D H

No, it has not, iNow. It has not yet prevailed in what may well be the most important arena of all: The arena of public opinion. Most of the people who believe in creationism are not diehards. They can be won over. To do that, you need to lose the attitude of superiority. Saying that your side is the side of reason is an enthymeme rank with an attitude of superiority. If you don't like the term evolutionist, how about naturalist?

transgalactic, You should have posted this in the Homework Help section and you should read the rules for homework: A simple reminder to all: this is the "Homework Help" forum, not the "Homework Answers" forum. We will not do your work for you, only point you in the right direction. Posts that do give you the answers may be deleted. This site is for helping you learn more about science, not for helping you cheat on your science homework. Please show some work.

transgalactic, You should have posted this in the Homework Help section and you should read the rules for homework: A simple reminder to all: this is the "Homework Help" forum, not the "Homework Answers" forum. We will not do your work for you, only point you in the right direction. Posts that do give you the answers may be deleted. This site is for helping you learn more about science, not for helping you cheat on your science homework. Please show some work.

transgalactic, You should have posted this in the Homework Help section and you should read the rules for homework: A simple reminder to all: this is the "Homework Help" forum, not the "Homework Answers" forum. We will not do your work for you, only point you in the right direction. Posts that do give you the answers may be deleted. This site is for helping you learn more about science, not for helping you cheat on your science homework. Please show some work.

Funny thing, bias. I had a very similar thought, but with the obvious recipient being space exploration. Moreover it is a stimulus package with significant out-year benefits.

Some terms cannot be usurped. Darwinist, for example. There are a lot of things wrong with that term. It implies an unthinking and static notion of science (evolution theory has changed a lot since Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species 150 years ago) and it implies that we worship Darwin as if he were a god. OTOH, there is nothing wrong per se with "evolutionist". Think of it as a portmanteau of "evolutionary biologist". As pmb noted, several biologists do use the word evolutionist to describe themselves.

Congrats, Ophiolite!

This very issue was the focus of the FQXi's first essay contest, "The Nature of Time". The essays, ranked by public votes, are at http://fqxi.org/community/forum/category/10?sort=public.

Both, are plausible, plus a whole lot more. The scales might have a scale factor error. A scale doesn't measure weight directly. It instead measures the vertical deflection of a spring. The analog (or in some cases now, digital) translation from deflection to weight assumes a specific value for the spring constant. The true value might vary from the assumed value. The true weight is the measured weight times some factor. This non-unity factor is called a scale factor error and is present in many kinds of measuring devices. One way to overcome scale factor error is to calibrate the device around a known value. This can be done with a spring scale by adjusting the zero point to read say, 100 pounds when a known 100 pound weight is placed on the scale. While this will make the scale give a more accurate reading for objects that weigh 100 pounds, it will increase the error for objects that weigh considerably less than this. In particular, the reading will be non-zero when nothing is on the scale. Thus use of different calibration procedures or different standard masses will lead to different readings. Operator error is another source. A person who looks at the scale from slightly to the left of center will get a different reading from someone who looks at the scale from slightly to the right of center, and both will get a different reading from someone who properly looks straight down at the dial. There are lots of other places where operator error can creep in. Just to name a few other sources of the difference: Did they weigh the objects in different places on the Earth? Did one use a spring scale and the other use a balance scale?

Taking iNow's response one step further: 13 is too late to start learning about science. Fortunately, our education system knows this. We start teaching kids about science a lot earlier than that, and the space program is used as one of the vehicles for this teaching. One of NASA's mandates is to aid in the education of youth regarding science and technology. NASA targets the entire K-12 spectrum.

Good catch. Gareth56, double-check the units in the text. Is it kilometers per hour or meters per second? 2*pi/sidereal day * 6378 km = 1674 km/hr. Note well: It is 2*pi/sidereal day, not 2*pi/24 hours. There is a slight difference, probably important only to the truly pedantic. A sidereal day is 23.9344696 hours long.

Can you give a quote from that book in context? You are correct: 2*pi/sidereal day * 6378 km = 465 m/s.

I agree that most -- almost all -- creationists are honestly deluded people who are merely spouting lies that they have read elsewhere rather than being utterly dishonest and despicable liars. I'll agree that that honest majority deserves to be treated from a basis of good faith. Innocent until proven guilty and all that ... The dishonest liars (e.g., Kent Hovind, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, ...) on the other hand intentionally deceive. These lies can be extremely profitable. 400 million dollars is not chump change.

This is a question of mathematics as the word "theory" in "string theory" means "mathematical body of knowledge", not "scientific theory". Mathematics is not science. It is a branch of applied logic, which in turn is a branch of philosophy. Many of the thereoms in string theory have been proven -- mathematically, that is. Suppose string theory proves to be an invalid scientific concept. The myriad theorems that came out of string theory will still be true. A mathematical theorem, once proven to be true, remains true forever. Mathematical theorems are not tied to reality. They are tied to logic. Scientific theories can never be proven to be true; they can only be proven to be false.

Debating diehard creationists is the ultimate exercise in futility. Having unshakable beliefs, there is no way to win the debate. Having zero factual basis for their beliefs, they resort to name-calling ("evolutionist") and logical fallacies. The name-calling is easy to address: Usurp their label. The reason to debate creationists is not to win them over (can't be done). It is to keep their poison from spreading and to win over those who are watching the debate. Never get riled by their name-calling, they're torturous abuse of logical, their outright lies. They win if you do. They win not only in their own eyes but also in the eyes of the religious people might otherwise be won over to the side of reason. If you usurp the labels they apply to you, you will have taken one of their weapons of illogic away from them.

You are creating a straw man, iNow. You should know better. Gravity is not a point of contention. There is no floaters versus gravitationalists argument. People use labels. You use labels. You use labels to describe those you don't like (creationists) and those you agree with (environmentalist). You just don't like it when people apply a label to you. In some cases you just need to get over it. This is one of them. If a label isn't disparaging per se but is used to imply disparagement, one of the best ways to combat the label is to usurp it. Ernst Mayr has done exactly that. "Toward a New Philosophy of Biology: Observations of an Evolutionist". Sure we do. We take a side in a debate. If you don't want a label attached to you don't take part in the debate. A person, not evolution, types out out a response to a creationist's fallacious post. Usurp the label.

The problem with this thread is not that the concept of moment of inertia doesn't make sense for a square or a circle. As Bignose just pointed out, there's nothing wrong with the concept. The problem is that the question as posed in the original post is ill-formed. The moment of inertia of a circular manhole cover about an axis normal to and running through the center of the cover is a lot greater than the moment of inertia of a small square of plastic. I'll re-ask the question. If you take two equal masses of the same material and form them into a thin circular disc and a thin square plate, which will have the greater moment of inertia? The answer is the square. The circle is the shape that minimizes the moment of inertia.

You keep taking differences until you arrive at a common term. This will always happen for any series that can be expressed as a polynomial. The first differences for the series at hand are [math]\Delta_1 t_n \equiv t_{n+1} - t_n = (3/4(n+1)^2 -9) - (3/4n^2 -9) = 3/2n+3/4[/math] That's not constant, so take the second difference: [math]\Delta_2 t_n \equiv \Delta_1 t_{n+1} - \Delta_1 t_n[/math] This is constant, so the result is your common difference.

Read what you wrote, iNow. It sure sounds like a belief, only stated in a rather ungainly manner. There are chemists, physicists, biologists, geologists, linguists, etc., all of whom are scientists. The "ist" suffix here means someone who practices in or studies some specialized professional field. The suffix can also mean someone who espouses a position. Environmentalists do not "believe" in the environment, as if it is a god to be worshipped. They espouse a view of protecting the environment. So what is wrong with the word 'evolutionist' per se? Certainly it is better than the ungainly "person who accepts the truth of evolution by natural selection". So what, its a label. People use labels. You use labels yourself, iNow: My suggestion: Usurp the label "evolutionist". I am an evolutionist. That does not mean I believe in evolution. It means I understand the logic and reasoning behind it and do not make up silly excuses to reject the truly immense amount of evidence that supports it. It means I use my mind. That is the opposite of belief.

Many of the leading space authorities are quite concerned about what terrestrial contamination will do to Mars life, even microbial life. Limiting terrestrial impact on extra-terrestrial life is far from a fringe position. It is Standard Operating Procedure. All probes sent to Mars are assembled in ultra clean room conditions and all equipment are sterilized before going into those rooms. There is one and only one reason for doing this: to prevent contaminating Mars with terrestrial life. BTW, I never stated my opinion on this debate. I merely stated that the concern exists and that discovery of life on Mars will have a big impact on future plans for human activity on Mars.

Peter Woit ("Not Even Wrong") and Lee Smolin ("The Trouble with Physics") most likely agree with you. That said, string theory is as much about mathematics as it is about physics. Theory has a rather different meaning in mathematics than in science. Theory in mathematics means "body of knowledge". For example, chaos theory, K-theory, knot theory, measure theory, number theory, ...

Assume the DTBP and decomposition products are ideal gases. The quantity (# moles) of the decomposition products is three times the quantity of DTBP that has decayed. Since the decomposition occurs under constant volume/temperature conditions, the partial pressure of the decomposition products will be 3 times the decrease in DTBP partial pressure. Denote [math]P_0[/math] as the pressure at time t=0 (pure DTBP). The partial pressure of the DTBP at some later time t will be [math]P_{DTBP}(t) = P_0e^{-kt}[/math] The partial pressure of the decomposition products at that time will be [math]P_{decomp}(t) = 3(P_0-P_{DTBP}(t)) = 3P_0(1-e^{-kt})[/math] The total pressure is thus [math]P(t) = P_{DTBP}(t)+P_{decomp}(t) = P_0(3-2e^{-kt})[/math] You want the inverse function. Solving for t given P and P0, [math]t= -\,\ln\left((3-P/P_0)/2\right)/k[/math] Using P0=975 mmHg, P=1225 mmHg, and k=8.66e-3/min yields t=15.84 minutes.

That's only true for a perfectly circular orbit, and there is no such thing as a perfectly circular orbit in the real world. Moreover, centrifugal force isn't real. It is best to forget that concept. Try explaining elliptical or hyperbolic orbits with it. Careful! That is distance from the center of the Earth, not the surface. The Earth has an equatorial radius of 6378 kilometers. Grind through the math and you will see that the gravitational acceleration at 340 kilometers above the surface of the Earth (low Earth orbit) is about 90% of the acceleration at the Earth's surface. Correct. The force gets immeasurably small pretty quickly, however.

The last astronaut class was selected in 2004. You can see their bios here: http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/04class.html. This class of 19 included 3 educator-astronauts and 3 international astronauts. Ignoring those six, *all* have an advanced degree. The competition is incredibly steep. One has a PhD and an MD. Another is a former Navy SEAL who won two Bronze Stars and went to the Naval Academy (mathematics) and MIT (ocean engineering). Special for yourdad: None went to Purdue. Edit Special for yourdad: One of the AsCans 2000 did go to Purdue! http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/feustel-aj.html. How did NASA let this guy slip in?

First things first: Your son *must* have a backup plan. The odds of becoming an astronaut are very small. The odds are even worse elsewhere. Canada is in the midst of choosing new astronauts. 5,352 Canadians applied for the two (maybe three) slots available. What you want for a backup plan is something that (a) will give your son a meaningful career as a non-astronaut, and (b) drastically tilt the odds in his favor. Three essentials: a technical degree with outstanding grades from an outstanding school, physical fitness, and leadership skills. What your son can do now and in the near future: 1. Eagle scout. A significant percentage of astronauts are Eagles. 2. Organized sports. An even great percentage played some sport in high school. 3. Honors classes. He needs to get in a very, very good school. 4. Solid A's in all classes. See above. 5. Math, science, or engineering. Basket weaving is not a good route to becoming an astronaut. 6. Learn to fly. Essential for becoming a pilot-astronaut, a plus for becoming a mission specialist. 7. JROTC, if he is of that bent. NASA still has a preference for military experience. Longer term, college. He must aim for either one of the military academies (West Point, Annapolis, or Colorado Springs) or a very top-notch technical school (MIT, Stanford, Ivy League, Georgia Tech (aerospace engineering), a smattering of others.) A technical degree is essential. Aerospace engineering is one obvious choice, but not the only one. Accomplishing the above will vastly increase the odds of your son becoming an astronaut and vastly increase the odds of your son becoming a success should he fail to become an astronaut (or decide that becoming an astronaut was just a childhood wish).