pwagen

A lot of brain functions don't develop until a certain age, including the ability to store memories. There's absolutely no need to invoke spirits that don't arrive until a few years after birth to explain a somewhat understood process.

Delta1212, if I could +1 you as much as I'd want to, you'd have to get a restraining order on me. Excellent post!

Sorry, I think you may be lost. This is a science forum.

I thought this was pretty cool. It shows the stars close to the center of our galaxy, orbiting the black hole (visually enhanced, as you can probably tell).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9100009/Scientists-did-not-break-speed-of-light-it-was-a-faulty-wire.html

Sounds like you need to stop going to certain sites.

Please don't say the question is about an atom or molecule with an intermittent or disappearing proton, as you already have two topics on that very topic.

Newtonian mechanics deal with forces on macroscopic objects, thus it has very little, if anything, to do with electrons.

While a lot of the things you said probably makes sense from a religious point of view (and I'm not one to judge that), I take a little issue with this, as it's looking like a No True Scotsman fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman I don't think you (and I mean "you" in the most general way) can say anyone's religious practices, as religion in itself is so vague and general, any interpretation is as valid as any other. While you might say what you said about Heaven not being materialistic (which I think it likely isn't, should it exist), there's really no reason to dismiss other points of views. Ask her if she's comfortable praising a god that sends people to Hell for not believing in him on bad evidence. You were thrown out for questioning their beliefs, which is definitely not unheard of. However, while there are, in my opinion, lots of reason to dislike religion, hating it for not being able to answer questions and excluding you from their club shouldn't be one of them. Not the least because you're hopefully better off without a religion that skews your views on everything. Now, you say you made "a few remarks on how stupid that was". Although I'm usually the first to jump on the religion bashing bandwagon, and I realize you were only 7 at the time, rudeness should rarely, if ever, be a part of the discourse. Anyway, rant over. If you're looking for a religious perspective, Unity+'s answer is the way to go, despite my minor objection. If you're looking for a secular answer, it's really a moot question.

If there's no total amount to add, perhaps you're supposed to add half a gram at a time until you get a reaction? It's hard to tell when we don't have the full protocol, as hypervalent_iodine hinted at, and don't know what you're up to.

No sweat. If it's ok on your laptop, the problem is probably due to my phone. Looks much better now, thanks!

Why did you do that? A vertical message with one character per line is not only annoying since you have to scroll down for hours, it's also exceptionally difficult to read and does NOTHING in the way of explanation. I've enjoyed all the crazy ideas in the thread so far, but that really can't have been worth it.

I have to question this. If this was true, wouldn't people see 24/25 Hz video as "a series of rapidly changing stills" as well? Obviously we don't, so what am I missing?

Got it, thanks!

If we had the technology to do what you suggest, sure, I don't know that it's impossible. However, it seems unnecessarily complicated to me. I can't see how an AI is limited by its energy requirements. Rather, I would say it's limited by computational powers or the effectiveness of its algorithms. So is there really a reason not to simply keep it here on Earth?

Care to clarify what momentun has to do with gravitational attraction?

This seems remotely relevant to the topic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

From what I can remember, this seems to be similar to what Jeff Hawkins writes in his book "On Intelligence", regarding how our brains are built. Can recommend that book if you want to know more (or ask, and I could look it up and do a poor job of paraphrasing from it).

It's not, and shouldn't be, a question about belief. The Big Bang Theory, as it stands, is the best explanation we have for how the universe developed. It has managed to make accurate predictions, and we have lots of data supporting it. It is, and should be, a question about evidence.

I think there are degrees to it. There are stories you tell kids to make them believe as you do, or think the way you do. Like religion or prejudices. Then there are (what you believe to be) truths, which you tell kids to tell them about the world, and which don't conflict with the first kind. Like how the Earth orbits the Sun. Then there are stories like the one about Santa. It's not true, but it has the benefits of, for example, fostering the children's imagination and making them behave nicely. Like imatfaal touched on in post #12, it can probably teach them to think critically. It's also not a story the adult take very seriously, and they drop it as the kid ages. It's simply on another level than for example religion, and I think the child would (perhaps subconsciously) notice the difference in the weight we put on it. Now, one could probably argue that you shouldn't tell a kid to be good for goodness sake, and that might very well be correct. On the other hand, THAT runs the risk of complicating things for the kid. I'm no child psychologist by any stretch of the imagination, but I can imagine it's better to teach the child to be good first, THEN explaining the deeper meaning and reasoning on why they should be good. Yes, if they can reason and reach the conclusion to be nice based on objective arguments, that would be great. But they're kids, and I seriously doubt their capacity to reach such conclusions. Sometimes, you simply have to tell them "that's the way it is, and that's that". As you, probably correctly, points out, there are a lot of "corrupt characteristics" in life, and it would be better if there weren't. But it doesn't matter if you're talking about politics, religion or education, I strongly believe removing Santa is the wrong end to start, and energy would be better spent elsewhere.

The Santa mythos exists outside the US. Also, stating that all CEOs and everyone in your government are "corrupt bigets" (sic) is making you sound more like a conspiracy theorist than a rationalist. Again, Christmas is not a religion. And while I don't think that's what you're getting at, I just want to clarify the unlikeliness of people substituting God for Santa.

Don't really see the point of posting something on a discussion forum if you're not willing to discuss it. If they create so much evil and problems, why?

Yeah, I suspected as much. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/82456-debate-can-peopie-spontaneousiy-combust/

People will go a long way for some attention. I think there's already a thread discussing the alleged science behind SHC. I can see if I can find it when I get home (on the phone atm, so not properly eqipped to search the forums).