Cap'n Refsmmat

Microwaving is an action. "An omnipotent being microwaving a burrito so hot that He can't eat it" is not.

Spamming is a job. You can make a fortune off of it. The guys who write the automated spam software sell it for around $600 a copy.

Gravitophotons aren't an "if" of the theory, they're a prediction of the theory. Basically it all depends on Heim Theory, which has never really been peer-reviewed, but also hasn't yet been definitively wrong. There's a few physicists still pursuing it.

That's assuming that the words "an omnipotent being microwaving a burrito so hot that He can't eat it" in fact describe an action. My philosophy professor would get out of the dilemma by stating that the words do not, in fact, describe any action whatsoever. Anselm of Canterbury would go further and say that God cannot lie, but that is not a lack of power but in fact a result of his power. (Lying indicates that you are corruptible and cannot tell the truth, which means you lack power. Lying is not a power in itself.) Not sure I buy Anselm's argument, but it was interesting nevertheless.

Hmm. I can get that full paper, but I doubt I can legally publish it online. However, this is a later paper by the same two authors titled "GUIDELINES FOR A SPACE PROPULSION DEVICE BASED ON HEIM'S QUANTUM THEORY": http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/documents/aiaa2004-3700-a4.pdf (not peer-reviewed, but contains math and references) (also, warning, contains gravitophotons)

The bots have gotten pretty clever these days. We have custom question-and-answer verification on the registration page; vBulletin lets me write whatever questions I want, and people have to supply the correct answer. The bots complete this in about two seconds. I'm fairly certain the bots have a database of questions and the correct answers. Whenever there's a new question, a human answers it, and the answer is saved for later. The database is probably shared among spammers for a fee or something. Keeping ahead of spam is hard.

Here you go: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18925331.200-take-a-leap-into-hyperspace.html There's a (probably illegal) full copy available online, if you're not a subscriber: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_hyperdimensions11.htm Here's the first page of a paper presented at an American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics conference about the theory: http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/CDReadyMJPC2003_775/PV2003_4990.pdf It's not straight-up quackery. You can probably use the above links to find more info. I can get access to papers through the university library if you find any good ones.

It's a human, or perhaps a human aided by a computer program. I once looked through the server logs, and he doesn't behave like a bot -- he got to SFN from a search on Google.ca for "science forums." There's a few other tricks I have to see if someone's a bot, and he doesn't smell like one. Must be really bored, I guess.

More importantly, [math]\lim_{\theta \to 90} \tan \theta[/math] does not exist, because [math]\tan \theta[/math] approaches [math]\infty[/math] from the left and [math]-\infty[/math] from the right. So [math]\tan 90[/math] cannot be said to be [math]\infty[/math].

It's stickied here and people with no posts get a banner at the top of the page linking to this thread. Can't think of any other ways to make it obvious.

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/data/centennial.php You can get all that data and compare it to any data you might have on solar flare activity over that time period, which is presumably available. Alternately, you can use this: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/epic/epic_global.php and get data for any time period you want, in whatever format you want. Just remember that correlation does not mean causation.

Hi! Nice to see a chemist about -- we seem to be swamped with physicists. I hope you enjoy SFN.

That's funny, because Newton's law of gravitation has been falsified by general relativity.

They do the error modeling to determine how reliable the results are. (In any science, you propagate the uncertainty in your initial measurements through to your results, so you know how accurate your results can be.) And they decided the conclusion was supported with 95% certainty: 95% certainty is widely accepted throughout science as indicating a significant result.

How exactly do you propose time works in equations because it's constant then? That's what you said before. I don't see how this is a dichotomy when it's yet to be established that time is a constant.

Earlier you were criticizing climate science because you thought it was unproven: Now you're making the semantic argument that even if it's true, it's still "only" a hypothesis. So, bascule has provided you the data you were looking for. Do you still hold that climate science is unreliable, or is your disagreement with bascule one of semantics?

bascule has posted the information you want over numerous threads over several years in this forum. The information is widely available in scientific literature with some research. So let's not head into another one of these discussions, please, unless you have something new to bring up. I think you'll find that making assumptions about people's motives on forums is a bad idea: you're often wrong, and it makes discussions personal, which is just what you are trying to avoid.

That'd be a safe assumption, yes.

Proportional fonts make ASCII art difficult.

I think perhaps that should be discussed in another thread.

If your hypothesis uses pre-existing mathematical models, what differentiates it from previous theories? What predictions does your model make that others don't? If a model makes identical predictions to another model, there's no reason to choose one over the other.

If you're typing the structure, type it in [noparse] [/noparse] tags so the spaces are preserved: H H H | | / H-C-C-O | | H H

Would you perhaps like to be a little less condescending? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged What are their specific arguments? I mean, what exactly is bad about trying a criminal in criminal courts? It worked for Timothy McVeigh, and he was a US citizen and a terrorist. Surely the "we can't trust the courts to convict them" argument also means "we can't trust the police to find enough evidence to actually convict them."

Because you did. You even question its validity by referencing hard data, as shown in the last sentence of that quote.

And bascule's point is that, in his view, this statement is completely false. We have had numerous discussions on the subject here, and covered many of the same arguments you've just made. Just look through the Climate Science forum. I'd hate for this thread to end up repeating the same old tired points. edit: also, I hope we can avoid personally charged attacks.