Edtharan

Yes, we are not denying that such an act would not be devistaing, we are saying that it would not be an End of the World scenario. It might (likely) cause a major econimic depression, but it would not destroy society. We would rebuild (I estimatre around 5 to 10 years).

What about Cathode rays? Do you like that term? We use Cathode rays a lot. In CRT Monitors (and TVs) they use Cathode Rays (Hence the name Cathode Ray Tube). But what are cathode rays? They are... ...electrons Yes, what you have specifically labeled as a "Particle" is also labled as a "Ray". So the "label" is realy just a language convention and not really describing what they are. So Gamma Rays could also be called Gamma Particles (High energy Photons). In fact, under QM all matter and force carrying particles (like phonots) becave both as Waves (rays) and Particles. The two slit experiment deomstrates this. Particles will not interfere with each other, but waves will (it is a fundamental property of waves). Both Light and Electrons (also protons, neutrons and even molecules) also show this interference pattern of waves. But the detector at the end only records a single point of impact (rather than a wave front). So this experiment demonstrate that they are all waves (interference) and demonstrates that they are particles (single point impacts). Calling them a "Particle" or a "Wave" (Ray) is a linguistic convention when dealing with that aspect of the objects behaviour. They are all neither particle or wave. They are something that we, as of yet, don't really have a word for (I propose "Wavicle" ). Well it might be that all particles are just variations on a single fundimental particle, but we don't really know yet (or even if that is possible). Again, this is down to convention. We need a way to seperate the differnet behaviours of particles. Neutrons have a different mass and electric charge to a proton or electron, so we call it a different particle. Actually, a Proton and Neutron are made up of multiple partices (as has been stated eariler) and the ratios of them are different (2 Up and 1 Down as compared to 1 Up and 2 Down). Lets look at it another way: An atom is made up of multiple "particles" (Protons, Electrons and Neutrons). If we have a different configuration of particles (more or less of one type of particle in the atom), then we call it a differnet type of atom. We can have Hydrogen, Oxygen, Radium, etc. They behave differently and have different properties (mass, valency, etc). You would not call a Hydrogen atom the same as a Carbon atom, even though it is made up of exactly the same types of particles, just in different ratios and amounts. This is the same for a neutron and proton. Think about it.

Hmm... So if I walk through this door I might just destructivly interfere with my self and cease to exis...

Flawless logic, based on incorrect data will give you a wrong answer. The aincent greeks used to think that they could answer any question about the nature of the world (Universe) simply by using logic and without resorting to actual observations. They invented what we call logic, and their logic was very good. But, to put it simply: They got a lot of things wrong . Take arrows and tortises. By the time an arrow has move half the distance to the tortise, the tortise will have moved on a bit. Then the arrow covers half that distance left, and the tortise moves on a bit more. If you keep breaking the distance to the tortise in hlaf, then the tortise will have alwaysed moved on a bit more which menas that arrow can never hit the tortise . But observation says otherwise. We have flawless logic, but observation disagrees. Actually, there is a branch of logic that can give us an answer that matches observation it is called Calculus. So, the lesson here is, no matter how flawless you logic is, if it dissagrees with observation, then the logic is wrong and can usually be attributed to incorrect assumptions or application of the logic. Oh, and sorry to hear about your shoulder injury. I also have a shoulder injury so I can sympathise with you about how disruptive they can be to your life. Mine was a pretty bad injury (I dislocated it in the worst way possible, the shoulder was under strain and the muscles were tightened) and I now have permenent damage (it partially dislocates - subluxes - several times a day dispite having 6 opperations on it). I hope yours gets better soon.

The simple answer is Gravity. The further away an object is from another, the lower the strength that the gravity is between them. So if the acceleration due to this gravitational attraction is less than the expansion rate between the objects, then they will move apart. However, if the acceleration due to gravity is greater than the rate of expansion between the objects, then they will move together. Here is an experiemnt: 1) Get together a lot of blocks of around the same size (lego blocks wou8ld be good for this). 2) Start with 10 blocks in a row (like this ABCDEFGHIJ) 3) Place 3 blocks (1, 2 and 3), the first on top of A, the Second on G and the last on J. 4) You will need to repeat these next steps in sequence to perform the experiment 4a) Place a block between every two blocks: eg if you have ABC then you will place blocks (Y and Z) like this: AYBZC). DO this for all blocks 4b) Move the block "1" 4 blocks along the line towards block "J" 4c) Move the block "2" 4 blocks along the line towards block "J" Notice that even though both blocks "1" and "2" are moving the same speed, only block "2" will ever reach block "J". Block "1" will be moving along, but the distance between it and block "j" will actually get bigger. Adding in the blocks is like the expansion of space (it is not the same, it is just an simple analogy - don't take it too far). The movemnt of the blocks "1" and "2" is like the movments of the galaxies. If a galaxy is near enough and moving fast enough then it will eventually reach us, if it is too far away or moving too slowly, then it will never reach us. As an extra exploration: What occurs if you start a Block on "F" and only move it 4 palces towards "J". Will it ever reach "J", will it get further away from "J" or will it do something else?

Actually you can take it that far. What is above the surface of the balloon is the future, and what is below is the past. As I stated in the preamble, the radius of the balloon represents Time (you did read my post didn't you ). Yes, I even mentioned this in the preamble to the analogy. Yes, this would be better, but the dips, if scaled to the size of a balloon would not even be as big as the variations in the rubber of an actual balloon, let alone a strawberry. Also, the universe might not be spherical like a balloon, it might have some other, more complex shape (doughnut, knot, dodecahedron, etc). Actually something that I just read a few days ago (in new scientist) could indicate that the universe might just be dodecahedron shaped .

There might be a knee jerk reaction, but I doubt that an all out retalitory strike would be ordered straight away. First off, how would they know which country was the one that launched the attack? There are enough missile tracking systems (both ground based and orbital) that they would likely pick up an incoming missiles. Secondly, not many countries have a missile system in place that would be able to launch long ranged strikes anyway. So, they could not just launch a retalitory strike becuase they would have absolutly (until whoever did it owned up or intelligence was able to determin who) no idea who launched the attack. Untill they know this, how could they order a strike at the perpetrators? Yes, it would have a massive impact on a single country, but we live in a big world. Let's just say they took out to top 90 major cities in the world. Well, for one, most of the major cities are larger than the destructive radius of these weapons, so they wouldn't take out the city entiery. But they could do enough damage (and from fall out) that the cities would have to be abandoned. A lot of people would have to be evacuated. Yes, it would ahve a really big impact if the top 90 cities of a single country were obliterated like this, it would (almost definitly) ruin the country. But, if only 2 or 3 cities were attacked like this, then the logistical problem would only be as bad as 2 or 3 Hurrican Katrinas. Most countries could survive that. Sure, there would be a lot of disruption and the tradgedy of all those lives lost, but it would not be an "End of the World" scenario. There would be mass migration from these locations. Governments would have to step in, maybe martial law, etc. It would be a logistics nightmare, but it could be handeled (but at a high cost). Remember, we are talking about and "End of the World" scenario here, so in light of that, loosing a few cities in a single country is not that big a problem in the grand scheme of things. 90 Nukes are enough to bring down a country (or two), but 90 Nukes are not enough to trigger an "End of the World" scenario. Deja vus occure because of a glitch in the brain. We actually "see" the world about 1/3rd of a second after it occures. However, in an emergency (like nearly getting run over by a car, or chased by lions), the brain has a "short cut" circuit that dumps the information from our senses straight into the processing of the brain. This information is, in terms of cameras, like a CCTV image. It is not very clear (esentially we haven't done any processing on it that allows us to specifically identify objects and such, just edges and basic geometry). Our brains can act on this emergency information and take actions to save ourselves. However, sometimes this circuit glitches and we get this "Emergency Information" (even when ther eis no emergency) along with the processed information that we normally get. So we end up with two coppies of the same event with one ariving unclear and earlier than the other. Because the first one is unclear and we have a memory of it (which might not even be a concious memory) we think we have encountered that situation before (and in a way we have, it was just delivered by a fast and dirty route). As we can't place the unconcious memory of the event (from the emergency information path) at a specific time, we assume that it came from a time long in our past (20 years?). Our memory is also not like a computer memory, it does not store it like a video of an event, but it is fluid and changeable. Imagine it like a move, but each time you view the movie it has to be rerecoreded as you watch it. The very act of remembering an event re-encodes it into our memory. It is possible to use this to crate a completly false memory. A study I heard of put the memory of hugging Bugs Bunny on a visit to Disney Land. This would have been impossible as Bugs Bunny is not Intelectual Property of Disney Land (it's Warner Bros.) . When you try to remember when you initially had the "vision" of the deja vu, you go back through your memories which causes them to be re-encoded and the "Memory" of the event gets put into it. Deja Vus have been completly demystified due to Functional Megnetic Reasonance Imaging of the Human brain. Sorr, Deja Vu is not prophecy, it is simply a glitch in the brain that hijacks our emergency response circuits.

The answer is Gravity. Gravity attracts nearby matter into clumps. well it attracts all matter, but with the expansion vs Gravity gravity will only overcome the expansion on the nearby/galaxy cluster scale. Gravity and Turbulance will do the rest (individual galaxies, stars, planets, etc). Nope, not really. It has been explained for some time. If such a big mistake existed, then the theory would not have been accepted as it would not have been able to explain known observed phenomina (galaxies and planets). Nope. It wasn't a "Broth" it was a singularity. A "Broth" will have a spatial extent at the very least. One way that the energy could have come to create the Universe is from a breakage of symetry. Namly that a 0 Dimensional point (and therefore a perfect symetry) broke down and an asymetry formed (dimensions). Symetry breaking is a known mathematical effect. No, it is not just "assumed". Observation of how light is bent over large distances and the rate of expansion give a ratio of matter to expansion that result in a flat Universe to the accuracy of our observations. However, there is enough innaccuracy in the observations that it could be a closed, expanding or flat universe. The observation of luminous matter (that is the stuff we can see in telescopes or radio telescopes) is far less than what is needed to have the expansion rate we have today. This is why astronomers have proposed Dark Matter (get it: it's Dark because we can not see it, not because it is some strange exotic thing). However, at the Big Bang there was no vacuum. There was only a singularity. For there to be a vacuum there has to be space and at the Big Bang there was no space. How ever, the uncertanty principle can produce some interesting results when you get down to the Plank Length (1.6 × 10^−35 metres) and the Plank Time (the time it takes light to travel 1 plank length). At these scales cause and effect can swap around. That is something can occure before the event that causes it. Let's just think about this a bit. If a effect can occure before the event that causes it, then the Universe could appear before the quantum event that cuases it. In effect the Universe can cause its self to come into existance. This fits with what we know of physics. But... It might not have been the way it really occurred. However, the important thing is that it might have occurred this way. That there is a feasable (as far as we know) method of creating the Universe. In fact there are several possibilities and it is this that is what is ment by "We don't know how the Universe formed". Actually, "immediately annihilated by a cloud of smaller negative particles coming in from every direction" is not true. When you create a particle, either through smahing other particles (eg: gamma ray photons) or through vacuum fluctuations, they are always created as a pair, one Matter particle and the other its Antimatter equivelent. As one has a Positive electrical charge and the other has a Negative electrical charge, they will then attract each other. There is no "cloud" of negative particles, the single "Negative" particle is created along with the single "Positive" particle. Ok, so other than being infinitly small, what other properties did this particle have? Was it electrically charged? Did it have mass? Did it have Spin? You can't just make up a particle out of the blue like that. Although it might seem that scientists seem to make up particles to fit their latests theory, they actually don't just crteate them out of the blue. There is a whole set of theories that govern what particles can actually exist and what their properties are. So, if you are preposing an infinitely small particle, then you have to show how that fits into the current particle models, either that it exists within them, or show how they are wrong and that your new particle theory give you the properties of all known particles and allows for your new particle to exist too. That is a tall order, but one that has to be fullfilled if your Universe creation theory is to even be considdered. As I have said, there doesn't exist a "Cloud" of partices that will annihilate the original. There will be a single antiparticle for each particle created. Allright, I'm going to stop here. You have already demonstrated a lack of understanding of Particle production, and since your entire theory is based on this, it really means that you need to go back and have a look at your theory with the correct understanding.

No. Where on the surface of the balloon is the centre? Yes, the Universe has a 4+D centre, we call that the Singularity at the Big Bang. But as a 3D position (that is the surface of the balloon) there is no centre. This is where you are getting confused. You are getting confused between the Balloon begin a 3 D objects in a 4+D Universe, and the fact that the analogy has to drop some dimensions (that the 4+d is now a 3D model). I did try to explain this in the post.

Yes, it should give us a majority of Blue Shifts as at least half the Universe will be comeing towards us (on the other side of the central point) and the galaxies near us should be roughly equal blue and red shifted.

Yes, but if evolution only worked on the genes, then the workers can not pass on their genes, so why did they evolve sterility. It is not for their benifit (and they would have mutations that might make them more fit than the queen), so why did they evolve away the ability to breed? The breeding bees do not have the exact same genetic code as the workers, so they are not necessarily promoting their specific genes. If evolution does not only work on the level of the genes, then such a situation makes more sense as it is a benifit of the group (and the similar genes in the group).

Ok, here it is in a really simple experiemnt that you can do at home: 1) Get 3 people. 2) Get person A to stand next to person B and Person C to stand on the other side of B (Like this: ABC). 3) Have person A and person C walk away form person B at the same speed (walking speed). 4) Have them walk for 13.7 seconds and then stop. How far away is person C from person A? If the "Universe" of the 3 people is only 13.7 seconds old, howcome Person C is 27.4 walking seconds way from person A? Get it now. You can have something that is further than 13.7 billion light years from another point in a universe that is only 13.7 billion years old.

Ok, I'll explain it for you: The size of the Universe is not necessarily related to the age of the Universe. Get it. However, the size of the visible Universe is dependent on the age of the Universe. The size of the Visible Universe is dependant on how long the light has been traveling. As we can see 13.7 billion lightyears, then the time that the visible Universe (since it was transperent to electromagnetic radiation) must therefore be 13.7 billion years. The Universe could be older, but it would have had to be opaque to EM radiation, or we would be able to see out that far as well. If the Universe was Opaque to EM radiation 13.7 billion years ago, we have to ask ourselves "Why?" and look for evidence to support the answers we come up with (and more importantly look for evidence that might disprove our answer). According to all the evidence, the Universe was smaller 13.7 billion years ago and expanded (and still is). If we follow the rate of expansion shown by the evidence, and take it back to the 13.7 billion year (and a little beyond) we get to a point where everything was at a single point (singularity). So wew have a singularity and then it expanded. Sounds like the Big Bang to me.

It would be better stated that the Big Bang occured everywhere in this Universe. There are other theories (brane theory) that allow for co-ordinate systems outside this Universe, but even then the Big Bang occured everywhere in this Universe dispite the co-ordinate system outside our Universe. Now a Balloon is not necessarily a good analogy, but I will use it if you remember that it is only an analogy and so pushing it too far will break it. Think about a balloon that has 0 radius. This is the singularity. If you were to find the surface area of the balloon at this point it would also be 0. For this example, the surface of the balloon is supposed to represent 3 dimensional space and the size of the balloon (how inflated it is) is to represent Time (4th dimension). SO at this point, the size of 3D space (the surface area of the balloon is 0: There is no space. And the radius of the balloon is also 0: There is no Time. So at this point ther is no time or space and we have a singularity. Now we start inflating the balloon. In the real universe this would have been an injection of energy (which could be cuased by a breaking of a symetry or maybe a different phenomena - this is where a lot of the differnet theories of the big bang differ and what a lot of research about the BB is occuring around this too). As sson as the balloon starts to inflate, we no longer have a singulatiry. Also, the balloon now has a radius (Time) and therefore a surface area (Space). Now, at what point on the surface of the balloon was the balloon a singularity? Answer: Everywhere. What existed before the singularity? Answer: As time is the radius of the balloon, then there was no "Before" as this would mean that the balloon had a negative radius. I hope that helps your understanding.

This doesn't fully explain things though. Social insects produce sterile offspring that don't pass on their genes, and these provide for the colony. How could such a thing evolve if evolution only worked at the level of the individual.

This doesn't disprove the Big Bang (Expansion theory). According to what we know of physics, Matter can't move through space faster than the speed of light (if it starts from a speed less than the speed of light). But this says nothing about how fast space can expand (and carry matter along with it). During the early universe (according to the expansion model), the Universe whent through a rapid expansion phase. In this phase the size of the universe could have expanded faster than the speed of light. The results of this would be that although light onbly extends the 13.7 billion years (as that is how far it has been able to travel since the BB), space would extend far beyond that. So, according to what we know of physics, this scenario that you have described is perfectly valid and does not disprove the Big Bang. Just because you are having trouble understanding something does not mean it is wrong. Just because any doesn't understand something fully does not mean it is wrong. If completel understanding is the criteria for correctness, then according to that "logic": Relitivity is wrong. Scientists do not fully understand relitivity. And as complete understanding seem to be your criteria for something to be correct, then accoring to that, it must therefore be wrong. To illustrate this point further: What is 1+1? You should have an answer of 2. But do you understand why? Can you explain why? Do you understand all aspects mathematics? If you don't then you don't have a complete understanding and thereofre according to your criteria it must then be wrong. Understanding is not necessary for something to be correct. So, just because you don't understand the BB, does not make it incorrect. The Balloon and Raisin loaf anaolgies are just that: Analogies. The Universe is 4+ dimensions (3+ dimensional surface and 1 of time). The balloon and raisin loaf analogies are a 2 dimensional surface with time. So we have had to simiplify them by at least 1 dimension, and make it out of a different "Stuff" than the universe. So, if you are basing your distase for these analogies based on the fact that they are not exact models of the BB process, then rethink your problems with them and take into account that they are not ment to be exactly the same as the BB. To better correct the Balloon and Raisin loaf analogies, you have to allow the raisins in the loaf or the dots on the balloon to be able to move. If nearby dots could attract each other (gravity) and therefore move towards each other, then you will get some dots mvoing towards each other but the majority moving away from each other. In fact you can take it further, you should only see nearby dots moving towards each other (with an occasional distant one if it has been gravitationally accellerated fast enough). Gess what, this is exactly what telescopic observations have shown. So, thereofre the evidence that we have exactly matches what is predicted by the Expansion (Big Bang) theory. Fo rthe Universe to be spinning, we should see most of the nearby galaxies moving in the same direction, so only their local speeds would give a red shift/blue shift and if we assume that we are average (that is there are some faster and some slower moving galaxies), then we should see a similar amount of red and blue shift in nearby galaxies). This is prety much the same as what is predicted by the BB theory and the observations are about the same. However, the difference occurs when you look at longer distances. If the galaxies of the universe have a Net rotation, then we know that half the distant galaxies would be moving towards us (blue shifted), and the other half should be traveling at roughly the same speed (as we would be moving along with them) and be half blue shifted and half red shifted (however, many would have a red/blue shift so small that it would be undetectable as they would be moving nearly the same speed as us). So, if we were living in a rotating universe, we should see more blue shifted galaxies as galaxies on the other side of the point we are rotating about would be coming towards us, and the galaxies on our side of the centre point would be moving at roughtly the same speed as us. But, observations give an overwhelmingly Red shifted Universe. So, this disproves your theory completely and it fits exactly with the prediction of the Big Bang. Even though you might not understand the Big Bang, observations disprove your thewory and provide support for the Big Bang theory.

Here is one: Sex A fertilizes Sex B, and Sex C can gestate the offspiring after being transfered from Sex B. Or Sex C recieves the Sperm from Sex A and the Egg from Sex B and allows them to combine. There are "similar" scenarios here on Earth, although with only 2 sexes. Seahorses have a male and female sexes. However, they fertilise the eggs outside their bodies, but then the male then sticks the egs onto him and allows them to develop on him. If instead of having them stick to the male, a 3rd but otherwise sterile Sex could replace the male in this. Also, in the Gastric Brooding frog, the male takes up the fertilised eggs and allows them to develop and hatch in his mouth. If the environment was quite hazerdous for developing eggs, then it could be possible that a 3rd Sex develops to act as an incubator for the offspring. So, yes I think it would be possible for a 3 sex organism to evolve, but it would unlikely evolve from the reproduction systems that exist in animals (and plants) here on Earth.

Umm, but we are here and it is 2008. So the world could not have ended, therefore it is completely wrong. And so why didn't Mother Shipton not just write exactly what you just wrote? It is about the same length and your passage would have given people enough information to avoid WWI. If that was what she saw, then why didn't she just write that?

I don't think it will violate thermodynamics, but it might on the local scales (by not being in a closed system). In each case you will find that there is some outside source of energy driving the system (like harvesting sound will have it's source in whatever created the sound). There is a lot of "free" energy out there like that, but it is not created from nothing (and it is hard to get at). I have had a look at terra preta and it does look promising. However, as good as it looks, I would like to see a large scale study done for it's feasability and cost effectivness (sometimes when you scale up a process it does not necessarily mean that it will still be feasable). There are other energy storage mediums that can be used with solar other than Hydrogen (Iron nano particles IIRC) and can be stored and transported more safely. However, using solar and storing it in a medium will reduce the efficiency of the process and make it more expensive. Currently Solar is not efficent enough to be cost effective (but as oil prices rise and solar cels become more efficient this will - hopefully - be remidied). I fully agree. However: I once came up with a design for a Energy generation device as part of a lunch time discussion at my work. Although I believe that it should not work, I have not been able to find anyone that can say why it shouldn't work (other than hte fact that it seem to violate thermodynamics). It is pretty simple (but microscopic): there are two conductive plates slightly curved and placed in a V shape (but not touching). This is placed in a uniform magnetic field perpendicular to the two plates. That is, if the letter V represents the two plates, the filed would be coming out/going into the page. How it is supposed to work is that due to the uncertanty principle, you will occasioanlly get a particle pair production from the vacuum. In this case an Electron and a Positron. And these will have some momentum. Due to the magnetic field and the fact that theya re moving, these particle will curve. If the particles are moving towards the narrow point of the V, then they will curve and encounter the plates. If the are moving towards the wide part of the V shpoe, then the curve of the plates is designed so that they will not be able to curve far enough before moviug too far away form the plates (you might have a conductive barrier to capture these unwanted paricles) before they energy has to be "accounted" for and the particles disappear into the vacuum again. The positrons can aniahlate with the electrons in the conductive plate, and this will zero out the uncertainy sums (this won't release energy, but it will allow for the vacuum energy to be accounted for and returned). However, this will create a loos of electron on that plate, giving it a positive charge. On the other plate, the electrons, now that the vacuum fluctuation has been accounted for (and in a similar way to the teleportation effects on quantum systems), will become "real" electrons. This would be in a similar way as to how Hawking radiation works. This second plate would be accumulating electrons and so get a negative charge. One plate has a negative charge and the other has a positive charge. This potential difference can then be used to do work. But other than the initial construction, no energy has been put into the system. This shouldn't work, but why? (and if it does work, then ).

But I did ask for then to be unambigious. And if a carriage that royalty/leading party had been in had come loose (because it was sabotaged) and ran out of control, then one could easily point ot that as "A carriage without horse will go" and the deaths might have sparked a war "Disaster fill the world with woe." This is the reason that (bad) poetry is such a problem. Who ever wrote that one was still using symobolism. Actually Arthur C Clarck, George Orwell and all those other sci-fi writers were probably just as acurate. Are they prophets (or were they in it for the profit )? However, a quick read of the wikipedia article came up with something very interesting: IF you read to the end of the "prophecy" that you have been quoting the last two lines read: "The world to an end shall come, In eighteen hundred and eighty one." Whoops, I think we might have mised the end of the world guys...

There exists magnetic fields in space. Charged particles interacting with these fields will produce a specific type of effect (polarization of photons) that can be detected here on Earth. Rotating magnetic fields (which would occur if all the galaxies were in orbit) would produce a very specific and identifyable signature in the photon polarization. Looking at the photons from the CMBR, it show no such signature. Therefore we can categorically rule out any mass organised rotation of the galaxies. This observation completely disproves your hypothisis. So, if you are going to claim that you are basing your hypothisis on observation, you seem to be either ignorant of these observation (not in posetion of the completel facts) or are deliberatly cherry picking your data and ignoring the observations that contradict your hypothisis. Even if the Big Bang was shown to be incorrect, it does not mean that your theory has to be correct. So just disproving the BB is not enough to make us accept your theory. So even if the Emperor is Naked, it does not mean that you are necesarily correct. This is why so many people here are asking for you to provide evidence for your theory. They seem to be willing to entertain the idea that the Big Bang might not be correct, but as you have then not provided that your hypothisis is any more valid than any one of many other alternative hypothisis that have been put forward over histrory. Even if the Big Bang is incorrect, you have provided no more evidence for us to accept your theory, than the theory that the universe was made acording to the Norse religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norse_mythology). Just because you prove something wrong, does not make you right.

:D Why is prophacy always written in (bad) poety? Why can't they just come out and write in a normal sentence structure? Or maybe that is the secret. If you write in metaphors and symbolism, then it can be interpereted as anything the reader likes, and so you can get away with the occasional (or not so occasional) mistakes in your prophacy. I know the counter arguments to this, that people from long ago would not know the objects that we see around them today, but really, how hard is it to describe something like an areoplane while not using poetry and in a way that is unambigiuos: A large metalic cylinder that flies like a bird wihtout flapping its wings that people use to move quickly throug the air. If just 1 prophet had written something like that then there would be no debate over their prophacy. Are these prophets so stupid that they could not even write down a physical description of what they saw without using all the metaphors and other flowery language? All that would be needed is 1 unambigious description of a modern object from one of these prophets and they would be taken much more seriously. However, I have never heard of a single case where a single unambigious descrition of a modern object has been made by a prophet. Even many modern prophacies seem to follow this flowery language (as if it somehow gives validity to the prophacy if it is written obscurely) for objects that the prophet would be familiar with ( ). If these prophets are able to see the future, and do so for a lot of their lives, then they would become familiar with the objects that they see. They would be able to give a decent description of them (even if it is just a physical description rather than a functional description - but they should be able to give a basic functional description). They may not be able to give the exact same name that we use in the description, but so many objects have their name based on its looks or function (or written on it if the prophet doesn't get sound with their visions) that they should be able to get close to the name from a description. For exampel: The Horseless Carriage = Car. When the Car first came out, it was sometimes refered toa s a Horseless Carriage, why could a 15th century prophet (ie: Mother Shipton), not be able to come up with a description of a car the same or similar to that?

Actually, it is not that hard: 1) Count the number of days that it takes the moon to go from Full through New back to Full (why full? it is easier to see than a New moon). 2) Count the number of Moon cycles that occur between the same points in a year (as measured by the position of Sun rise/set/midday/etc as it passes a specific line (between two points like a mountain range or two stones carved and placed in the ground). 3) Work out the ratio that brings the moon cycle back into sync with the Solar cycle. Boom, one calender. This also explains why so many different calenders seem to have their cycles end on the same year. By using a New Moon and significant events (solsitces/equinoxes) it is easier to judge these times and so eliminate the errors in comunicating the mechanics of determining the calenders. Because there are not many significant events that can be used to mark a calender, and the purposes of calenders were generally used for determining times for farming. This limits the likely events used for determining the syncronising of the calanders and so even remote cultures will likely pick the events that determine the same cycle lengths. It is not "simple" but it is not nearly as complex as you seem to think it is. So: Why is 2012 a common end date for calenders? Because the combinations Planting and Harvest times of the year dictate that the selected significant solar events will likely be matched across any farming cultures and that the New Moon is an atractive marker for determining the length of a Month (which is where we get the word Month from: Moon=Moons=Month). Well when a Mummy and a Daddy love each other very much... Seroiusly, Although I do not know exactly how life was started, I do know that it can start without any divine aid at all. The reason I don't know exactly how life was started is that there are so many different ways that it can get started without divine aid. If I just gave you the number 1004 can you tell me exactly what sum I used to calculate that number? No. Just like there are many ways that I could have calculated the number 1004, there are many ways that life could have got started without divine aid (and if you though that I got the number 1004 by dividing the current year2008 by 2, then you would be wrong - I got it by multiplying 251 by 4). The most likely method is that the chemicals in the Earth's early atmosphere and oceans were bombarded by ultraviolet radiation (no ozone in the atmosphere) which cause the chemicals to break apart randomly and then rejoin randomly. This would create more complex chemicals and eventually one was able to self catalise (that is the presence of that chemical, in the environment of the time was able to encourage more chemicals to form like it rather than as somehting else). Any variations of the chemical that would catalise faster would lead to more chemicals like it. Eventually, this could extend to a chemical that could break apart other chemicals (catalyes their break down) and so it would activly be promoting it's own "replication" (destroying other types and creating it's own type). At this poitn these chemicals would not be DNA or RNA, and mich be Amino acids chains (proteins?) or something else entierly. Even whether or not they are "Alive" at this point would be highly debateable, but the main point is that they are activly eliminating different chemcials and creating from these remains similar chemicals. As more and more of these chemcials develop, then any variation that gives one an advantage over another will promote that chemical over the others. It might be resistance to being broken down, the ability to break down others, resistance to damage, self repair, reproduction speed, or any of millions of other things. And as this goes on they will become more and more complex, and will require energy and use that energy. At no point will there be a "Spark" that chnges these chemicals from just being a complex chemical reaction to "living" organisms. It is human nature to try to assign a single point in time as the point where life "Began", but just because we want ther eto be such a point, does not mean that the Universe has to provide one. If you want me to put it a more religious language: Humans are not God therefore why should the way humans think determine how the universe (that you claim that God made) behaves? To say that there was a moment that where life "began" is claiming that you have the power of God. Go take some biology classes. All our bodies functions can be described through chemistry and physics. The elan vital (which you have been hinting at) has long ago been utterly disproved. IF you even attempt to go down this path of argument you will be very quickly have your arguments shot down. Well over time those chemicals (that I taked about earlier) became complex enough to requier protection and regulation constructs (cells). Then over time these developed cooperation and then division of labour. Remember, these higher concepts are our own attitudes (and remember my warning about not useing our thoughts as determineg how the universe works as it is not only not supported by science, it is also not supported by religion), and can only be taken as an analogy to what went on. You would not have had single celled organisms saying: "Ok mates, we need to organise a committy on this". This can all be achieved through mutations to the basic chemicals (DNA in this case). As multicelled organisms developed,and their cells specialised in a particular funtion, more and more complexity was added to the organisms and eventually they develoepd movment (legs) and protections (skin/shells/etc). As each solution created problems for others, and each problem forced others to evolve a solution to it, this created a feedback loop that eventually lead to all the life forms you see around you today (and these organisms are also locked into that feedback loop along with humans too). Insects are only one (but a varied and sucessful one) solution to come out of that feedback loop. And look, no God needed. Well a Bee is not only called a bee. Depending on the Language that you learn a Bee can be called many different things. If you are wondering how the Word Bee came to be (no pun intended) in English, then you will have to do some research (the branch of studdy is called: etymology). Because they are the organs that evolved to process the chemicals needed to maintain me or to coodinate the various cells of my body. Because that is what they evolved to do. If our eyese were for hearing, then we probably would have called them Ears. :doh: :doh: Ok. You are definitly on a very shaky ground as far as arguments go. You are using the "God of the Gaps" arguments. Not only does this violate the religious beliefs (one of the 10 commandments states: You will not take the name of God in vain (and what can be more vain that claiming you know how God did something) it is also bad reasoning as if any of the things you claim that God did is demonstrated to not have been God, then you either have enabled the complete disproof of God or are using a Logical falacy. Think of it like this: If I said that Unicorns Exist, but they are really good at hiding, then no matter how many time you look for them and not find them you can not claim that I am wrong. However, if I claim that Unicons don't exist, then the very first Unicorn found disproves me and provides proof that Unicorns really do exist. The God of the gaps argument is the same as "Unicons exist but are really good at hiding". By claimong that God created life, and then when we finally know that life developed on it's own without divine aid you switch your argument to somehting else, it is exactly the same as if you tried to disprove the claim that Unicorns exist by looking for them and then I counter claim by saying that they just weren't where you were looking. Ok what is belief? You believe one thing and I believe another. If belief is not based on any evidence or even rational argument (god of the gaps is not a rational arguemnt), then how can we determine who's belif is correct. Imagine this scenario: There are two people Adam and Bill and they are arguming over who own a house. Adam believes that the house is His and thererfore Bill should move out. However Bill believes that the house is his and that Adam should move out. Who is correct? Ok lets look at this in another scenario: Adam says that his religion is the correct one and that Bill should convert. However, Bill says that his religion is the correct oen and that Adam should convert. Who should convert? Get it. Beliefe is not good enough. If people can have different beliefs, then just claiming that because one should be a believer and so you must convert to my religion is rather a stupid argument becasue someone else can come up to you and use the exact same argument to say that you should convert to their religion. If I must become a believer, why shoud I believe in the same things as you? What is my belief is that God does not exist? I would be a "believer" as you claim I should be, but I just happen to believe in something that is different to you. So I put it to you: Become a believer: Believe that God does not exist. I once sort it, but I got disillusioned with it. It provided no answers and did not remove my worries. I am therefore living proof that this argument is completely false. Let us examine this further though. You seem to be promoting the abrahamic God (more specifically the Christian God). What is the properties that is claimed by this God: All powerful (that is there is nothing that is beyind God's ability), All Loving (that is God loves each and every one of us), If you don't believ in God you will be sent to Hell for eternity. So, God is all powerful and can therfore fogive and absolve us of any sin, even the sin of not believing in Him. He also claims to Love us, but just because we don't believe in him for a few years (while we are alive on Earth) he will sentance us to enternal torture. This is not torture with the chance to get rid of our sins (and if it was then god could also create a nicer method - all powerful remember), this is torture for an infinite length of time with no chance of us being released, even if we then change our belief and believ in him. In fact, if we lead a terrible life, killing other people, and generally being completely "evil", but then change our mind and believe in god and ask him for forgiveness (as longas we do this while we are alive), then we can get into Heven. But, if we lead a life helping others, protecting and in all other respects a good christian life, but that our only fault was that we didn't believe in God, then we will be tortured for an infinity. What a great guy, he must really love us. Statistics say otherwise. The same ration of Athiests with cancer rcover as Christians (or other religious believers). So either God does not go out of his way to cure cancer or God does not exist (and so beliefe would not make a difference). Actually, most of here are claiming that the world will not end in 2012. It is though this questioning that I don't beleive in God, that I don't believe the world will end in 2012 and that I rely on science and not belief to determin what the world is like. Have you ever questioned yourself? Have you ever asked Does God really exist? Could the world be the way it is without a need for a God? Is my God the correct God? Could life have started without divine help? Or, Could the Universe have started without divine help?

LOL But does Jesus have improved evasion, that way he would take no damage (role playing joke for those that don't get it). But back on topic: The Myan Calender is cyclic, that is ther eis not end it just restarts from the beginning again. One cycle ends in 2012, but that is not the end of their calender. It is a bit like lookng atour calender and seenig that the last month is December and therefore concluding that the world will end on December 31st because there are no months after that. People think it is special because there are several cycles in the myan calender and all these minicycles all end on that date. But we have the same phenomina in our own calender. We have the cycle of the months as well as the cycle of the days of the week. And in 2005 the cycles of the week matched the ending of the cycles of the moths. December 31st was on a Saturday (Sunday is suppoed to be the First day of the week), the ending of the cycles matched, it must have been the ned of the world! I slept in on that day and so must have missed it . There is nothing special with the Myan calender cycles ending on 2012, just as there was nohting special about our calender cycles ending in 2005.

A Star doesn't necessarily explode like a firecracker. A Star like our Sun will first "expand" and then the outer layers will "puff off". Only in a Nova or Super Nova do stars "Explode". The result of a Star puffing up is that any planet inside the new radius of the star will: first experience a massive amount of heat which can't be disapated (as the outside environment is just as hot - or hotter), this will then cause the planet to melt. Second, because the planet is within a gas envelope (from the star), this will cause drag on the planert and it's orbit will then decay and fall into the star. It will not get "pushed out". Eventually, the planet will become just more heavy element polution in the star.