John Cuthber

The idea of a commune between me and God makes as much sense as one between me and an earthworm. Re. "You would not be communicating with another being, you'd be rediscovering yourself." That's dangerously close to talking to yourself. I am amused by you saying "this is the kind of prayer that Mohammed endorses when he says 'A hours' contemplation is worth a years' worship'." without apparently spotting the irony. I think the best commentary I have seen on prayer is from Emo Philips "When I was a little boy, I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised, the Lord, in his wisdom, doesn't work that way. So I just stole one and asked Him to forgive me."

No they can't. No it isn't. It's still wrong, even if you use really big letters. Just for teh record, green ink also doesn't work, and nor do tin foil hats.

Ophiolite, Yes, there are drifts that need to be accounted for, but Yahya is predicting a significant regular pattern, that should stand out in the data quite clearly. OK,the satellite is about 35,786 kilometres away Think about pointing a dish at the satellite. your figure of 0.9986 implies that the "error" (the difference from exactly 1) is about 0.14% So the error in pointing the dish will be about 0.14% of the circumference of the orbit. That circumference is about 112000 km and 0.14% of that is 157 km. So the beam will miss the satellite by about 160km. Now, I know that the beam divergence will help a bit but that's still a detectable effect. People who do that sort of thing would notice. Why do you think they have not done so? Also, these people measure the rotation of the earth. It's their job, and they are very good at it. http://lupus.gsfc.nasa.gov/ Would you like to explain why they are getting it wrong (or perhaps you think they are lying)? So, you now need to explain how geostationary satellites work, even though the signal would miss them by a hundred miles, and you also need to explain how come NASA keep getting the wrong answer.

The sun moves across the sky (from our point of view) It moves quicker at some times than at others because we are nearer to it at some times than at others. If you try to measure our speed by reference to the (moving) sun, you get complicated answers which depend on the month. Now you seem to have missed this bit, which is a pity because it's important. If the angular velocity of the earth changes, how do geostationary satellites work? There are other issues, but until you answer that question you don't have a "theory" so I suggest you offer a nice clear explanation in your next post.

Interesting. Are we talking about the same idea here? "communion kəˈmjuːnjən/Submit noun 1. the sharing or exchanging of intimate thoughts and feelings, especially on a mental or spiritual level." Because I don't think I could be expected to comprehend the intimate ideas of any God and I wouldn't expect Him to need me to kneel and put my hands together before he was well aware of any intimate thoughts and feeling I have.

No it does not mean that the angular velocity of the earth changes. It means that the sun is moving relative to us, but we knew that anyway. Incidentally, if the angular velocity of the earth changes, how do geostationary satellites work? There are other issues, but until you answer that question you don't have a "theory" so I suggest you offer a nice clear explanation in your next post.

Fresh, you seem to have missed my earlier question in all the excitement. How are you ruling out coincidence as an explanation? http://en.wikipedia....rgo_propter_hoc

So, you still haven't read up about the uncertainty principle then. Why not? BTW fuzzword, a photon may be massless, but it does carry momentum. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure

In fairness, the orbital radius and velocity do change, but not much, and they don't explain the variation in day length.

How sure can you be that there are any Gods to remove from prayer? If you pray to a specific God, but that God doesn't exist, isn't that also wishful thinking? The whole question is poorly specified to an extant that makes it impossible to give a valid answer.

should we pray to God? should we pray?

I have answered the question and I'm answering it again for the last time. If a photon as big or smaller then the atom hit it from one side in total vacuum would the atom move with momentum in one direction, it shouldn't jiggle, ? Nope, it should jiggle. Whether you like it or not, that's what the laws of physics say. We have tested what you call "can't get precision movent because" lots of times, and it is always true. Did you not know that? I have also answered your other question in that I have explained where you can find out how to answer it. Here it is again http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle Because of the way in which you have written the question, it's impossible to give a simple answer but, if you learn about the uncertainty principle you will be able to work the answer out for yourself.

Isiac, Re "I would disagree on the part that you say "science isn't in the business of proving things right. It just proves that some things can't be right." Science is the idea that you should question everything and create new hypothesis from the observable universe. Though with that may come trying to prove things wrong, it is much too broad to assume it only has one purpose." Sorry for not making myself clear. What I meant- in response to an assertion about things that were not proven true- was that Where science talks about proof, science isn't in the business of proving things right. It just proves that some things can't be right. So, saying "science hasn't proven that whatever is true" is meaningless. Science nas never proved anything to be true.

You may have noticed that the wiki page you cited explains that "The distinction between organic and inorganic compounds is only a matter of convention" Also, there's this about inorganic fullerenes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fullerene#Inorganic_fullerenes which implies that the other fullerenes are organic. That's consistent with the chemistry of things like C60. So, at least that allotrope of carbon is organic so your blankets statement that "carbon is not organic" is false (as well as being irrelevant, in the context).

Dietary cholesterol has a relatively minor impact on blood levels. Most of the cholesterol in the body is synthesised there. And, Devansh, for the record, re. "If the walls of all slaughter houses in the world were made up of glass. Every one would have been a vegetarian." nope, I know what goes on and I still eat meat. So, of course, do most of the people who work in them.

It's relatively easy to get something a thousand times nearer to absolute zero than the objects we normally see. It's also not difficult to get things ten times further from zero than usual (turning on a light bulb will do it. So , if temperature had an effect on gravity, it would be pretty easy to spot. Indeed, people would have noticed it "by accident" while looking at other effects- for example while looking at the temperature dependence of paramagnetism using a Gouy balance. So, we know from experiments that there is no measurable effect of temperature on gravity. We also know what temperature is, and there's no reason for us to expect it to have any effect on gravity. On the other hand, we have you and you "I really want to believe that gravity is responsible for cooling things down". Do you think what you want affects the universe?

But, as was pointed out a lot, they won't work. Do you still not understand that?

For a start, science isn't in the business of proving things right. It just proves that some things can't be right. However, in the meantime perhaps you would like to expand on your claim that the big bang is faked- for example, you might like to tell us who is doing the faking, how, and why?

How could it possibly matter if I wish to live forever? My wish wouldn't change the laws of physics- such as the uncertainty principle or the finite size requirements of radio antennae. and since it won't matter to the laws of physics, it won't affect the fact that your ideas are impossible. On the other hand saying things like "Are you one of those people that does not want to live forever?" is getting dangerously close to a personal attack. You can get kicked off the site for that, and your other witterings in this thread about sexuallity are likely to do that too.

Turtles all the way down?

"You know, if we make the supposed nanobot" We can't. Why do you keep saying "if we do so and so..." when you have been repeatedly told that it's impossible.

Has anyone ruled out some idiot with a laser as the answer to the OP?

That's like asking if they sent a unicorn to the moon, they would duplicate into that many yes...indeed...? ? ? ya...right? ya..... ? They won't because they can't. Do you accept that? It isn't a matter or money or technology. It's not a matter of "we don't know how". It isn't possible. We can prove it isn't possible.

Probably, but why bother? Every cell in your body has a copy of those chromosomes. It would be much easier to extract them than to make them.

Who created the Q?