Sayonara

Except that we would not realise we were "taller", because everything expands at the same rate. So it doesn't rule it out.

I think we may have found the source of all your problems...

You can disagree if you like but that's what you did. The conclusions you seem to come to in that post were: - That I do not seem to "enjoy my own existence & value that immesely", - That I do not "appear to be alarmed by extra-terristial threats to terrestial life including [my] very own", - That I do not "appreciate life". ...none of which are supported by what I said in reply to your question. Absolutely. Unfortunate, inconvenient, really quite annoying - all "yes". Scary? No.

See, you say that, but you're not convincing me you know what the mathematical implications of "infinite" actually are.

Did you even read the article you posted?

Not achievable.

You are drawing conclusions from my response that are not supported by the information it contains.

Not really. Humans are supposed to die, especially when things kill them.

You can't have infinite quantities. It's a contradiction in terms.

Why would we want to do that?

Footballers?

Floppies are fairly prone to damage from magnetic fields, and will usually last no more than 10 years. CDR media is effectively immortal, but that only really refers to the plastic disc. The metal foil layer, in which the data is actually recorded, can degrade in as small a period as 5 years depending on the quality of the disc. CDRs which have the metal foil stuck to the back of the plastic disc can be damaged before they even reach the store shelves. Hard drives are a much more permanent form of storage, but again I'd expect them to be susceptible to magnetic fields (although not to such a large degree). They're also susceptible to damage from mechanical shock, as they use glass plates and delicate electronics. Expect data on a HDD to last at least a decade, assuming it's looked after.

Summary: Yes they do. There's no reason why it shouldn't. Yes it does. Why would it? And? Crap analogies that have no meaning are not a substitute for rational arguments. Nobody claims it came from nowhere. There's a difference between not knowing, and denying. No it doesn't. The laws of conservation only hold true within the universe. "Within" includes the time period for which the universe exists, so energy/matter being created along with the universe is perfectly allowable. There's no requirement for evolution to be guided, nor for it to involve intelligence. If you believe that this is not the case, you do not understand the evolutionary process. If your biology teacher does not believe it either, then he needs to find a job in which his ignorance will be less damaging. Trash doesn't multiply through replication, and therefore can't be selected against. Like I said before, crap and meaningless analogies are no basis for sweeping conclusions like the one you give above. Which is utterly irrelevant. Good question. Which of these seems like the better idea: a) Study and observe the processes which are actually happening now, corrolate them against evidence from the past, derive a hypothesis that builds on prior art, and test that hypothesis, b) Go with the first idea that pops into your head. Creationist web sites say a lot of things. Circular reasoning. No it doesn't. Read up on speciation and divergence. From CREDIBLE SOURCES. No. Again, refer to speciation. As you can see, you do not understand evolution. Come back when you do.

Seriously, if you're going to post URLs to other sites, please at least ATTEMPT to include some sort of discussion or point. Add some value. Seeing as this was a headline on nearly all major news web sites last week you can take it as read that most people on a science forum will have seen it already.

Sure I can't tempt you?

Why don't you set up your shed so that if you send a reply back to that message, it waits for the door to close then lowers itself into the ground like an elevator?

Is there any other reason to be a scientist?

Which is why scientists have a requirement for repeatable results, rational analysis, and peer review.

He's asking about the variety of planets in an infinite universe, which requires certain rules.

You seem to be doing a lot of "misreading" recently.

Ha, that explains everything.

I have not really removed the "I disagree" option; I have split it into three categories.

Be quiet then.

And the "correct thinking" on the disciplines that these scientists have studied all their lives would come from whom?