Reaper

The problem with water is that it takes up a lot of energy to separate the hydrogen from the oxygen. Electrolysis of water is a very inefficient process. I've never heard of HHO

I don't agree with his method. It would give both the Middle East and Europe more reasons to distrust us. And then the question is, what do you do with Iraq, thanks to Bush leaving that country is now far more complicated.

Have you considered the idea that these dogs may have been trained to do that? We can train certain animals to do things that they normally wouldn't do in nature.

Uhhh, Pangloss, that's a review for a video game. You might want to check that link again....

Sorry but I'm going to have to agree with lucespa here. We study the physical universe so that we can find out what is the case, as opposed to what appears to be the case or what might be the case. Building off of knowledge comes as a consequence from our search for truth. And, science is about physical truth, religion is about spiritual truth.

Sugarcane is used in Brazil as a source of Biofuel. But this is getting way off topic. Please spare the details. Besides, you cannot prove that with the picture alone.

I agree. no, I wasn't. But I saw you guys mention it in a couple of threads and in the archives. I don't know about that, I've noticed here that threads that are philosophical, religious, or political in nature tend to draw in a lot of interest. It depends on what exactly is being discussed. Maybe the lack of interest was because of the difficulty of having to keep track of multiple sites?

1. There is really not much you can do about that. Most people who are like that would usually only come to troll. 2. Well, again, most people who are looking for religious discussions and not scientific ones will usually ignore this site and go to a religious forum. However, there are plenty of people here who come because they are interested in science but would also like to engage in philosophical and religious discussions, among other things. Just take a look at the general discussion and psychology forum for example. And besides, you really can't stop some wacko creationist from coming here and trolling in any case, with people like that it doesn't matter if there is a religious forum or not. Another thing to keep in mind is that people here aren't necessarily robots. Humans are quite curious creatures and scientific discussion does invite or lead to discussions in regards to philosophy, morality, religion, etc. At least with a religion or philosophy forum it is much easier to keep those type of threads out of the other subsections and put them into one place, if that makes you happy. And I will be difficult with you and say that 1. religion and morality aren't interchangeable and 2. There is an objective truth with regards to morality and I can actually prove it. But I'm not going to go there because that is off topic. One of the things that you have to remember is that it is possible to prove something without having to appeal to scientific methods (such as proving that science is indeed getting us closer to the correct answers). That doesn't not mean that you should ignore scientific evidence, but there are other methods of determining the truth of the matter, especially with regards to things that cannot be proven with science. Well, a "purely" scientific forum does not really exist because humans are social creatures. In most forums, you will inevitably run into topics that have nothing to do with what the purpose of the forum is. This is, after all, an online community, not a text book. Well, I really don't see much of a problem. Most of the mods here seem quite reasonable and they can apply what they do in other subsections (such as warning against consistent use of fallacies) to the P&R forum. As a matter of fact, true philosophical or even true religious discussions are quite similar to the way that SFN discusses science here, especially with regards to speculation. Well then, I guess its a good thing that its not up to you. I don't see a problem with it, as most other science forums have a philosophy and/or a religion subsection. Even the Physics Forums has a philosophy section. And of course you don't have to participate in any of the discussions in that subsection. So it all works out .

I think most people who are YEC enthusiasts usually deny or ignore any evidence that the scientific community presents on the matter. Besides, the statement "god made it look like...." does have a flaw in it, especially if you consider the fact that He is also made to be "all good" and "all loving". Empirically and scientifically, no. But there are ways to do it philosophically and logically. I'm not giving away my secrets though. I'd have to agree with this statement. While it is quite easy for sane people to delude themselves, I don't fully agree with this statement. Young Earth Creationism has been proven false, so anybody who still believes in this is, by definition, delusional. I still wouldn't call this a mental illness though.

I disagree. Look at the Renaissance, Enlightenment, and ancient Athens. Modern Asia is heavily influenced by western philosophy.

Remember the S.A.R.S panic..... a good example of what was described above....

a. I'm not tech savvy at all, so I don't know how to help you with that one, though I have a feeling that it is possible to make a code that will allow you to ban people from specific subforums. b. For this I would say, in all honesty, who cares? I say this because everyone cannot be pleased and most of the time I find its more or less an issue with their ego or their (often erroneous) view of reality. If they cannot handle their beliefs being criticized then they should go somewhere else. This is, after all, a discussion forum and people are free to present their views and criticisms as long as they can back them up. Obviously, we should keep an eye out for posts that are clearly intended for the sole purpose of bashing a set of religious beliefs and people who consistently use ad hominem attacks.

I just looked at the Philosophy and Religion forum that is now in the archives, and I have to say that most of the subjects are reasonable. In my personal opinion, I think there should be one here on this site, not separate from it. Other science sites I've visited have one and there really isn't much of a problem. A lot of principles in philosophical thought do have relevance to science (it is, after all, an attempt to obtain and understand what Truth is ). It helps get the mind thinking, especially when attempting to debate differing philosophical theories and concepts. And, contrary to what most people here seem to believe, you do have to have credible sources when the situation, statement, or argument demands one. Religious debates also get the mind going, and it may help to open up people who would otherwise be stubborn about the issue. Looking at the threads, I would say that most people are fairly reasonable and should be able to act maturely around such subjects, unless you have different data that proves otherwise. --------------------------------------------------- If you are really only worried about moderation issues, I don't think that should be much of a problem. If anybody uses logical fallacies or fails to cite sources just point them out, like you do on any other subforum or topic of discussion. And I'm sure we all can recognize when someone makes a thread that clearly bashes religion or to troll. And if the attitudes spill over to the other forums, just do what you guys normally do when you deal with trolling or flaming. Most of us here should be mature in theory and keep the use of logical fallacies to a minimum, and if not, a form of "natural selection" can weed out the immature people and trolls . I'd say that most people do want one back in this site, given the hot topics I've seen on the General Forum recently.

Yup. I just recently saw this video by some guy who claims that UFO's he sees are disguised as clouds. Well, that probably depends on the method of exploration or transport. Or the mission they are doing, or where they landed. If it is organic, then it is likely that there were other alien organisms that probably would have hitched hiked on the craft. The same holds if some intelligent beings came in as well. There would be evidence of that. And if beings of intelligence did come there is a good chance that they will leave something behind, whether organic or technological. If it was robotic, that would be far trickier to spot. If they are indeed using some sort of exotic communication, that would make it even harder to spot. But then of course you have to consider that if they are sending probes, they are very likely to leave behind equipment, would be more economical and would allow them to learn more by leaving it behind. Location also matters. If it landed near a suburb or city, it would be spotted rather easily and quickly. But if it/they landed in an area like the Gobi desert, then it would be much more difficult to find evidence. So I do agree with you in this regard, it would be much harder to find evidence depending on the circumstances. Even if it was millions of years ahead of us, they are still bound by the laws of nature, so I don't think intelligence or type of technology matters. I hope so too.

What's your reason for it?

I know the ordinary ones. I don't have a great grasp of them yet though. What I was asking was what does modifying them accomplish, sorry if the question was ambiguous. I'm sure its in the audio somewhere, but either didn't catch it or quite understand it.... Oh, ok then. The one I was familiar with was the one from the friedmann model. Now it makes more sense. Maybe we should start using Chinese symbols . They have about 5000+ characters... I always found string theory to be suspicious. I remember reading Brian Greene's "Elegant Universe" not too long ago (yes I know its a popularization, but hey, you gotta start somewhere!), and when he was describing Bosonic Strings, I was wondering what those other 22 dimensions were supposed to be! Never mind a ten dimensional universe. Do you know what those other dimensions are? I know string theory isn't your thing, but I'm sure you have a better understanding of it then I do. I hope they aren't making it up.... --------------------------------------------------------------------- If G does indeed strengthens over large distances, that would probably eliminate the need for dark matter all together. Interesting. But how does that account for the observed phenomenon that the expansion of the universe is accelerating? To me, a variable G would imply that we should see more blue shifted galaxies. Or is that something else all together?

Using lighting as an energy source would be very impractical because it hardly strikes at the same point, and you can only get a fraction of its total energy. You would have to build a huge number of towers to capture it. Not only that, they only occur in short flashes, so it is not enough to meet the power demands of a single household, never mind an entire town or city. There are rockets to help create and direct lighting strikes, but these aren't as energetic as the ones that discharge naturally. Here is more info: http://plaza.ufl.edu/rakov/FAQ.html ----------------------------------------------- There aren't a lot of cosmic rays that strike the earth, and the strongest ones that hit Earth don't deliver nearly enough energy to power a lightbulb. And solar wind doesn't really have a lot of momentum; it has far less momentum than a human breath. It's better just to use solar radiation from the sun, preferably with satellites in space that could be beamed down into the Earth. Tornadoes and hurricanes are way too destructive to harness any energy from them, plus a hurricane acts over a very large area. The observed universe is a little bit bigger than that, about 1.3 X 10^10 lightyears .

Who are you trying to show and why do they think you are wrong?

"Created" is probably not the best term to use, because then you have to ask yourself if this universe was created in anyway, whether by some event or deity. Time, as we understand it, began the instant the universe started expanding. Or, if you really want to get nit-picky, we start the timeline of our current universe at the big bang. Nobody knows what was going on at or before the big bang, and we are not even sure if our understanding of time even holds.

Thanks for answering my questions. I only listened to the audio twice so I'm still trying to get it around my mind here. I have to listen to the audio separately, I find it hard to follow it if I have to read and listen at the same time. I think I'm understanding it better now. Another question: Page 17 describes a modified Friedmann equation. What exactly does this do, and how does this help predict how the expansion of the universe might go? and You said that k has a decreasing value. But if k does have a non-zero value, wouldn't that mean that spacetime has some sort of curvature, or had one in the beginning? Given that WMAP and COBE data indicate that the universe is flat....

I agree. But Richard Dawkins is determined to prove otherwise:rolleyes:.

There are worse things then hell, according to the Vatican scientists..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWFCECc7SBo

That's the implication I don't like. The media is contributing to the apathy of the general public. Also, the government they deserve is also my and your government too, so if they get screwed over, so do we . That's what I'm thinking. I don't know about evangelicals, but I heard that corporations usually donate to both parties because they know that they will get what they want. In short, it doesn't really matter who gets elected.

Not buying it for various reasons: 1. People who engage in this do so only for their own pleasure. It is akin to rape. 2. Increases the risk of getting an illness or disease, especially if you eat it. Never mind the thought of exchanging fluids. 3. How would you know that the animal likes it? You are forcing it to have sex with you. You are basically assaulting it. 4. The animal is not consenting. I don't find anything morally correct, or psychologically correct, about it.