JaKiri

That's a common fallacy.

Yep. Sort of. It's all A CONSPIRACY!

A geocities website based on stuff from Fortean Times (or equivilent publications), no less.

Just as an aside, blike Speciation has been observed duder. A kind of fish in the pacific.

I don't see Newton's Laws of Gravitation entering superstition any time soon. Unless of course you haven't actually understood what you're talking about and just saying something because it sounds good. Empiricism will only ever arise to more and more precise approximations.

As much as trust the fortean prints, I don't think they're the best source for anything, well, accurate.

A lot of things will alter genes. But things like 'working harder in school' won't.

Oh dear.

Biology is a complicated thing, and current knowledge should be preferred to that from over a century ago, imo. As to 'affecting the genes', no it can't.

The most obvious overlap is in protein interactions

My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest! My tallest!

Biochemists tend to work with living things. Hence 'bio'.

I think I can safely say, with no fear of mistake, that this discussion isn't going any further.

I think it's law now that at least one person must ask 'What is the matrix?' when doing Eigenvalues.

That's more because the research that leads up to the situation is in the public domain, and so more people are likely to be researching into it. If you compare common research with true leaps of genius (see: Andrew Wiles and the Fermat proof) you'll see such things are less common, uncommon enough to be mere products of chance.

Personally, I believe he was a physics graduate working on a subject that much research had been done into, in his plentiful spare time (his job at the patent office didn't require much activity)

I think the best example would be 'Tak, THE HIDEOUS NEW GIRL', what with the plan to hollow out the earth and fill it with snacks as a gift to The Tallest

Quad Erat Demonstrandum Basically, 'As I have shown' (it's an example of gerundival attraction in actual fact, so means something more complicated, but that translation will do)

Not atm, I'm changing course next year and have yet to decide what to change to (Mathematics; the FUN option, with less work, or NatSci (Physics and Maths) with 50% CompSci for the first year (which involves less trouble, as I don't have to deal with a department outside my own)). Although that should really be ignored as, when I had my interview at Durham University, it was established early on that I knew what I was talking about, and was going to get a place, and spent the rest of the interview talking about Bose-Einstein Condensates (a 3rd year topic at durham) and the research that my interviewer was doing (superconductors as it happens). [edit] I'm 20, to give you the sort of time frame we're looking at.

ST universe, wrt real physics. Note that I clarified the situation in my follow on bit.

Combined with the need for future television shows on the same topic. Especially on Satellite channels.

Yes, but most of it's bollocks. That aside, I don't see why you can't have arguments based on fictional situations; surely that's what every debate is about?

It's a silly thread, given that the earth ISN'T solid. The mantle is a tad liquid. That aside, I don't know if a neutron star would count as a planet, and not as a binary system.

That's a logical fallacy; there can be infinite number of points in a finite space therefore it's possible for the space to be infinite isn't possible without a non-finite rate of expansion, which I don't believe is under consideration and I've just seen your edit. Back on topic, as I said before Redward, it is entirely possible for the system to be in existance, just not stablely (nasty nasty word); this can be because of tidal effects, either in the planet or the sun, influence of other bodies (be it a gravitational effect from another planet, or a collision with a comet or the like), but whatever it is, the system will be a positive feedback loop, so it's going to end sometime.

You're right, it is used in encryption. I'll tell you about elliptics in a couple of years time. You're wrong, however, about the shape of the imaginary clock. It wouldn't produce a tube (given that effectively, the clock is representing numbers as a bearing), it would produce a sphere, with negative imaginary numbers on one side and positive ones on the other (it would of course be symmetrical for most calculations)