Radical Edward

the right to life ends at birth.

lemmings was the best thing that psygnosis ever produced. It was 1337.

well General Relativity would say a singularity, but GR is wrong anyway.

I agree with him though. Creationism, and specifically young earth creationism have been falsified countless times by countless different discoplines, from taxonomy, to paleantology, geology, and cosmology. Numerous examples have been carried out to show that the formation of cells is completely possible naturally (you can do it in the kirchen using simple household items) and these cells have many of the characteristics of normal cells. (granted there is no DNA in them) It is mathematically demonstrable that if there is death, there is an increase in information. ERVs (Endogenous Retroviruses) and HERVs in the genomes of numerous animals show common ancestry. Ana analysis of human and chimp chromosomes shows common ancestry, the list goes on and on. It is difficult to believe that, given the overwhelming amount of evidence, that people would still believe in creationism. Furthermore creationism causes a huge theological problem as well: it makes God out to be a liar.

it has two forces on it, but no acceleration.

so everything is being accelerated all the time then?

but a=dv/dt .... dv/dt=0 so we have a discrepancy. who is right?

there are a number of barriers between species 1) premating (i.e. they won't mate) 2) postmating (they will but it doesn't work, different mating behavious 3)prezygotic: the gametes don't fuse 4)postzygotic: the offspring doesn't form properly or is sterile. so speciation can form through a number of methods, though as has been pointed out, the strict separation is when they can no longer breed and produce (fertile) offspring. Different species are generally chopped up from their common ancestor either by geography, or through adaption to different niches in the same geographical area. The speciation then occurs either through an accumulation of mutations (either DNA or chromosomal differences), or behavioural changes required to adapt to that environment. you missed one sort of speciation though, and that is when new species are formed through hybridization of two parent 'species'.

1) we won't change much. there are almost no evolutionary pressures on humans now. If anything we will devolve because of poor genetic selection. 2)the "humans only use 15% of their brains" is an urban myth spread by people who only use 15% of their brains. the rest of use use 100% of our brains. this can be demonstrated by the fact that trauma surgeons when dealing with bullets to the brain never say "fortunately you were only shot in the 85% of your brain that you don't use" 3)this does not account for human tinkering, which will be the big genetic driving force in a few years time.

You're asking what is the first cause... Right now there are at least 5 possible candidates for First Cause to get the universe. They are, in no particular order: 1. Logical and mathematical necessity. The equations and laws of the universe are so compelling that they forced the formation of a universe for them to describe. 2. Deity. A God or Gods created the universe. 3. Quantum fluctuation. Events at the quantum level are uncaused. The universe is a huge quantum event. 4. No Boundary. This is a proposal by Stephen Hawking and updated with Turok. If all the dimensions of the universe were the same shortly after the Big Bang, you get a universe that doesn't have a beginning and therefore was never "created". It just IS. 5. Ekpyrotic. This is a variation of #3. The universe is the result of a random collision between two quantum membranes in 11 dimensions.

yeah, it is changing it's velocity from +v to -v acceleration is a change in velocity dude.

of course it is accelerating when it is at zero velocity, it's just derivitives and stuff.

first catch a muon.....

yes, there will be some low level radiation produced, but nowhere near as bad as fission.

could it be something to do with tools? I dunno much about ancient tools really. I suppose it also depends on how small the human population got.

it produces gamma radiation yes, but it is not like fission in that it produces alot of long lived waste.

teh pretteh piccies!

I think what we have here is a case of Einsteins Gulf - the gulf separating our abstract model of the universe from the physical reality itself. in order to model the universe it is essential for us to rely on a mathematical structure (unless someone discovers something better than maths). However this does leave with it various artefacts which may or may not exist in the physical world. the "half" has been brought up.... one can mathematically imagine "half" a fundamental particle, or even half a particle like a proton, but no such thing actually exists. when considering the mathematics of a situation we must always be careful to also consider the physical principles that underly the model, blind faith in the maths alone is likely to lead to error.

it only appears to slow down: the reason it takes longer to get through the glass is because the individual photon is interacting with the material, which takes time to react. this gives the appearance of it going slower, while no individual photon ever travels at less than c.

this is not true. when we talk about light in a vacuum, we are using light as an umbrella term to encompass all electromagnetic radiation. furthermore, the white light comment is not correct, since white light is nothing more than a collection of many monochromatic photons of different colour. white light does not exist as such, it is simply an equal amount of all colours.

the velocity of electromagnetic radiation is a property, dependent, in a vacuum, on the permittivity and permeability of free space only. the energy of a photon, unlike with massive particles, depends only on the frequency of the photon, unlike with say, a proton, in which the energy can also be kinetic.

non euclidean space. and whut?

I am involved in a bit of a discussion with someone about the corpus callosum, and the effects of severing it (commissurotomy). The thing is I don't really know much about it, does anyone know of any good articles or studies that I can find. I have looked around on the internet a bit, but I can't easily find anything of interest or any detailed studies on psychological effects. the main focus of the discussion is if the two brains become two quasi-seperate people or not.

tear? centre? there isn't a centre, and what is there to tear? the closest to tear that I have seen is a thought that the universe separates into a kind of foam as a result of expansion exceeding c. I don't remember it very clearly though.

electrons are a very very good proof that his theory is correct, if he was wrong, then there would not be electron shells in atoms. This is but one example. To be honest I doubt you even know enough about quantum mechanics and the Dirac equation to even make a judgement in this matter.