Rule 1c and is generally not of a civil nature towards all of SFN's users. It's clearly an incitement to ridicule another group with different beliefs to the OP. 1. Be civil. a. No flaming. Refrain from insulting or attacking users in a discussion. b. Avoid the use of vulgar language. c. Slurs or prejudice against any group of people (or person) are prohibited.

What's not scientific about my saying if you can't find the evidence in fossils look for it in molecules of which I gave a couple?