blike

Do you have "Remember me" checked? It's next to where you input your username/pw to login on the main page. This could be what's causing it. Be sure and check that, then if the problem crops up again let us know.

Indeed. However, I can think of one major study that was posted in JAMA (I believe) that showed manipulation of the lumbar spine for lower back pain was as effective as the conventional treatment plan. I also recall reading a few studies that indicate manipulation of the cervical spine in tension and nontension headaches was effective in reducing frequency and duration (but not magnitude) of headaches. If I recall the details (its been awhile), non-tension headaches were more effectively treated with manipulation than with pain meds. If anyone is interested I can check on those details. I do, however, have a couple of beefs with chiropractors. First, they have a disproportionate number of nut-jobs who claim they can cure everything. Chiropractic oversight committees really need to crack down on these claims. Second, many are pushing for prescription rights. I have to ask why they didn't just go to medical school if they wanted prescription rights. Third, from what I understand they aren't as well regulated as conventional medicine. You wouldn't believe how many hoops I have to jump through to graduate, get my license to practice medicine, get my board certification, get hospital practice rights, keep my license, keep board certs, keep practice rights, etc. Granted, on this point I am less knowledgable. This is simply the impression I got from a former chiropractor in my school. Fourth, they act more like salesmen then health-care workers. The goal seems to be to get you to come back. I've even seen annual plans.

Just wanted to bump this up for those who haven't seen it. Please take the time to vote! Here are the direct links: SFN User Awards: Most Helpful Member SFN User Awards: Most Improved Member SFN User Awards: Most Enjoyable Member SFN User Awards: Best Debater SFN User Awards: Most Interesting Member SFN User Awards: Most Knowledgable Member

rofl, it was up a bit long. same thing happened last year

Because this post is now in the announcements forum, it is no longer open for public comments. You can continue to discuss the project here or in the forthcoming discussion thread (I'll edit and post a link when it is made).

Dave that rocks!

I moved for school there's snow outside right now!

There we go!

What have you got so far?

Ah! Something isn't quite right with your image Dak, it leaves a little white bar underneath...anyone have any idea why? Can you save it directly as jpeg? I had to convert it with gimp...maybe that had something to do with it.

We should also have a concurrent poll: "How honest are you?"

Nice Dak! Throw some more snow on there

Out of curiosity, what is wrong with Einstein's description of gravity?

Whoops, sorry everyone. That one was my fault!

This looks a lot like someone's homework.

The other day I was having a conversation with a staunch creationist about the big bang theory. He stated that it is his personal belief that the universe reached it's present size in less than 10,000 years. He also claims that the universe is no longer expanding, we're just seeing old light. Finally, he says that there is no way we could tell the difference between an expansion that took place rapidly over the course of a few thousand years and a continuous, long-term (billions of years) expansion. Now, I'm inclined to say that something in the red-shift would tip us off to a rapid expansion. But this is way out of my arena. I'm just curious to see what our resident cosmologists have to say.

From what I've been reading: the redshift we see is the result of the space expanding that the light waves travel through. The expansion of space also carries along galaxies with it. Shouldn't there be two redshifts? One with the expansion of space and one because the expanding space is carrying the galaxy with it?

Right, but if they're receeding, wouldn't you see a recession redshift and an expansion redshift?

If an object is receeding because of spacetime expansion, is the redshift we measure because of spacetime expansion, and not necessarily the object's relative velocity? In other words, is the stretching of space what changes light's wavelength? If so, shouldn't receeding galaxies have two redshifts: One from the expansion of space that the light is travelling through, and one because the expanding space is carrying the object away?

Your hypothesis, you mean.

Then perhaps you'll be suprised to learn that 2 of the 3 admins here are "not american". Five of the moderators are not american. That makes 7 Europeans and 6 Americans. That was a completely unjustified accusation, much like the rest of your post.

Oh, and his computer happened to get "wiped out" inexplicably right before he was going to post it.

You didn't hurt anyone. Don't get your feelings hurt. We don't exist so you can take out your personal beef with the first law of thermodynamics on the forums.

I question why you're here asking for directions. If you need this because of a medical condition, you would have been taught how to do this at home by your physician or health-care provider.

Hrm, someone else has complained abotu this. Try the "remember me" check and see what happens. If that doesn't work, let us know.