Mr Skeptic

True, but there are also special intelligence tests for animals that have no discernible language. They can involve things like puzzles that need to be solved to get to some food etc.

I don't believe I said that, not in this thread anyhow. Care to show where you got that? Cause I'm lazy, and I thought I was obviously right. You care to quote any scientists who have said that science is not about "observable truth"? I think you are confused about observations. Electromagnetic radiation of wavelength between 380 nm and 780 nm is not the only way to conduct observations. Also observing not A is just as much an observation as observing A, and is different from not observing A. Occam's Razor is an axiom of science used to choose between two theories of equal predictive capability. Since science is only concerned with results, any part of a theory that is not necessary for predicting results is unnecessary and can be eliminated. Note, however, that the answer to the question of "why" something happens will usually also have some additional predictive value. To use a variant of your example: "The planets move around the sun in ellipses because there is a force [math]F = \frac{GM_1M_2}{r^2}[/math]" "The planets move around the sun in ellipses because there is a force [math]F = \frac{GM_1M_2}{r^2}[/math]. This force is generated by the will of some powerful aliens." "The planets move around the sun in ellipses because there is a force [math]F = \frac{GM_1M_2}{r^2}[/math]. This force is generated by the will of some powerful aliens who always maintain this same force and we cannot affect, observe, or be otherwise affected by them." The first one is approximately what we believe (actually a slightly different equation and a cause descried by an expanding universe). The second one looks like fodder for Occam's Razor, and indeed is because we have no evidence of gravity aliens. The last one is invariably fodder for Occam's Razor. Sorry, dead link. How do you intend to get a hypothesis that is neither ransom, based on induction, or based on deduction starting from hypothesis that were random or based on induction? Technically, the proper statement is "the conclusion cannot be false if the premises are true and the logic sound" Again you are confusing what prove and disprove mean. Given any statement A, if you disprove A, you prove NOT A. Disprove means prove the negation of. I find it ironic that you write a big long thing directed at me, disagreeing with someone else. Please stop confusing me with the advocate. I too disagree with much of what he said. Really? What false consequences? Care to prove that all that evidence is not just an illusion? Once again, this is why science cannot deal with absolute truth and must instead rely on observable truth. Not me. ----- Re what philosophers and mathematicians think of truth: They will take some axioms and say, if these axioms are true, than these conclusions are true. The statements they thus make are absolutely true, and if you accept their axioms you must accept their conclusions or show that they did not use sound logic. If they use the standard axioms they might not explicitly state them. Science, on the other hand, is searching for the axioms themselves.

Get a flat piece of rubber and draw dots on it. Then stretch it away from the center. The sheet will be expanding in all directions of it's plane. I suppose you could do it in 3D but it would require a clear rubbery/gaslike material. Now imagine that the sheet is infinitely large and being stretched from all places at once. PS: in the balloon analogy, I think "outwards" is supposed to be the time dimension.

Not familiar with proof by negation, are we?

Well, if distance itself is changing (eg 1 old meter becomes 1.1 new meters). I don't know if that is the accepted explanation though.

I don't think that is a proper definition of truth. Philosophers and mathematicians have a much stricter definition of truth. I prefer to say that science is about "observable truth" -- if we can see an effect on the universe, it is part of science, but if we can see no effect on the universe it is not part of science. Given Occam's Razor, the definition of "truth" used by science would be restricted further to "the simplest observable truth". That's not true. All new hypothesis are based on inductive logic (or are random, or are based on other theories). Proving by using deductive logic requires you to have axioms you know are true, but you cannot get these from science. Even in falsifying a theory is not certain because it requires you to assume that you correctly observed the results and that you are not actually observing something wrong with a different theory. To put it another way: if you could disprove the statement A, that would be the same as proving the statement not A. It is not possible to absolutely prove anything in science to be true or false. At best you could absolutely prove a statement of the sort "if these assumptions are true, than this is true" (which is equivalent to saying "if this is not true, than these assumptions are not true" -- meaning that unless you want to discard a bunch of assumptions, then you need to accept that something as true. "Assumptions" in this case could be very high profile, like Maxwell's equations or relativity) ---- All that being why science uses a more restricted definition of "true" than philosophers -- because they want to get something done. In fact, it may even be possible to absolutely prove that some statements form "the simplest observable truth" with respect to everything which has so far been observed.

I think you are overdoing the metaphors. This is why scientists should only agree to be talk to a journalist if they get to review what the journalist will write about their theory. Either that, or you are pulling our leg.

A solar system is not a universe.

I thought that there is no edge of the universe. AFAIK you can see everything there is to see about the Big Bang from anywhere in the universe (assuming a clear view) just by looking far enough away. That the Big Bang happened everywhere simultaneously, and that to be outside of it you would have to be outside and completely isolated from the universe (ie, you would have nothing to observe).

I just read that carbon subnitride (C4N2) has the hottest flame at a whopping 5260 K!

Yes, I guess it would. Geostationary orbits are those that orbit at the same speed that the earth is spinning. If you are standing still on the earth, it looks like they are not moving (they maintain the same position in the sky). Lagrangian points are similar to geostationary orbits and are basically an orbit that maintains a stationary position, but this time compared to two other objects. They are also orbits, though, because the objects they remain relatively stationary to are in orbit.

But you are subject to great gravitational pulls. They are what cause you to go in elliptical orbits rather than a straight line. You'd have to be in a deep space void for there to be little gravity. Depending on the definition of "falling" you may not be falling (as you might be going against the gravitational potential, rather than toward it); I believe the proper term is "freefall". The reason you can't feel yourself fall is because everything nearby you is falling at the same rate. "Weightlessness" is a little inappropriate since gravity is still acting on you, and weight is the force gravity exerts on you. However, you could still say that it feels weightless, and you would be locally weightless.

I'd sign myself up for this. Get $5000.00 for doing whatever the hell I please? It's not like this would be much more dangerous than regular life. Then again, I'm not a kid.

You're probably just not a video game player. You're probably just not religious Obviously, we need the opinion of a religious video game player (and for good measure, that of an ex-religious, ex-video game player)

Really? Certainly we are causing much havoc in the earth's ecosystem. But we are also concerned about the extinction of species. We will try to preserve them even if only as frozen samples. Also, our interests are intricately tied to the interests of some of the species. We will build meteor defense systems. We will try to prevent the global mass extinctions caused by climate change (even if we are responsible for one more, there have been natural climate changes and we will try to prevent them). When we go to the stars, we will take other life with us. What other species can anticipate the Sun turning into a red giant and take preventative measures?

I think he may have a medical condition. There's not that many sane people who would spout such ridiculous and emotional and simple posts, and come back for more after all the abuse they received. An annoyance, yes, but I feel sorry for him.

"Orgasm"? I guess the analogy is correct, especially if the material spewed out is required for life. Now there is an effect of quantum at the macro level, eh?

Maybe, but are you as powerful as Anemic-Psycho, who owns this thread?

There's a previous thread here Martin has a few good comments there.

So they're fairly common then. But do they make good toys?

Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it. Proverbs 22:6

No. Electrons, protons, and neutrons (and positrons, antiprotons, and antineutrons) are all attracted by gravity. Since all atoms (and anti-atoms) are composed of these, you shouldn't expect any to repel gravity. In fact, nothing has been found that can repel gravity.

I was wondering, what with me being kind of impatient, would it be possible to give ourselves a little boost rather than waiting around for evolution? What would be the best way to go about improving ourselves? Should we wait around, or take a more active role? For example, there are a lot of shared structures we have with other critters. We could go hunting among them for improvements. What are the odds that we have the most efficient, say, mitochrondria? If we found a critter with more efficient mitochrondria, could we copy that to ourselves? Might we be able to copy a more efficient protein? What if we fixed the broken vitamin C pathway that we seem to have? The second way I see is more direct genetic engineering. We are at the point where we can model proteins (albeit with great difficulty). Could we design more effective proteins? Or completely new ones? I'd rather leave the ethical implications of genetically manipulating ourselves to a different thread, and keep this one for the practical side.

If the universe were contracting, would that make gravity universally repulsive?

Well, there is a little proving going on. Various denominations will accept the Bible's accuracy as given, but then try to prove some less important beliefs by using evidence from the Bible. As such, they could be practicing logic and critical thinking skills even while holding an "extra" belief. Kind of like a thought experiment where you assume a few things and then draw conclusions. A few of them also try to find proof of or evidence for the Bible itself, ranging from verifying historical accouts to "Creation Science" to personal miracles/answer to prayer. They seem to be on the losing/having already lost side, but remember, if you are looking at something from a certain perspective, you will likely reach a different conclusion than from a different perspective. Make of it what you will, but I don't believe mindless spoon-feeding is particularly rampant in Christian religions, than in any other types of teaching. After all, even the most careful teacher will have to say, "It just is" about something or other (such as what causes forces), and the lazy ones will do it frequently. ---- Let me add, mindless spoon-feeding is bad in whatever area it may occur.