Sayonara

Actually you wouldn't. Depending on how aggressively you made the cut, you would either get two smaller magnets, or two lumps of material that are essentially magnetically inert in terms of reinforced polarity. You don't know about object instances, do you? However, you said "Without the Sky there would be no Land." This would seem to dictate that if one takes away the sky, then by necessity the land must also disappear. Which is patent nonsense. That depends on whether I have set my paging preference to RTL or LTR.

Meaningless terms provided without a conceptual framework are not a counter-argument. I suggest that instead of leaping to the "reply" button you actually do some research into the concept of singularity. You are bound to like it, seeing as you claim to embrace mathematics. Ah, so "left" and "right" are arbitrary descriptors one minute and then null and void the next. How convenient. It's not; it's mental masturbation.

Or rather the other way around - the existence of the land is not contingent on the existence of the sky. Or to one of the many species of sea sponge which can reintegrate themselves after being chopped up into little tiny bits.

The function of money is to provide an abstraction of value. Commodities such as gold can play this role. They are therefore functionally equivalent.

Singularity says otherwise. Except on bodies with no atmosphere. My angle grinder begs to differ. You haven't started yet. As I said, all you have provided are assertions. The plural of assertion is not 'reasoning'. Religion isn't being called dumb and or wrong - your explanation is.

In this context, "finding the end" is a euphemism for getting bored of carving notches in stone. I don't see the value in trying to explain the crackpot notion of a doomsday prophecy in terms of the even more crackpot notion of a "good/evil cycle".

Well, some understanding of diametrics would be an advantage. You could then use this to explain why your assertions are borne out in the real world.

Reasoning or GTFO.

I take it your version of the dictionary would have to include the word "unnecessary".

Yes, but you don't necessarily have to be born with only a left side. We can just remove the right side ex post facto. Your left eye is still your left eye even after it has been removed and the right one destroyed. It's not recommended to reason by strangling conditional analogies in a bathtub full of word soup.

Sigh. The Mayans didn't "pick" 2012 or "foresee" the world ending, it's just our equivalent of the last year they happened to pencil in on their calendar.

Funny that because most of your threads seem to begin with just a bunch of words.

Unless I pulled out your left eye and then removed all other matter and energy from the universe.

While Jupiter is visible to the naked eye, Egyptian technology was far behind producing the requisite tools for observing its atmospheric features. This entire thread is ridiculous.

No, cyclops is a genus of crustacean. Guess why they are called cyclops.

The SFN Speculations section won't be accessible due to the internet being killed by that massive solar storm.

You can't prove god or disprove science by rattling off a bunch of assertions.

I think we're done here.

I think what swanson is trying to say is that it doesn't matter what the time span was between the idea being proposed and tests devised (or even carried out), or whether the testability of the idea was ever considered by the person having the idea. What matters is the testability of the idea per se. Science deals with the testing of ideas, so an untestable idea can't be dealt with scientifically. In short having an idea is not sufficient for one to be "doing science", even though it is certainly a great help. Because not all ideas CAN be treated scientifically. So one can't take the position that every idea should be treated with equal respect by a scientific community, whereas one can derive simple practices for quickly identifying unscientific proposals. I think there is a danger here that you are starting to lump the genuine luminaries together with the crackpots, the lazies, and the scientific illiterates, which would be a shame.

I'd hardly call Pat Condell a comedian.

...even if it does make a truly delicious salad.

If you continue to post the same thread over and over, you will be suspended for two weeks without any further notice.

I would just like to add, further to Mooeypoo's post, that even in the Religion forum you will have to do a lot better than "God said it".

You mean the solar maximum as in the solar magnetic field event which happens approximately every 11 years? During which we'll not be significantly closer than average to either the sun or the galactic core?

Do you mean that Schleimann's peers believed that there was no city of Troy whatsoever, or that the Troy of Homeric legend was not based on a real city? Bear in mind that I am demonstrating that "Troy was a myth until it was dug up" is false, not that "the myth of Troy was a myth" is not true. If you follow me. Not being a historian I am not sure how to find primary sources for Roman interactions with Trojan cities, but I'm pretty sure that Plutarch of Chaeronea's account of Alexander the Great visiting a latter city of Troy in 334BC is considered a historically reliable record. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I'm sorry but I don't think you do. It doesn't matter if we refer to them as aliens, ghosts, angels, or whatever - the point is that it is irrational to attribute any such label to them without a compelling reason. There is not even any reason to call them "they", because a shape in an Aztec tomb carving might well vaguely or even closely resemble a background detail in a Renaissance painting but this doesn't necessarily make them representations of the same thing. I don't know anyone who takes that stance. Most of the people who have any meaningful input into science recognise that the frontiers of technology are mobile.