Reaper

Electron spin is an intrinsic property; it's spin is always s=1/2. You would have caught that if you read the link more carefully. It does not matter if it is in a Hydrogen Atom or a Uranium one.

I did not, as earlier before you didn't provide anything. What does this have to do with anything? The field lines will never touch another line with the same charge, it has nothing to do with expansion. Besides which, all the charges in the Universe mostly cancel out each other because of equal and opposite charges. Woohoo, you actually provided references! Very good. Now, there are serious problems with them, but hey, everyone has to start somewhere . Now then, lets see what Wikipedia has to say about intrinsic redshifts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_redshift Well, ok, maybe wikipedia may not be the best source, so how about an abstract on the subject, we will pick NGC 7603 for this one: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ApJ...302..245S: So, in conclusion, it isn't mainstream science. There is very strong evidence that these intrinsic redshifts simply do not exist. Nice try though. Hopefully, next time you will force me to have to actually get out my textbook on the subject .

I'm a bit surprised that we didn't really start talking about changing our dependence when gas was at $1 per gallon. I'm sure that some of you guys here are old enough to remember when is was as low as 25 cents per gallon (Oil crises of the 70's anyone?).... Oh well. If any of you have some insight onto the above, feel free to share. Anyways, I know I seem to be a bit "alarmist" at times, but I do have good reason. Personally, I think we are moving much too slowly here. Because, in the four days that we have had this debate, the world has been consumed 328 million barrels of oil, with 1/4 of that consumed by the U.S. alone. And that's not even the tip of the iceberg; In Brazil we are still losing hundreds of square miles of forest per day, the world population has grown by 844,000 with the majority of them from 3rd world and developing nations, desertification still goes on in Africa by the tens and hundreds of square miles, who knows how many billions of tons of pollutants and CO2 were released, etc. etc. ParanoiA and Pangloss, I understand your position here, but my feeling and conviction is that it's just simply too slow. It's basically like rearranging chairs on a sinking Titanic. Hopefully, you are right and the free market forces will force Americans to make the proper changes, but I think it just simply isn't enough; something else more needs to happen if the free market is to make a difference. As iNow pointed out, we do live in a remarkably stupid culture, and as ParanoiA pointed out we live in a remarkably selfish and "wimpy" one too. My two cents is, is that in order to do this properly we need more then just short term solutions and market; we need a paradigm shift, and desperately. But then again, why bother? What needs to be done (the Paradigm Shift, that is) simply won't happen until it is too late (well, at least for us Americans). I'm beginning to think a WWIII with China might actually be a good thing . I once watched a show in which they listed that Americans don't like pain, but they are about to get a great deal of it very soon .

I also have that strange feeling too . Welcome aboard. And don't worry, the crackpots are usually kept as punching bags over here...

Read this: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/spin.html

The "primeval" atom was just a conceptual crutch. It didn't attempt to address what happened at that particular stage, but the concept still remains, especially since there is now a great deal of evidence that the Universe was very small way back then. As such, the idea was never discarded, and science has since then moved to incorporate the BBT into other models, such as inflation. You, on the other hand, have provided no evidence or math whatsoever with your assumptions. And, science can only provide answers to how questions; it's usefulness to supplying answers to "why" questions is quite limited in general. So, are you going to actually admit your errors and start addressing the flaws in your reasoning, or are you just going to simply continue ducking our posts and beat yourself up?

Ah, I see. Yeah, I think we should have a separate subsection that deal with Global Warming and Climate Change in general. Also, I think you should write some of the guidelines for how to debate properly on these subjects, as you did with evolution so long ago... Can't we just use SFN blogs? But then, who will volunteer to actually write on the subject on a regular basis? ============================================== Also, I think we should do a subsection on Oil Depletion or the use of fossil fuels in general, since this is tied to the topic of global warming and just as controversial; just look at the debates that sparked up around here for example...

You've made these claims over and over again, and they were debunked over and over again. Do you mind actually backing this up with more then just your opinion or speculation? (i.e. Use math, physical evidence, experiments, etc.) Why? How? What formulas did you use/derive. What is the physical basis for them. We want to see them, not just hear about it. And, preferably show us algebra or calculus formulas (e.g. functions)....

So in other words, this thread is just simply going to go around in circles, just like all the other ones on this topic simply because some of us just want to deny or water down reality. *sigh*

Actually, D H is correct. Nope, wrong. They all were, and Hubble and Lemaitre both came to the same conclusion we did and the one that is now taught in textbooks, that the Universe was expanding and the Big Bang did happen. In fact, Lemaitre was the one who proposed the Big Bang Theory in the first place.

Since New Science doesn't seem to want to post on this thread (he better, if he wants to continue to stay on this site...). I will give one more final word of warning about Mike C, namely this quote made quite some time ago in my skirmish against him: and

Actually, that's precisely what they are proposing. And it will be more than just .01% of the wildlife refuges that wildlife refuges that will suffer for this.... Besides which, we have already shown that the oil to be drilled out will not make any difference at all. One wonders why anyone would still support this decision given that it is utterly stupid and shortsighted. But then again, some on here tend to be solipsists! They want to invent their own reality, and ignore all the disadvantages and problems that a pure free market brings and the oil based economy. Of course, those who advocate the "all free market solution" have never really read or understood what Adam Smith really wrote or understood about how a "free market" should work...

As of today, the price of crude oil per barrel is $134.85: http://www.oil-price.net/

How do we reduce dependence if we don't use that money to make the technology widespread, rather than drilling for more oil. No, we are reading and understanding your points ParanoiA. What you don't seem to understand is the time it will take to actually develop them, how ineffective it will be in easing the problem, and other problems, environmental, national security, or otherwise. This isn't a trivial problem, nor is it something that can be solved right on a whim. Read the above. This really isn't something that can simply be put off. And, another thing, the rest of the world, even China, has managed to build cars that are much better for the environment then we have. In Europe, cars run on alternative fuels are making huge sales and widely available. Their numbers on the road are increasing too. They also have solar power much more widely available. In Iceland, they are already developing a hydrogen fuel based infrastructure. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. And you have yet to provide actual data that drilling will actually work. I know that it won't. The price of oil per barrel will not go down, it will only go up. It sucks, I know. The infrastructure also just won't magically appear. That sucks, and I know. I too can't wait until electric cars and trucks come out, and solar panels go up into my house. We are already planning to build them in place next year, far sooner then you will. Same with recycling bins. My point is, is that people like you have been utilizing the short term solutions for over 30 years, and yet we are continuing to advocate them regardless and putting off investment in alternative infrastructure. And each and every single time, we have found some excuse to not invest in any of the alternatives, we have just been simply using up our existing supply, or going out fighting wars in the Middle East to get it. The infrastructure isn't going to build itself. We have to start investing in it right now, and at the same time start getting rid of our dependence. Drilling isn't going to solve anything, no matter what it seems like. Besides which, the bill to lift the ban will never get through anyways. The military doesn't want the rigs built because they interfere with weapons tests and our ability to adequately defend the coast. Hurricanes and spills are also a big problem too. Sucks, I know, but that is life.

Well, there also is jet fuel, agriculture in the form of fertilizers, and plastics. While we can certainly develop alternatives for them (biofuels for jet fuel and I think you mentioned vegetable oil for plastics, and we can always replace fossil fuel based fertilizers), the fact of the matter is, is that no one has even invested in actually developing them yet or have done very little investment. Although I read that Boeing (I think it was Boeing, I'll check) has actually created a fuel cell airplane (just a prototype, nothing commercial yet). And one of the main reasons for this is because many people here just kept on saying and spreading around the "oh, well just drill for more oil, and THEN we will work on alternatives", and otherwise just kept on putting it off and continued investing in petro. The point is, it has got to stop, and it has to stop right now. You aren't going to make the change by drilling for more oil. EDIT: Thank you wikipedia! Here is a list of things we use petroleum for: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum#Uses And here's a more in depth list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_product The point is, we use them for everything, and while alternatives do exist, we Americans haven't even bothered developing them or the infrastructure necessary yet. If they run out while we are still behind, then we are in real trouble.

Alright, for all of you who actually support drilling for oil, lets consider this: There are approximately 20 billion barrels, at maximum (The actual mean is about 7 billion in Alaska, and 10 billion from all our coasts), to be dug out from the sea, and in Alaska. The U.S. now consumes over 20 million barrels of oil per day. So, given those figures, we could easily waste all that oil in less than 1000 days, given that our demand is only going to go up here in the U.S. Of course, we are not going to just consume it all like that, most of it is still going to come from either Venezuela and the Middle East. So, how much of a difference do you really think 20 billion barrels is going to make? It might just lower the price just a little, but I doubt it's going to go back to under $120 per barrel. Bottom line, is that it's not going to cut our dependence on Middle Eastern and South American oil, and it sure as hell won't solve our dependence on oil, period. The lower price means that the demand will just simply go back up. In short, it's not going to make any difference at all. So, lets say we do, in our misguided shortsightedness, drill for this anyway despite the facts. What then have we accomplished? Aside from ruining environments, harming tourism, dumping even more pollution into the atmosphere, make it harder on the military to guard the coast, and depleted what ever last remaining reserves we had left, we will just be in the same exact situation we are in now, except without the option to just drill for more. It's basically money right out the window. Basically, what some people don't just seem to understand is, what do we do if those reserves get used up? Well, no one was saying that actually, but it's going to run out very quickly anyway. What benefits do we get from this? Whatever benefits we might get are only going to be very temporary.... And the second statement is actually not true, the cost to the environment is probably going to be much bigger then that. It will not cut our dependence. Advocating to drill for more oil is the same thing as dismissing reality. The reality is that the alternative fuels are viable, and they will not be more widespread here in the U.S. until we spend a great deal more money to develop both their reliability and the infrastructure necessary, rather than spending it on wars or on drilling for more oil. If we don't start now, then things will be much harder in the future. They weren't appeals to stupidity, life, etc. Just because it sounds that way doesn't make it invalid. You have yet to show actual figures for your claims. But the thing is, its not. The reason it's not in place is because we Americans never even tried to develop them in the first place. Oh sure, we had the chance to change smoothly back then, in the 70's and 80's and even the 90's. We could have done it without any real harm done, but the reason we still need this much oil has a lot to do with the choices we made back then. The only thing drilling for oil will do is that it will put us right back where we started, except we won't have that option any more. It really won't make a difference, and we will still be largely dependent on foreign oil. 95% of our entire infrastructure is based on fossil fuel economy. If we don't start investing in alternative and sustainable energies, and changing our habits right now.....

There are also national security concerns over off-shore drilling around the U.S. coast lines, so I doubt it's ever going to get passed or be allowed. Besides which I doubt drilling is really going to amount to anything, or make any real difference to this problem.

Sounds like a good idea. But, are you going to host it? Although, to be fair, things are a bit less confusing and less irritating around the issue of global warming among the general public then evolution is, simply because it's not quite as "controversial".

Thanks for clarifying Pangloss, I see what you mean now, and I do actually agree fully with your statement given. Ah, one of the many pitfalls of democracy. Maybe we should just start transitioning to a meritocracy instead .

How many known sockpuppets are there registered on SFN? I'm pretty certain that this might inflate the number of actual people who have registered, though probably not by that much.

Wasn't Gliese C later shown to be more likely a Venus-like planet, rather than Earth like?

Yeah, lets get back on topic now. Do you mind clarifying here? You seem to be jumping to conclusions here (i.e. Non-Sequitur).

Well, that has actually been shown to be the case so far. Given that this study was done by a Christian group trying to prove that religious people are somehow more moral by virtue of being Christian is quite telling. Note that this result shows up consistently too, as a more recent study shows: http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrow&BarnaUpdateID=170. Of course, it depends on which denomination you are referring to; Catholics are actually much lower, while Jews and Born-Again's are the highest of the bunch. Atheists and other "non-religious" fall somewhere in between (This time, they lumped them all together to inflate the original figure, of course, what is to be expected from a Protestant religious group with an agenda...) Well, I did not actually look at the specifics of how this study was conducted, so I cannot say or conclude whether this actually causes the discrepancy. However, I doubt that this would affect the statistic given though; the only way it could possibly be skewed like that is if the questions were really ambiguous.

An atheist site, run by a member of a visible minority, that cites a Christian research group?? Well, maybe there is a vast atheist conspiracy then .... Ah, I see. Yeah, I was referring to the divorce rate, not all people ever divorced. Maybe, but then how do you explain the fact that the ones who do marry are less likely to divorce then whites are? It seems to me that this perception is much more of a case of media sensationalism then to do with hard facts...

That actually doesn't matter, because statistical studies of this kind measure proportions and are usually corrected for factors such as the one listed above.