John Cuthber

You say "induction is not optical". That is a strange assertion to make. Please prove it. Don't just say "Use some commen sense." because common sense tells us that the theory that has been in use for ages and gives the right answers is a lot more lively to be right than some bloke on a web page. Also, please address the issue of synchrotron radiation which is plainly induced and optical.

"The idea is that at absolute zero a particle would be without motion.". No, not really. It would have frozen out and become a solid but it would continue to vibrate so it never becomes stationary. (Except in the case of superluid helium which has a zero point energy of motion, rather than vibration)

If the 'droids were not discussing gay parents then that's off topic.

I could use it as a random number generator to choose my lottery numbers (if I ever played the lottery)

In much the same way that Overtone is correct in saying that some very northerly parts of North America are not easy places to live because they have long cold Winters, should I point out that the bottoms of deep lakes in North America are not really suitable for humans. This is true no matter where on Earth you look so, by his logic, humans are not adapted to life on Earth. Roughly two thirds of the Earth's surface is a challenging habitat for humans because we can't swim forever. Clearly we are not built for this planet.

If you don't understand the difference between "why is God" and "why is the singularity" then perhaps you might consider this Which am I more likely to find in my garden, a grain of sand or an elephant? A singularity is very simple and so is intrinsically more likely than a God. That's before we get to the bit about making useful predictions (where religion fails). And as far as science is concerned, no question is, as you put it "out of bounds". so, once again, religion fails. Who do you think you are that you can tell me what's out of bounds?

You seem to be arguing against yourself. You say that NA isn't a suitable place for people because there's not enough vitamin C then you point out that you can always obtain it from things like spruce needles. Since people are able to make spruce tea they are able to live in NA. Incidentally, I can't think of any food that's much more cliche American than pumpkin and cranberries- and they both have a fair amount of vitamin C in them. Continuing to deliberately use an offensive term just makes you seem offensive.

Indeed, you have pointed out another way in which religion fails. Also, the question is not "does God exist" but "Why does God exist".

I did have a brief look to see if I could find out what the context of the quote was, but I didn't succeed. I rather doubt that it is about gay parent Nor do I think it's likely that the topic of discussion was gay parenting on either of the other two times that character said it. However, as you might guess, she isn't a serious character- this is, after all, the Simpsons. She is a parody of the religious Right. And, as I cited the wiki page as saying, it's a phrase often misused by the religious right to "justify" the sort of trash that they believe (e.g. the stuff in that conservapedia quote). The irony is that, in fact, if you "think of the children" you will discover that they do just fine with gay parents. So, it is relevant, it's just that you didn't understand it. In the meantime "Show me that the topic of the Simpsons was gay parenting and I will revoke the allegation that it was an off topic troll." is a straw man. Nobody ever said, or even implied that the Simpsons were on about any particular topic.

Unless I missed something the "explanation" offered by religion was always "Goddidit". But, unless you explain where and how God came to be, you haven't explained anything- you have just distracted attention from the real question. It's not so much that it's a rubbish explanation (which would be easily forgiven, since they simply didn't know better)- the problem is that it's not an explanation at all.

I must have missed something. What did religion explain?

No, you are driving a coach and horses through the definition. You might as well use the word "ferrule" or "bananaishness" in place of viscosity: something like "Cold and hot is two different bananaishnesses. Night and day!, It is day ere, I can clearly see out of my window into the garden. The natural light in my room, has a close bananaishness to the light outside, only a windows difference, been the transparency of the glass, and the glasses minimal bananaishness." Nope, there's no way you can be right about this because you are trying to use a word to mean something other than what it means.

I will see your unsupported opinion and raise you some evidence http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2629258/Gay-penguins-adopt-abandoned-chick-wildlife-park-claims-best-parents-had.html If you looked things up more often you might understand them better. It is not trolling to point out that there is at least one reasonably representative group of Right wingers who will be shocked by the revelation that gay couples raise children successfully because they believe the exact opposite. Also, since you had already pointed out that you didn't understand the "think of the children" line, it's not trolling to explain to you that it's origins lie in popular culture (hence the Simpsons reference) and that it's used a a bogus debating tactic by the right wing. That use by the Right is the reason why it's legitimate for someone to include it in the original post. Do you understand irony? So would you please either explain in what way it's trolling or apologize. (by which I think we mean this sort of thing, from wiki) "In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community" you may wish to consider that people have posted views in accord with mine, so I'm not sowing discord. I'm not starting an argument, I'm trying to finish it by providing evidence that one side of the debate is right- there really are some Right wingers who will be shocked. The explanation of the origin of the phrase, it's use in popular culture and it's misuse in some debates is relevant- since you pointed out that you didn't understand it. Providing that clarification in the thread is not off-topic. It isn't inflammatory to point out that you are taking a joke and trying to build it up as some massively important point. If anything, pointing out "it's just a joke" should be a calming influence.

You seem to have that the wrong way round. The only criterion that religion seems to be able to use is "is it part of our 'Book'? if not it is Wrong". On the other hand, science can judge a belief, on accuracy but also on some measure of simplicity. You could, if you wished, set up some sort of experiment to establish which beliefs give the greatest comfort in given circumstances. It would be a bit limited. but science can do it. Religion never would.

As far as I recall, the viscosity is something like the ratio of the momentum flux to the velocity gradient. It simply can not be applied to most of this "Weather , the difference in energies of hot and cold, pressure fronts, different energies unable to join, making weather patterns. Cold and hot is two different viscosities. Night and day!, It is day ere, I can clearly see out of my window into the garden. The natural light in my room, has a close viscosity to the light outside, only a windows difference, been the transparency of the glass, and the glasses minimal viscosity. However at night, the outside has a different viscosity to my light bulb on the inside, the viscosity of the outside becomes far greater than my 60w light bulb, the outside viscosity of negativeness, holds my 60w light bulb light in place, the viscosity of the glass changes, the surface becoming more reflective at night, but it does not actually become more reflective, it is the greater outer negative viscosity that slows down the lights escape rate." because there's no momentum flux and no velocity gradient.

I don't really understand the maths and I wasn't involved when Maxwell was working on this (obviously). I guess that Duhem might have had a valid point (though I doubt it). It's possible that Maxwell's route to those equations was a matter of hand-waving and guesswork. So what? The equations are demonstrably correct and, if you don't like the way Maxwell got them, you can derive them for yourself. http://www.engr.uconn.edu/~lanbo/DeriveMaxwell.pdf So the point remains, the equations work and I don't know or care if they were derived from Ampere's and Faraday's work (though that's who Maxwell cited so I think they almost certainly were). And they provide the basis for the classical behaviour of light- they work just fine in a vacuum. Perhaps Copernicus would like to explain why it matters if Maxwell got the right answers by maths, intuition or divine inspiration?

OK lets link it up into that full circle. Here's one of the assertions from the OP "gay parents are great for children" and here's another "Oh, and being a jerk to gay people is, unsurprisingly, bad for children." Now, here's what conservapedia says about it "it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation. This position is rooted in the best available science." So, it looks like, at least those Right wingers who read and write conservapedia, are in for a shock. "The OP leaves us with the Phrase "Think of the children". Ten oz says that might mean political changes in his country, but there was no clear point, and after the first two errors (blanket statement and "shocking") I was less inclined to guess." I'm not sure what your justification is for failing to look up something which you didn't understand before reading nonsense into it, but, just to clarify things Among other things it's a Simpsons quote. Did you really get that wound up by a joke? Or did you grasp the alternative (plausible) ironic interpretation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children#As_justification_for_prejudice

I'm willing to bet that you didn't.

You might not get as far as you think dimethyl ether http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyl_ether and ethanol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol have the same molecular formula C2H6O Compounds that have the same molecular formulae but different structures are called isomers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomer

" who is to blame?" Whoever started it; but they have been dead for 4000 years. Unfortunately far too many groups seem to have an interest in carrying it on.

Re."Where does this author discuss averages in the slightest." Do you really not think that figures like these are derived from averages? Children in same-sex parent families had higher scores on measures of general behavior, general health and family cohesion compared to population normative data (β = 2.93, 95% CI = 0.35 to 5.52, P = .03; β = 5.60, 95% CI = 2.69 to 8.52, P = <.001; and β = 6.01, 95% CI = 2.84 to 9.17, P = <.001 respectively). There were no significant differences between the two groups for all other scale scores. Physical activity, mental health, and family cohesion were all negatively associated with increased stigma (β = -3.03, 95% CI = -5.86 to -0.21, P = .04; β = -10.45, 95% CI = -18.48 to -2.42, P = .01; and β = -9.82, 95% CI = -17.86 to -1.78, P = .02 respectively) and the presence of emotional symptoms was positively associated with increased stigma (β =0.94, 95% CI = 0.08 to 1.81, P = .03). Or are you complaining that he only included a link to the original report, rather than the whole text of it. You could easily have looked it up . "Coupling a false statement with the phrase "Think of the children" does not reveal the intent of the OP except to blur facts." Yes it did. It's just that 1 you don't seem to have understood it and 2 you don't seem to have realised how easy it is to look things up. "I never came close to suggesting gays will come and take our children as you are hinting at." Oh yes you did. Specifically you said "Are you proposing straight people give their kids to gays?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children "Your statement "Better, in fact, than straight parents" is based upon an average." Nope, it's based on two averages average straight and average gay. You and your wife may differ from that average without affecting the validity of the statement. "You cannot simply put a straight set of parents in a room with a gay set of parents and claim one is better than the other based upon this article." Nor did anyone suggest that one should. So what was the point of that?Was it a failed attempt a at strawman?

Assuming that ET life will be the same as us and need the same micronutirents is what's really silly.

That's just silly. OK, Mars has lots of iron. But it is rather short of the macronutrients, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and so on. AFAICT the only one it has a reasonable supply of is oxygen.

Did you miss the bit about what Moontanman said? He said "I've been married for 40 years, I would never go on to other women." You do realise that the other women would be outside of his marriage don't you? And, of course, what he said was sufficient to demonstrate the falsehood of your assertion that "Yes. In the real world the woman is left alone with the child most of the time while the man moves on toward his next conquest." because in at least one case (Moontanman's) that's not what man does. I'm fairly sure that it's also true for at least some other men too.