admiral_ju00

yeah i know that those are the chemicals/molecules/atoms(whatever) that are needed to make methane, but my question was under what conditions will these molecules react and produce the gas methane? or is it spontaneous? because for example, many things in biology would require something more than just (as in this case) the those types of molecules to be present in the same area. (leaving out all the details)for example the process of extracting mtDNA/DNA from bones and producing it in quantities that is workable is a tedious process - not spontaneous, rather. you don't just throw in a bunch of chemicals into the solution where the bone lies and come up with DNA.........

no, yes. (although i'll probably get flamed for saying that) for now, i work in a technical support desk for a broadband company, and trust me when i say this, but you'll be surprised by how many people not even being aware of other systems such as BeOS, Mac, Linux, Unix, etc another thing, there is much more software available for a pc platform than for a mac. also, the 1st university i went for, was for computer science, and guess what, not a single course offered(or heard of) of programming on macs. when you go to a book store, almost every single book in the CS dept, especially about programming is either windows related / html. there are far too many companies who will hire someone that can write code for a pc(not necessarily windows) architecture then for a mac take all of these together and you will have your answer.

impressive. you've just reduced the whole of science to a single field(or 2 for the moment).

w/o having you give out too much info before the debate, if Biology, Psychology and what ever else you deem is not science(by the way, Economics is also Science), what do you consider them?

i do not to diss a whole field(any), but i may diss or better yet, disagree with individuals....... just don't think it's right. all i can say now, is that it will be an interesting debate.

please. i watched a documentary on the tv(very recently), and they said it there. can't recall the name of the show or more details as i was busy with my son for the most part.

i got smacked by Sayonara for bringing up exactly such a thread(well, i'm exadurating and he told me to use the search function ) but like he said, such threads come up very often here.

kind of of-topic, but are there any new developments on the string theory? i heard that it may no longer be amongst the top priorities of most physicists due to it's lack of testability and funding. is that true?

not if you're using atomic clocs, and the speed of light is constant to all observers. it does not decrease or increase.

interesting. this is yet another reason why i never had the urge of using assembly

did you use the exact same code? or did you change the vars around? {edit} because if it's the exact same code, then when compiled, it should not deviate that much. regardless of the pc you're on.

well, i never claimed that i was an expert in physics or astronomy/cosmology. but you know what, if i was going to pick a theory and trash it, i'd be sure to supply adequate evidence in support and provide it in a coherent and non-implicit way - in a professional manner. my remark on the genius thing was that recently there has been so many of them here that it's hard to tell if your post has a purpose or not.

remember, on those old computers, there was a Turbo button. when pressed, it slowed down the system and that allowed the game(mostly) to play. it may still be the same issue. the current system is way too fast for that old game to play.

dunno the exact reason, but i used to code in Pascal, C, C++ and VB, and after the code was debugged, linked and executed, the final .exe file was indeed larger, much larger then the source file. but then again, this is why you should restrict the syntax to what you need. meaning if you need to have a value between 1 and 50,000(and only whole numbers) for example, use int as opposed to double int or any of the higher ranges. an obvious reason is if using more or less a shotgun to kill a fly, and especially if the code is lengthy, the time to debug, link and compile the code would be tremendous.

windows, especially compared to mac os, has never been cheap.

that's a matter of opinion. nothing more' date=' i'm afraid. well, when you create a computer that does not need ANY outside interference/intervention for any or all of it's functions, please let the world know. but then again, you creating this computer would indeed constitute an interference, would it not?

the idea is that if they interact with normal matter, the method of their interaction is currently beyond our comprehension. or as they say, they may not or seem not to interact with normal matter(that being protons, neutrons, electrons, photons, etc).

found something of interest. but even this does not say that jet streams can shoot out of the black hole. merely, they 'think' these jet streams can be caused by black holes. big difference from the coming out of, obviously. and and finally, a linky....... http://edition.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/08/29/black.holes/ PY, your search parameters, yield the same info.

you sure they said 'jet streams can be shot out from black holes'? other bodies(example: Sun) can and do, do it, but not black holes.

should be interesting. one of my 1st question is where does methane come from on Titan. and pics or other visual data from it would be nice, very nice.

yeah. i think we've found yet another winner here, err, i mean genious.

for a moment ignoring anything living that produced it, what else or how else is methane gas formed? for example, some planetary bodies or their satellites, have methane(gas), methane(liquid), ethane, etc. or does simply an abundance of (or contact of) Carbon and Hydrogen atoms and it form anywhere, anytime?

while the though of spending the whole 60 minutes in confined area is grueling, how would this be done if the idea is to go back in time in millions of years as opposed to hours or even days?