MigL

Yes, I am familiar with that graph. I am also familiar with reading such graphs, and note that at that specific point in time where the high estimate is 35 %, the low estimate is approx. 20 % . So why are you considering only the high estimate ? I simply wish to know if Moontanman has any other references which justify the high estimate.

In my opinion the 'theories' that Acme posted are not pseudo-sciences, but failed scientific theories. They were 'established' using methodology which has since been shown to be invalid or used incomplete information/data. They are equivalent to the pre-Rutheford, raisin-pudding model of the atom, the Ptolomaic solar system, the aether, etc. The fact that some people have developed a cultish belief system around them is just sad. Astrology and alchemy on the other hand, would qualify in my opinion. It is very easy to imagine how someone who is ignorant of science and the scientific method, could convince themselves that the position of the stars and planets could influence his/her life. Or, not knowing any nuclear chemistry/physics and the reason for differences between elements, may think that a simple electro-chemical process could convert one into another.

Don't mean to imply that I doubt you Moontanman. But 33 % ? I would think at such a high percentage things would be spontaneously combusting all over the place. I would also think small single celled life forms would have trouble surviving when exposed to such a high oxidizer concentration. Do you have a source for this 33 % claim ? I was always under the impression that anything over approx. 25% would be unsuitable for life ( as we know it ) to develop.

Most AC transformers are laminated plate because of the low frequency. If you've ever messed around with the switching power supply inside your computer ( don't do it, seriously high voltages and enough retention on the inlet caps to seriously injure you ) you would have noticed comparatively small ferrite core transformers because of the high switching frequency of these supplies. I didn't know Foucault's first name was Eddy.

I've posted this before; the conservation of mass/energy is not applicable at t=0 ( the beginning ). Conservation of mass/energy is a direct result of time translational symmetry ( Noether's theorem ), and at time t=0, time is asymmetric as there is only the forward direction. Mass/energy conservation does not apply and so, cannot be used as an excuse for disallowing the universe to 'spring' from nothing. You'll have to look elsewhere.

So when I post something, it is off-topic, according to Acme, the originator of the thread. But when Overtone rebuts my comments, that is apparently OK, as he agrees with Overtone's point of view. Heck, he even gets a +1 from some mindless nitwit who thinks ( wrongly ) Overtone has addressed the points I made, instead of going off on a rant about R. Reagan. That essentially proves the point I've been making all along. You aren't interested in discussion. You want to stop opposing viewpoints from being expressed and only want re-enforcing of your own. I am astounded with the tolerance and enlightenment you guys display. ( watch out, some sarcasm may drip on you ) By the way Acme, you yourself posted the comment from Phi that your OP would 'generate a lot of tangents', yet now you say those tangents are not allowed.

There is the oppressors and the oppressed. The oppressors don't realize or think that they are oppressors. That makes two sides, does it not ? Just as there are/were oppressors and oppressed in Northern Ireland and Israel/Palestine with the same mindset ( for different reasons, of course ). So, exactly what are you going on about ? And of course one of your witless lackeys gives you +1 for you 'deep' comment. Why don't you re-read the Common/Jon Stewart quotes which I believe iNow posted; they all seem to get it. After the Brown shooting, the whole country wanted a change in the way things were done. But as more time/violence goes by, and if this police shooting does turn out to be retaliatory, it'll give some people the excuse to claim "Look at the things they do, they deserve to be treated like that". And the change never happens. Is that what is in the best interest of American society? Is that what we want ?

Dictating what can and can't be discussed; how authoritarian of you. I guess this ends my participation.

Don't mix up your frames. I would imagine that the event horizon should 'move' with respect to the central singularity, if its mass were to be accelerated.

The same color/temperature scale is used for my HID bulbs ( auto ) and computer monitors. Is it just me or do these skulls look exactly like the crystal skulls in the last Indiana Jones movie ?

My apologies to Ant Sinclair for that remark about religious preachings. I had gotten the wrong impression in the thread " what is his name, exactly ? ". I stand by my remarks about Canadian wing-nuts and aliens. But at least we've never been anally probed as seems to happen to most southern Americans.

I think you're being paranoid.

Sorry Acme, I haven't nor do I intend to read this study, as I don't have the time, but I would like to see this thread continue. Is the study targetting the 'leadership' of the American Conservative movement, or regular people like me, who happen to share a few of of the ideals which are sometimes labeled 'conservative' ? I have stated many times that I have fiscally conservative values, I tend to live within my means, and wish my government would also try, although I realize that sometimes borrowing must be done. I get the impression you are Canadian also ( BC ? ), if not I apologize, but last year Canadian taxpayers ( sorry I don't have US equivalent values, but I'm sure they can be looked up and it'll shock people ) spent over 60 billion dollars just on interest, servicing our combined federal and provincial debt. This money did not go into social services, salaries, defence, education or health. It was paid directly to big banks and bond holders. In other word, this money contributes directly to the wealth inequality that you, Phi for All, iNow, Ten oz and even Overtone have eloquently made a case against in that other thread. How many hospitals could have been built ? How many schools ? How many jobs ? I wonder how much the US spent servicing its huge debt ? How many more Chinese billionaires did the US taxpayers create last year ? Would it have been enough to realise B. Obama's dream of universal health care for ALL Americans ? Sad and pitiful. Things are not always black and white, there are shades in between. Cutting government spending does not necessarily lead to an erosion of our social 'safety net'. Sometimes it can actually improve life for everyone. If on the other hand, your argument is that the American Conservative leadership wants to cut social programs and still keep making huge payments to big Banks and investors, i.e. on the backs of little people to benefit the rich, then OK, I'll agree with you, THEY are insane. But those of us who are hoping cutting government spending leads to improvement, certainly are NOT.

Come on, you guys, that is not what I meant. Ten oz just likes to 'pounce' on me from time to time. The next line should have given away my meaning as it referenced the previously quoted Common and Jon Stewart. I'll repeat... Are we going to have another LONG-RUNNING CONFLICT in the US, similar to others worldwide that have lasted for decades if not centuries, where neither side is willing to forget, forgive, and move on to a better future ? Incidentally news reports have appeared that the apprehended shooter was on parole for a previous robbery, but he may not have been targeting police. He may have been shooting at totally different targets and the policemen were 'collateral' damage, i.e. this was not a retaliatory act. But that still begs the question, what is it with you Americans and your guns ?

Maybe the fridge was unplugged after his death. Rates of decomposition of the body would prove that true or false.

Not so fast imatfaal... This may be off-topic, and if so, I apologise. The cosmic censorship hypothesis may be unproven, but everything has an event horizon. If we define the horizon as the radius where the escape velocity is equal to/greater than c , then, if we get close enough to any standard model massive particle, we eventually encounter an event horizon, as standard model particles are 'dimensionless'. This is not noticed as the event horizon, in such cases, has a radius nearly equivalent to zero, i.e. it coincides with the point-like particle. When the event horizon is 'equivalent' to the particle size, light can escape from it and we can 'see' it. If this were the case for a black hole ( extreme mass ) singularity, i.e. if it was 'naked', we would be able to 'see' an edge or end ( or beginning ) of space-time. In effect a 'cusp' ( don't know if that term applies ) in the space-time manifold where it is not continuously differentiable.

I think there's some confusion in acsinuk's mind between 'dark matter', which is postulated to account for the spiral shapes of galaxies, and 'dark energy' which is postulated to account for the accelerated expansion of the universe. The 'dark' aspect simply implies unknown.

So Black Americans thought one of their own had been unfairly targeted and killed. Now the police think some of them have been unfairly targeted and almost killed. I don't think anyone is taking Jon Stewart's or Common's advice. Are we destined to have a Northern Ireland, Israel/Palestine or Balkans, right her in our back yard ?

Sooooo... Nothing about my good looks, intelligence and modesty ?

So because of my indiscriminate use of some term, Overtone, you now lump me in with the 'group' whose views are 'mildly insane'. That was my impression from the get-go, that you are using the insinuation of insanity to stifle the views of people arguing against you. I have been described as good-looking, intelligent and modest, cetrainly never as insane ( joking ).

Who says cosmic rays don't cause strange matter ? Maybe its been happening for millions of years There's a lot of strange people out there !

The universe may have positive or negative curvature. It is not necessarily flat. If it did have positive curvature, and was finite, then there could be a way to go off in one direction only to re-appear coming from the opposite direction. But just because a path exists doesn't mean it would be feasible. The mistake you're making, is thinking the receding galaxies are actually 'moving' away from us; they are not. Consider a circle with dots around the circumference. Obviously if you start at a specific point and go in one direction around the circumference you eventually return to the starting point from the opposite direction. But this is not the same as the galactic recession due to expansion. That can be visualized as the circle expanding, such that the arc between points on the circumference gets larger. The points are not actually moving around the circumference. They will never reappear from the opposite direction. And neither will receding galaxies.

And it seems the violence just keeps going on in Ferguson. I think it'll get even worse before it gets better.

Oh, I'm stressed John ! Being in neither the Liberal or Conservative camp, I'm stressed out by all the things mentioned in the blog ( chill out Acme, I know this is a serious discussion, but surely we can have some fun with it too ), PLUS, I have to worry about the National and provincial debt ( in Canada of course ). I ( and every other man, woman and child ) have the equivalent of a small mortgage thanks to our Government's continued attempts to buy elections by bribing us with reckless spending and refusal to even try to balance budgets. No true Liberal would ever worry about that.

There is a requirement for singularities to have a horizon. 'Naked' singularities are not allowed. However the BB singularity ( if there was one ) could be different as there is no 'outside' to shield it from. That being said, Sorcerer, if we look back into the past expecting to see the event horizon of the BB singularity, we would be 'outside' the universe. This is an impossibility as the BB singularity and its attendant horizon is what expanded to become the universe.