pwagen

Another question, Advance; Do you include mental attraction in this, or only physical? Because I've seen very attractive people, that I wouldn't want to be around. And I've met some people who I wouldn't judge as physically appealing, which I have an amazing time with. Both of these cases go for both genders (yes, I have no issue recognizing whether someone of my gender is physically attractive, yet have no attraction to them myself). If you're only talking about physical attraction, would you say it's equally disgusting for two ugly people of opposite genders to get it on?

This nonexistant "debate" between YEC and science should be looked at on the predictions either idea makes. We can look at biology, physics, geology, for example. Now, what we do is take a look at the hypothesis and figure out what kind of predictions they will make in different scenario. When it comes to geology, we would expect to see fossils all mashed up together in disorder, if YEC is true. Supposedly they were all killed in the Flood, which covered the Earth in water. If what science says is right, we would expect to find fossils sorted in different strata depending on when in the past they lived. In general biology, we would expect to be able to make us of different ways to decide how old things are. In YEC, the Earth is believed to be 6000 years old, or so. We would therefor not be able to find anything that's older than 6000 years. If the Earth is young, this would imply some kind of creator. I hope I'm not assuming too much when we can assume this creator knows what he's doing. We would therefor not be expected to find any kind of redundancy. In evolutionary science, we would expect older features to be changed in such a way as to make them obsolete, function completely different from their original intention or just be downright annoyingly bad in their layout. If evolution was true, we'd expect to see traces of how species evolved, and they would be separated by location due to moving and adapting to their environment. Seeing as if YEC was true, and Noah let out all the animals from the Ark a mere 4-5000 years ago, we would not expect them to have traversed very far, and definitely not to get to other continents which are only accessible by water. We would therefor expect to see a large concentration of animals around the Middle Eastern area of the planet, and none on neither the Americas nor Australia. Mitch Bass brings up the Galapagos Island, which should be deserted right now. Now, which of these evidence are wrong? Which ones show YEC to be the better hypothesis? Do you have any other evidence, that we don't?? YEC has been shown to be exceptionally bad at being useful for just about anything. Meanwhile, evolution has stood more tests than any other theory in science, and we've had an incredible amount of use for it in such different areas as medicine and engineering.

How would you tell whether your hypothesis is correct though? What evidence do you have, except for "I believe X is true"? What predictions does your hypothesis make? What could your hypothesis explain, that mainstream science can not? Mainstream physics has a lot of evidence to back it up, and has passed the tests so far, as actually working. Why should we discard it in favor of your idea?

You can't just throw a bunch of variables this way and equate them. What's the value of the "force of gravity", a, and in what unit? Same for the other letters, what are the units and, preferably, values?

Also, why ask if you're dead set on everyone being wrong? If you think you have figured out something mainstream science has not, you really should be publishing papers, not acting like a hormonal teen on an online forum.

One of the reasons I replied in this thread was because of the "show me any errors I've made" attitude. Unfortunately, I see no such thing when others explain why certain things in your idea needs more explaining, or when they've been shown to be false. Always be humble when it comes to knowledge.

Nope. Proof belongs to mathematics, not biology. Until you can make that distinction, your ideas won't be worth a whole lot. Would you like to show us the complete data set? Until you do, there is nothing for you to build a case on, as others can't examine your methodology and results. Then, how come I've found myself attracted to people of exceptionally different ethnicity than my own? Citation needed. There we don't go. Personal anecdotes are useless in scientific discussion. You have brought up nothing in regards to evidence, thus there is nothing for anybody to consider.

Ophiolite, your link doesn't work for me (will try it on a computer later, on the phone right now). But if it is what you say, I might stand corrected on not thinking it could be done. Will look it up. And thanks for making sure I didn't think you were referring to me. I didn't even notice the connection though, so you might as well have been referring to me, as it all went right over my head. Yeah, not the sharpest bulb in the stables, this one.

True, I might not have kept up, which is why I asked which posts contain lies, so that we can examine them and reach some form of consensus. The simple answer is no. Aside from us not knowing how to make brain cells, we wouldn't know if they would be able to "connect". If this is at all even remotely possible, it's so far into the future, the technology required would, to us, be indistinguishable from magic (paraphrasing Arthur C. Clarke).

Ah yes, I see what you mean now. While I'm all clear about the importance of repeatable experiments in science, I was a bit unclear on the use of "effort" in that context, so thanks for clearing that up. However, that said (and my non-native self wouldn't want to act like an expert on the English language), I do have a little issue with the word effort. To me, as a lay person, it sounds more like "we're trying again and again to make science" rather than "we're devising experiments which can be repeated by others. Do you see what I'm getting at? It's got the feeling of science consisting of brawns rather than brains. Or is that a way too silly objection?

Let's assume you're right, and gravity does orbit galaxies (correct me if that wasn't what you meant). Since gravity is presumably responsible for the expansion of the universe, this would make it a mostly repulsive force, correct? Wouldn't it, then, be easier to say that while gravity orbits the galaxies, it creates some form of pressure which "sticks" to mass (which is what I think you were saying with "...that energy somehow incorperates itself into..."), charging them with attraction? Is there any way to know whether that's the correct explanation? After all, it seems to get rid of the paradox of having a force that is both repulsive and attractive at the same time, wouldn't you say? Now, regardless of my interpretation of your theory (which, I'm sorry to say, I still don't quite fully understand), how would you go about proving it wrong, falsify it? What can it explain which the standard models of gravity can not? Edit: Fixed formatting errors.

While science already has a definition, is the assignment to come up with a definition "in your own words"? If so, could you explain "reproducable effort"? It might be due to me not being a native English speaker, but I'm not sure I understand that particular wording.

Are you saying gravity is only produced inside stars? If so, how does it interact with other bodies (planets and the like)? Also, how come we're attracted to Earth and don't fly off? Gravity attracts. How does an attractive force push the universe apart?

Would you care to tell which ones have been lying? Perhaps there's a misunderstanding we could try to clear up.

My guess is probably not, definitely not yet. We're a long, long way away from the technology required to produce working brain cells. Much less mass producing them.

Yes, what about it? Perhaps you would like to give out a few points we can use to start a discussion? I believe you have been reminded of the rules before, but there's also a rule against introducing a topic with only links, no text. So what about love, specifically, would you like to discuss?

http://health.howstuffworks.com/skin-care/information/anatomy/skin-wrinkly-in-water.htm

I think we all know the first question assumes the Earth stopped spinning instantly, thus the answer everyone really wants is "we'd fly sideways at 1600 km/h". Just think of the Hollywood potential.

1. It's impossible to tell the future. Assuming we find out a decent way to propel, why not. 2. In a Penning trap, in a vacuum in a strong magnetic field. Read more here: http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~fajans/ALPHA_Spanish/EN_almacenamiento.htm 3. http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/gadgets/home/dyson-bladeless-fan.htm 4. So you think of a series currently airing on TV, and no more than a few days later you see it? It's simply coincidence. You remember thinking about the series when you get to see it on TV, and irrationally assume the two events are related. 5. You also wake up before nothing happens. In your specific scenario, the sudden sound of the poster falling down is enough to drag you out of sleep enough to remember it. Usually when you wake up, you don't get this shock, so you simply fall back to sleep and forget about it.

1. Good genes and an abundance of nutritional sources. 2. Birds are thought to be direct descendants to meat eating dinosaurs. http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/dinosaur-evolution http://www.theguardian.com/science/2007/apr/13/uknews.taxonomy 3. Both plants and humans, as well as every other living thing on the planet, shares a common ancestor. Further back than that, and we're delving into the area of abiogenesis, how life started, as opposed to evolution, how life diverged and developed. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-first-plant-evolved/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_descent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Radio waves are not solid. They are electromagnetic radiation, just as visible light is. The difference is, visible light has a wavelength our eyes can pick up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_waves http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light Basically, what you're suggesting is teleporting things via the use of light. What you then need to do is figure out a way to transform the object you're teleporting into electromagnetic radiation, and then back again. Also, I don't think it would be teleportation so much as sending information at the speed of light.

Yes, you do. And that's a big problem, considering you don't know what happened. And you're not listening to rational explanations, but stick to your own otherworldly ones. And that's fine, but don't expect any upvotes if you're dismissing other people, who have actually taken time out of their day to try and help you. For free. Now go and watch the video Moontanman posted. Let us know when you're done and ready to discuss what you saw, as opposed to arguing for your explanation.

Ask yourself whether we actually possess such technology today, and are able to produce the kind of volume of nanobots that would be needed for something like what you suggest.

I'm amazed every time this is an issue. I can't help but feel just a touch of pride living in a country where, should the same thing happen, the headline would simply read "Michael Sam drafted in the last round". And that is if there would even be a headline. After all, are last round draftees really that exciting? Also, public kissing can be just as sweet, and just as over the top vulgar, regardless of the genders involved. It doesn't matter if I see a same sex couple or a straight couple kissing - if their tongues are cleaning the other one's larynx - get a room! Edit: To clarify, I also don't have any problems with people showing affection as described in the OP (haven't seen the actual kiss myself), as long as they don't go overboard.

Well, the text book specifically say "spherically symmetric Earth". Wouldn't that suggest you ignore the bulge and its effects?