michel123456

You must be kidding.

https://www.google.gr/search?q=banana+car&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=o56rVPXdE8n3UqCKhKAL&ved=0CCUQsAQ&biw=1525&bih=679&dpr=0.9 Yes. As a say in my edited post, L.Krauss is a supporter of creation, although being an atheist, as much as I can understand his positions. Because I suspect a hidden agenda. The "who is talking" is more important than the things said. Fair enough. I have no doubt. You are welcome.

You realize that it is the main misconception of the BBT, do you?* You realize that the concept was introduce by a priest, do you? A priest doing science. Imagine the BBT misconceptions arising today from a creationist site over the Internet. What would you say? ---------------- * edit There are actually scientists that are proposing creation from nothing. Lawrence Krauss is one prominent supporter of the idea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Universe_from_Nothing

I am a little bit confused. My apologies Kramer, I misunderstood your Opening Post completely. I am pretty sure that even after complying with BB misconceptions you will remain with the same interrogations, simply you will be able to put your questions in a more appropriate frame. Don't expect any answer though. Even a slight comparison of the BB with "genesis" will not be accepted here. http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/LineweaverDavisSciAm.pdf

Maybe that is because your link gives an error "404 Not Found".

Ok. lets introduce some new rules then. _Each time the word God is written a minus in rep. When its GOD all in caps that gives you minus three. _Each time the word Truth is written, a minus in rep. -When the words GOD & Thruth are in the same sentence, the thread goes to the Trash Can. note. I am not really serious.

I have a proposal. Put the Religion as a sub-forum of Speculations (next to the trash can).

Friends, has anyone of you any sign of Ophiolite after 26th of December? On another Forum, somewhere?

Condounded? does that mean you are wearing a condom? if yes I understand the problem with genesis. ---------- edit Expansion shouldn't be an issue though.

yes. That reminds me this belgian joke, second here.

My "feeling" with Fermat's last theorem is that you need an equal number of factors for having integers in the solution. For example a3 + b3 = c3 will not give integer but a3 + b3 + c3= d3 will. And a4 + b4 + c4+ d4= e4 will have an integer solution. But that is just a feeling.

I am an expatriate. I kept my nationality of birth. Both countries belong to the European Community As a result I have the right to vote for Municipal elections in my new country of adoption, but not for legislatives. I vote for legislatives in my country of birth, that I abandoned about 30 years ago. I don't follow much the changes there. I would like very much to vote here where I live and pay my contributions. Also, at each legislative in my country of birth, it is mandatory to inscribe myself each time in the catalog at my Embassy. I remember not being aware of that detail and have been refused to vote because I was not in the catalog, although i was inscribed for the previous elections. I was VERY angry at the time because I felt having been removed my rights. Also to note that my "right' to vote at legislatives in my country of birth was non-existent a decade ago. The right wing party at the government suddenly noticed that there was a substantial part of citizens abroad and that this part was for a very high percentage right wing. After noticing this, they voted a new law and here I am, I got a new "right". I guess there are many other examples where the right is not so evident. You don't need to be in jail.

?? I don't follow. So one can assume 4xy^3 -x^4 is indeed a multiple of three and that reduces to prove that sqrt(something else) can be an integer*. Or the other way round. Provided the equation is correct (I didn't check) *for all multiples of 2 it gives an integer if I am not totally wrong.

These are not mutually exclusive. IMHO it is a right and a privilege.

square root of 3 is irrational.

That must be irrelevant. Oh. That doesn't make me younger. So you have never experienced the horror of a black DOS screen I presume, with the silly little - blinking.

I thought that G was an empirical constant, not a derivation of other constants.

I wonder maybe insurance companies should worry having paid "damaged" machinery.

I didn't know G could be expressed like this. The [math]c^3[/math] is awkward.

Hunting worms for using them at fishing, you dig abruptly a spade vertically in the ground, then hit the upper wooden part to make it vibrate. You will see the worms coming out of the ground. I was told it was to mimic the sound emit by the mole when digging its gallery. If it is a mole, you should see the hole getting horizontal after a while. Do you have a dog?

Then to answer the OP, one should take all the equations where G appears and show the result for G = 0.

So when G becomes null, in this equation [latex]T=\frac{T_o}{\sqrt{1-\frac {2GM}{Rc^2}}}[/latex] we have [latex]T={T_o}[/latex]

I was thinking about moles or voles.

pay wall in front of Action and Reaction before Newton John L. Russell Heythrop College, University of London, 11–13 Cavendish Square, London W1M oAN. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=2915316 or http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4025704?sid=21104967019281&uid=2129&uid=4&uid=70&uid=2

I remember a thread about objects in space under no gravity that kept holding together (like water) but that was not because of their own gravitational attraction. Have to dig a bit. ------------------- Cannot find it. But IIRC it was said that molecular bindings are the forces that hold things together. -------------------- Found this, not the thread i was talking about but anyway http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/13935-whats-holds-matter-together/