Phi for All

As happens in science, when a model came along that better explained an idea, Jordan's algebra fell out of use. Jordan, as well as many Nazi's, followed good methodology, went through proper peer review and produced good science.

Oh. You represent THE TRUE CHURCH. I didn't realize that. My bad. So... the largest Christian sect isn't really Christian at all. Now that I know you represent THE TRUE CHURCH, and that your translations are THE ONLY ACCURATE ONES, I'll pay closer attention to everything you say. That's a pretty sweet deal you've got going there. The Jestapo? Actually, there are tons of Yellow Page listing for "true" churches. In fact, most of them claim to have "the truth". Some even claim to have "the only true church". You guys should get a lawyer and see about that copyright infringement. You could be as rich as those Catholic un-Christians. Well, keep your eyes peeled, we wouldn't want you to get hurt through a misunderstanding. If we follow the Douay bible, don't some parts encourage us to make war against unbelievers (Numbers 31:7-18)? And if we capture them, can we still kill the helpless prisoners? What about the wives and male children? Can we still keep the virgins for ourselves? I'm not really comfortable with all of that, but if the bible is perfect.... Perfect in every word, as long as you're the one interpreting it, right? Well, except for the death of Jesus, or his crucifixion.

The url is at the top of the quote I took from the American Museum of Natural History. Here it is again: http://www.amnh.org/education/resources/rfl/web/essaybooks/cosmic/p_lemaitre.html I only took an excerpt from the article. You should read the whole article. It gives a good chronological picture of the findings that led up to the more formal theory, which didn't even get its current (inaccurate and meant to be derogatory) name until 1949.

I don't normally allow first-time posters to join and post links to off-site offerings. I allowed this because it was free and seemed to at least be science-oriented. But you seem more interested in having people watch the video rather than discuss its contents. You flatter and cajole and claim to wonder about the content without ever mentioning much of the content. You talk about equations without ever posting any. Frankly, you make it seem as though you have a vested interest that goes beyond mere scientific curiosity.

No theory can be fact because you can't test it with every set of possible variables. Experiments can only support a theory under the particular conditions of the experiment. I don't know why you can't see this. My 12-year-old daughter grasped the concept right away. http://www.amnh.org/education/resources/rfl/web/essaybooks/cosmic/p_lemaitre.html So subtle you could swear it didn't exist. Iggy made some really good points about the kinds of effort and resources behind current efforts. Is simple denial really the best you can do? John Michell, an Englishman, first proposed the existence of black holes in 1783, just a bit before the USSR was formed. Englishmen can be pre-Soviet visionaries too, it seems. I resurrected that thread and responded. Your model seemed attributed to Jordan algebra, which isn't used anymore in quantum mechanics, for many reasons. And you didn't really use any math at all. You didn't even offer an explanation that solves more problems than dark matter does.

We can't get the better education part until Congress stops making public schools look bad so they can privatize them. Some sort of voting reform has to happen first. The integrity will probably never happen with career politicians. Maybe instead of elections, we go back to the idea of political office by lottery. Limited terms well compensated for, a small stipend for life once you're out of office, free medical insurance. Remove as many opportunities for corruption as possible. I would think the average person is less likely to risk losing their "perks for life" to get a few payoffs for special interest votes. But even a system like this would need to be changed eventually, because people who learn a system are more likely to scam it.

There are. Two 50mph crashes totaling 100mph of impact (2x60=120 for the OP's example), spread along a straight line and divided equally between the two cars. The force from car A acts on car B, and the force from car B acts equally on car A. The force starts at the front end of each car and travels to the back of each car, leaving each with a single 50mph (60mph) impact. Think of it this way. Imagine clapping your hands together with just enough force where it almost hurts, but not quite. Now imagine slapping just one hand against the wall with the same force. And finally, imagine slapping just one hand against the wall with twice the force. If it almost hurt the first two times, what would it feel like with twice the force?

Jordan's math isn't used anymore in quantum mechanics. It was replaced by von Neumann algebra, which has many more applications. Is there a test which will provide evidence to support your theory?

I wonder if the real reason is because the two-party system requires each side to cast their nets too wide, and they're both guaranteed to catch some crazy. The Dems get some pretty far left huggers that would sacrifice people for trees, and the Reps snare the religious zealots who revere the embryos more than the mother. If we had instant run-off voting, would abortion claim as much attention? Would Roe v Wade be safer? Would we finally be able to vote for better representation as opposed to just making sure Sarah Palin isn't in charge of the nukes, or that Rick Perry isn't all up in our women's uteri? Could a different voting system be an answer to multiple problems?

Newton's Third Law of Motion. Total force is doubled, but then you have to divide it between the two cars.

iragreen037 has been banned as a sockpuppet for edwardreed. Not an intellectually honest way of gaining reputation.

! Moderator Note edwardreed, your spam link to an essay site has been removed. Your sockpuppet account, iragreen037, which you used to promote your link, agree with yourself and give yourself reputation with, has been banned. As these are rules violations, your warning level has been increased. I'll also use this opportunity to note that some of your other posts violate our plagiarism rules. Please cite the source when you copy/paste the words of others into your posts.

Speculations is where we put threads that have un-reviewed claims that aren't part of accepted science. That's the way science works; your ideas must be testable and make predictions. So far, the predictions your idea suggests (rings in pebble interiors, sand stuck to pebbles, limestone accretion of sand) are all demonstrably false. Your reverse theory fails. With this much being falsified, I wouldn't count on being moved to the accepted science areas anytime soon, nor would I count on any of our members being interested enough to buy your book.

Is this for homework?

If they're not rolling around, how did they get up on the beach? I've never heard an argument for young earth creationism that wasn't rooted in some kind of misinformation, outright lies or previously refuted pseudo-science. You failed to answer my question. I'll repeat it. Why are pebbles not essentially made of sandstone?

You keep saying this, but you fail each time to offer what science is looking for, a better explanation, one with even more supporting evidence than the current theory has. No offense intended, but you are narrowly interpreting what it means for people to adhere to a theory. You think that adherence is like super-glue, when in reality it's more like a Post-It note. Please don't take that to mean that science is fickle or that the support for a theory like Big Bang is weak. In fact, the adherence you call dogma is only strong because of all the evidence that exists. Let me ask you this. You've conducted an experiment ten million times and gotten the same results each time. You know that it's possible another attempt could produce different results. Would you be more inclined to think it would be the same or more inclined to think it would be different?

But it's not just one book. The bishops at Constantine's council poured over many writings which had been considered holy, even first-person testaments of the words of Jesus. Some they threw out, some they kept. They even threw out books that some Christians decided should be put back, like the Book of Enoch, now canon with the Ethiopian Orthodox Church and Eritrean Orthodox Church (let me guess, those Christians don't count, right?). All of science should doubt any one man's translation. It's funny you mention it this way. Some think the reason the Council of Nicea threw out the Gospel of Thomas was because they feared he had written into his text some kind of code which could be translated later and make the fledgling church look bad. It starts out, "And he said, "Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death." Jesus said, "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all." It talked about trusting the teachings of Christ and not to listen to those who would grab leadership of the church to interpret it in their own way. One passage says, "The disciples said to Jesus, 'We know that you are going to leave us. Who will be our leader?' Jesus said to them, 'No matter where you are you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being.'" James the Just was executed by the High Priest Ananus ben Ananus during a brief gap in the succession of Procurators, when the church was the only law available. It was considered murder by many of those involved, and later King Agrippa decided to remove ben Ananus from his position. It's obvious that the fledgling Catholic Church wouldn't want any reminders of that incident to make their way into the canon. But what gave them the right to remove anything that Jesus said?

Creationism always has an agenda. But since it is religion attempting to wear the cloak of scientific validity, it needs to be answered lucidly, rationally and persistently, so others don't get caught up by its deception.

This analysis disagrees. It says that flat pebbles can occur on steeper shores, and that the flatness is due to increased transport, which suggests a longer period of abrasion. Oh, I see. Is this an optical illusion only you can see? Is your immunity something derived naturally or does it require some sort of technological mechanism, like special glasses or a hat? Please don't do that. If you're going to quote what I say, use the whole sentence, not cherry-picked portions. That is intellectually dishonest. "Sandstone" is an insufficient answer. Why would sandstone only work on three or four grains of sand and not more? What mechanism accounts for gluing together four grain clumps, then multiple bigger clumps to eventually form a pebble? Why are pebbles then not essentially made of sandstone?

This is observationally incorrect. What evidence do you have to support this? Again, observationally untrue. How do you explain those flat pebbles we all love to skip on the water? Accretion does not explain these pebbles; erosion does. We don't need to "correct the baseline" to know that Egyptians built with limestone. What do pyramids in the desert have to do with pebbles on the beach? This is like saying, "Pretend it's really 8:45 am instead of 7:30 am and you'll see that you don't have time for breakfast." "A path to another dimension"?! Where are you observing this? Is this a dimension like height or time, or do you mean a parallel universe? Do you have any evidence you can point to? You're going to have to provide something to at least partially offset the mountains (not pebbles) of evidence that supports evolution. Again, observationally incorrect. A pebbled beach is typically fairly steep, causing a strong swash, or forward movement, coupled with a weak backwash. This action facilitates more longshore transport of larger materials like pebbles, and less sand which is mainly affected by breaking waves. Pebbles have more surface area for the strong swash and winds to push against, leaving them higher than gravity would normally compensate for. What beaches are you observing these things at?! I would like to see a glue that bonds grains of sand together three or four at a time but not to other grains or clumps. If your idea is correct, why don't we see pebbles studded with grains of sand that have glued themselves to it to increase its size? And if your answer is that the grit is too small to see or feel, then how could that grit possibly survive the grinding action of the sand? Is your dirty mucky salty seawater glue really that strong? If so, why doesn't it gum up a lot of other things?

Life-at-any-cost is not a tenable position. Why should the life of a zygote that MAY reach maturity take precedence over the currently living host? And you have to draw a line sometime AFTER conception before conferring humanity simply because policing such a broad definition is impossible without a profound desecration of a woman's rights to her own body. The only people I've talked to who welcomed the idea of the Miscarriage Police Investigators told me the force could also be expanded to encompass ALL morality violations. They happened to be Republicans.

Possibly the Green Party might interest you.

First, I would check out the websites of the major political parties but especially some of the independent ones. As you've no doubt been reading, the two major parties seem to be a bit off-platform in their attempts to please as many people as possible. Once you determine which party most closely represents your stance on the issues, you should be able to find a local chapter that is gearing up for next year's election. Volunteer and work hard. My advice would be to stick with your science and technology interests, and take some Political Science courses when you can. If you're not in college yet, ask your counselor for some course work suggestions. It would be great to have a future politician with a good science background. Even if you decided to be a Republican.

It's clear you only think you know what consensus means. It does NOT mean, "Hey, does everyone agree with this? Yes? OK, 'nuff said, let's move on!" When enough evidence supports an idea, and there is no better explanation, it's usually called theory and scientists agree to use it, but keep trying to find something better. Consensus is not a dead end. There is plenty of proof of science treating an idea as the best available, then changing when a better explanation came along. And the Big Bang theory didn't "quickly" come into being. Many observations had been made prior to the idea being put forth, and many have been made since that time that happen to support it. In fact, much of the early theory was formulated back in the 1920s, but it wasn't until the discovery of the cosmic microwave background in 1964, and the huge support that evidence gave, that many scientists arrived at a consensus that something like the Big Bang must have happened. What is a really sad state of affairs is when people fail to study things for themselves, and just listen to the opinions of others and take them as Gospel.

I'm usually uncritical of religion as long as it doesn't try to use science to justify itself. You can have your faith in an unobservable god and I'm just fine with that. But it is an utter garbage argument to say that because God made everything, nature itself is proof of God's existence. Or because the Bible says it, it must be true. Seriously, if you can say that you have no business calling yourself a rational human being. The Bible was expurgated for political reasons by the Council of Nicea in the fourth century to please the Emperor Constantine. Whole books, even gospels written by apostles, were removed by church leaders at the time. It may be a nice story and a basis for your faith, but it is a contaminated source of natural explanations.