zapatos

I don't even know where to start...

That is quite a story. I've never heard anything quite like it.

I thought you didn't believe in God. Am I mistaken, or are you having a change of heart?

A black hole is a mass that is sufficiently compacted to create an event horizon. Black holes come in many sizes, ranging from that of a few solar masses, all the way up to billions of solar masses. You are correct that a black hole that forms from a stellar explosion is smaller than its original star. If you were distance 'x' from a star that exploded then collapsed into a black hole, you would notice less gravity after the star became a black hole. Some black holes are indeed the most massive objects in the universe (depending on how you define 'object'), but since black holes can exist in various sizes, not all black holes would be considered amongst the most massive objects.

And the arguments we received from you describing why we are wrong consist of: 1. Nuh-uh. It really pisses me off that you ask for help, we take the time to explain it, and rather than make any effort to understand it, argue against it, or simply acknowledge it, you just ignore it. You then have the gall to give us one more chance to give you an answer you will be happy with? Go away. I have better things to do than coddle those who act like petulant children.

You may want to take a look at the article this came from... http://contraception.about.com/od/prescriptionoptions/p/MissingPeriods.htm

Standard TIP methodology. (Test In Production)

AFAIK there is no harm in disturbing your menstrual cycle. It is commonly done with some forms of birth control. As far as delaying their period: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/birth-control-pill/WO00098

Galaxies are not 'exempt' per se. The same force that is being exerted on galaxies that are 200 million LY apart is being exerted between the earth and the sun (or even between atoms in your body). Presumably the sun and the earth are some immeasurably small distance further apart than they would be if there was no expansion. However, with or without expansion you would still see the earth orbiting the sun. You may not have liked it but the answer was given in (among other places) post #2. "The expansion of space is weaker than gravity on the scale of galaxy clusters and smaller." If you have a ball bearing touching a magnet, and a slight breeze blowing over the ball bearing, the ball bearing will not roll away. Magnetism at that close range is stronger than the slight breeze. If the ball bearing is moved to one foot away from the magnet, now the slight breeze blowing on the ball bearing is stronger than the magnetic field and the ball bearing will move away from the magnet.

I dunno. Maybe because they are all gods?

I'm only thinking out loud here, but these are my thoughts on how they came up with 'no theological impact'. The First Amendment basically says: 1. The government cannot create a national religion 2. The government cannot give preference to one religion over another 3. The government cannot stop people from practicing their religion What I believe they are saying is, recognizing there is a god (rightly or wrongly) has no impact on points 1, 2, or 3.

Hmm. My link disagrees. Either one of our links is wrong, or we are talking about different cases. My link says: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/in-god-we-trust-will-stay-on-us-coins-after-supreme-court-rejects-appeal Correct, it does not specifically address the phrase on U.S. currency. That is what I said. What I also said was that the government's recognition of God was not prohibited, as was pointed out with this case. In another ruling (not SCOTUS) supporting the use of 'in god we trust' on currency, Aronow v. United States, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aronow_v._United_States

Wait. Aren't you already.... Never mind.

Yes, they do change their minds from time to time. However, anything they've ruled constitutional, is constitutional, unless or until overturned, or until the constitution is amended. Actually your link supports my position. When the Supreme Court refuses to hear a case, then the decision of the lower court is final. It is the same as if the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and confirmed the decision of the lower court. I don't know of a case that specifically address this phrase on U.S. currency, but in Zorach v. Clauson, SCOTUS indicates that the government's recognition of God is not prohibited. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_we_trust

The Supreme Court reviewed the use of 'In God We Trust' and found it to be Constitutional. Since SCOTUS has found it to be Constitutional, I would have to disagree with your assertion that it violates your 1st amendment rights. You may disagree with them, but unfortunately for you, they are the ones who get to decide on this matter.

No. The effect of gravity decreases as the distance between objects increase. The effect of space expansion remains constant as the distance between two objects increases. The rate of space expansion has changed over time though. Note that gravity emanates from mass, but expansion emanates from space itself.

It will? Hmm. That seems to be at odds with observation and known physics. Can I have a citation please? It is not an extraordinary claim. It is based simply on observation. I'd say the ball is in your court to find some kind of evidence that that gravity and expansion do not happen as observed.

The expansion of space is weaker than gravity on the scale of galaxy clusters and smaller. That is why galaxy clusters will expand away from each other, but galaxies within a cluster, or stars within a galaxy, will remain bound.

menageriemanor: I agree that you do not comprehend much about America. You have an attitude that I find very common when people of one country (or state, or locality) compare themselves to another: 'our way is good, your way is bad'. Your view that people are being shot on every corner, which would cause you as a parent to 'be leaving the system yesterday' is ridiculous. I've used guns all my life. At least half the people I know own guns. I do not know anyone who has ever been shot. I've never heard the sound of a gun in my neighborhood. People relying on the 'kindness of strangers' for tips? Sounds like a scene from Gone with the Wind. Very melodramatic. While tips are up to the customer, getting a tip is almost a given. On average an employee who gets tips will know what to expect in a given week. Thank you for recognizing that there are kind individuals in America. If the image of the world of the average, religion raised everyman, is that of an unattractive, greedy, fat child, then I can only blame your biased media and/or how gullible the average non-American is.

With what will you pay the bearer of a British note? A British note?

Agree Doubly agree. That seems to me to just as likely suggest there aren't that many virgins around when it comes time to marry. I don't know as I've never done that kind of work before. I assume it would be similar to the way polls are done when they try to determine how people feel about any number of things. Perhaps finding out if people prefer virgins at marriage is particularly tricky, but I don't understand why it would be.

I have to agree with your point here. It seems like many of the complaints about the 'facts' have to do with how difficult it would be to obtain good data, and how statistically valid the data would be. This has not stopped scientists from attempting to unravel difficult questions before, so I wonder why all the ridicule here. I think I could find supporting evidence for Fact 2 (Many men and women do not want to marry a person who has had intercourse with someone else) in about an hour without breaking a sweat. I would imagine that for many countries in the Middle East this 'fact' is near universal.

I've never before seen anyone define sexual attraction in this way.

It seems that our desire for bad food is good for us. Over many generations we gained the ability to identify foods by taste (sweet and fat) that had the best chance to get us into adulthood due to their high energy density. http://blogs.webmd.com/healthy-recipe-doctor/2009/04/why-kids-like-sweets.html http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK53528/

I was about to tell you why you were wrong but no reasons came to mind...