Reaper

You might want to read the study by the Barna Research Group, which concluded a 27% divorce rate for whites, and a 22% divorce rate for blacks (Hispanics and Asians got 20% and 8%, respectively). You need a subscription to actually read the article (as it was written in 1999), but here's a site with a summary of it (Read the 4th paragraph). As this was done in 1999, do you mind showing me a more recent study which shows otherwise?

Nope. The Michelson-Morly experiment (I think that's what your referring to, you are never clear on what you are claiming) refuted the idea of ether all together. Actually, to think of it, this experiment doesn't really have any relevance to what you are proposing, other then the fact that ether is shown not to exist, or at the very least be necessary. We are talking about the expansion of space that causes light to be stretched out, so that it becomes red shifted. This is a known fact. Therefore, space has something to do with the incoming wavelengths we observe. :confused::confused: How the hell did you get to that solution. You need to show us MATH in order to claim any numerical values. Otherwise, what you are saying is complete rubbish. How did you get to the values you stated on your posts? What formulas did you use? What physical cause relates them, etc. Sure we can. But the burden of proof is on YOU at the moment. Dark energy. Where's yours? Oh yes, the appeal to conspiracy . How lovely.

Divorce rates are actually higher among whites, but that's going to take us off topic... One could wonder why we didn't learn from the first prohibition that was enacted??

Because these idiots keep bringing it up.

Not only do you need to include math, but also remember to include UNITS this time so that a proper dimensional analysis can be made . They will make understanding this, um, proposition easier and better. And a word to the mods, how long before this thread gets moved to the pseudoscience section?

LIAR!!!!!!!11one/ You signed on 6 hours ago!

Ducking the issue does not relieve you of your responsibility to your claims, SkepticLance, nor does it make the "other side" any more valid.

Awww man! Did we just scare him off already? No, Mike, you don't get to just "run away". One of the things you are going to have to learn, before your ideas get accepted (or not), is to finish what you started . Now, you are going to stay here, stand your ground and try to convince us of this "major discovery". I'll admit, this quote made me laugh out loud:D. That certainly deserves some points... It's kinda both funny and sad though, that NS thinks he's an expert and then failing miserably at it.

I wouldn't consider id deism actually. ID is very specific in what exactly it proposes, if nothing else. ID proposes that life must have had an "intelligent" *cough*supernatural*cough* creator because it is complex, and that they all came into existence separately, meaning that all creatures are not related to each other. It's basically just one giant logical fallacy, and just plain annoying. Deism on the other hand just proposes that God exists, and that He does not interfere with the normal operation of the Universe, and certainly not with human affairs. He may or may not have created the Universe.

Alright time for some real science: my theory, based on past observations and the known laws of SFN, is that this thread will be thrown in the trash can in the not too distant future . On the side note, I've always wondered how fast Mike C would be shredded by SFN if he made an attempt to post his "theories" here .

Klaynos was referring to the Steady State theory. And don't attempt to dodge the issue here; Klaynos is quite right when he says that your model would be utterly inconsistent with what we observe. Exactly. We have models, that explain extremely well, what goes on inside of a star. And, we can confirm this empirically too, such as observing stars at various stages of their lives or nebula's. We have a very good idea of what goes on in the core. Wrong. The fact that electrons can only occupy specific energy levels is what keeps it from collapsing. Classical mechanics do not necessarily apply in the quantum mechanical world (i.e. the world of the very small). And second, a magnetic field is caused by an electric current. Always. You can have magnetic dipoles, which some atoms become, but never magnetic monopoles. :confused::confused::confused:

They (Mexico and the rest of Central America) have been using the Gregorian calendar for much longer than the U.S. or Great Britain.

Aww man! I wanted to see flames flying all over the place! He'll probably be back soon enough...

I remember that the world ended back in 2000, with the coming of the Y2K bug.

Since when did you actually show empirical evidence? I saw no such thing during my short read. ????????? Would you care to elaborate on this, like actually pull out specific quotes, data, etc. And most importantly, MATH. Yeah right. Then there is no use in actually taking your ideas seriously, since you refuse to use math, refuse to provide evidence, and provide a simple statement on what predictions it makes (or other implications). Because, you must know, the rest of us have lives; we don't really have the time to read every crackpot theory out there. Either show us this is worthwhile, or just shut up about it. Ah yes, all crackpots sooner or later resort to personal attacks when they find that their ideas are rejected by people who know better .

I doubt Graviphoton will be around to answer any questions, ever.

Hey, I remember this guy from a while back over at Hypography (the few days I was there before it annoyed the hell out of me)! He was one of those "Relativity/Einstein is wrong" crackpots, as well as claiming a bunch of other absurd things (such as the existence of perpetual motion). Beware, his Baez index is higher than Farsight's...

Ha! I guess somebody out there found out who he really was... That or was probably caught in the act of being stupid I think we should create a poll here, titled "What the **** was wrong with atomikpsycho?"

Even Turkey wants to join the EU, even though it is in Asia.

I know, but the point I was making to her was that it really isn't a bad thing. Besides which the military alliances does allow for benefits in other areas (e.g. less overall spending on military force among allies, etc.)

No, Graviphoton, it's wrong.

You know, we already have a similar "union" that the U.S. has created and that Canada is part of. It is called NATO.

I object! Numerology is not Applied Mathematics . There is a very high probability that you will be utterly disappointed. That's a very good video. I have watched all of Dawkins' "Growing Up In The Universe" series, plus more.

No, that's not what he says. What Hawking writes in that book is that virtual particle pairs have a small but finite probability that they will be able to travel faster than light, in which they will escape a black hole. There is nothing in there that says that you can make photons, or anything else, travel faster than light. And nowhere in the book does he actually say that anything is proof. EDIT: Alright, I found the appropriate page that discusses this: So, as we see here, what Steven Hawking is talking about is the implications of the Hawking Radiation that he came up with so many years ago, which dictates that black holes aren't totally "black". What you did, Graviphoton, was not only make up a quote he didn't write, but also took this out of context. It does not support your position at all. Furthermore, when he says "short distance", usually that means < 10^-15 m in the context of quantum mechanics (probably a huge overestimate, but I'm just putting a figure so that you can hopefully wrap your mind around the scale that this takes place at) Try again later, when you are not banned anymore in 7 days.