Mr Skeptic

We advance education, not so much technology and science. Of course, when people are educated in science they may later end up advancing science and technology. Also, I consider it a form of entertainment (compare to watching TV or playing video games).

Well, 9/11 was certainly convenient for Bush and the Republicans in general. This doesn't mean that they planned it. Really, what are the odds of getting several people to not risk, but give their lives, to kill Americans, and none of them telling on him? At most his involvement would have been passive, simply not stopping it. But what probably happened is that they simply milked the convenient disaster for all they could after the fact. If you want a more believable conspiracy, how about simply having trained Osama Bin Laden, and then let him do his thing, which would help Republicans since they're so tough on terror.

Someone wanted the military to fund a gamma ray laser. Atoms are not chemically capable of reaching such energies, and the idea was to use a specific excited state of the nucleus of a particular isotope. It didn't work out.

I can calculate things that don't exist. We do that in physics class all the time. In fact, in physics class we hardly ever calculate things that do exist (frictionless surfaces, I'm looking at you!).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation There you go. Study up, learn something. Plug in some masses into that equation and see how strong gravity is.

Three reasons: 1) From a theoretical aspect, the equation is more meaningful this way 2) There's no need to make new constants to keep track of and have to measure independently. 3) If anyone wants to do a lot of these calculations they can easily make the substitution you suggested.

Yes and yes. Bacterial conjugation is "purposeful" exchange, transduction due to genes transferred by bacteriophages (viruses), and transformation from DNA acquired from the environment (from broken bacterial cells for example).

Hm, what religion does she belong to? According to the Bible, the dead know nothing (Ecclesiastes 9:5)

I think that at least some of these polls must be due to people purposely answering incorrectly. I mean, ask a dumb question, get a dumb answer. Who doesn't know that the earth revolves around the sun? Maybe a poll could measure how likely people are to purposefully answer incorrectly?

I thought that colds were caused by evil spirits, or by an imbalance of the humors? People were pretty resistant to the idea that diseases were caused by microorganisms until we got microscopes.

Some questions, there is no way to tell if the answer to is correct. If you can't tell whether the answer is correct, then it doesn't matter if the answer is correct. And if it doesn't matter whether the answer is correct, then the question is irrelevant. For example, I can't prove that you "really exist". Maybe you're just a figment of my imagination. But does it really matter? If so, why?

He did the same thing in a different thread. I think he either does not realize how small the gravitational constant is, or doesn't realize how heavy earth is.

Yes, that is a very useful formula. n you can calculate for a given mass of sample, R is a constant. So long as you're dealing with ideal gases (which should be the case here), then the effects of P and T will be the same for both gas samples, so that they will cancel out.

I can calculate plenty of things. For example, I calculate that 1+1=2. But that can't be what you meant. Care to clarify? Mathematical zero corresponds to physical nothing. For example there is no magnetic monopole, the "magnetic charge" of everything is zero. No type of energy creates action at a distance. That would have to be a force. I don't know what you mean.

It depends on the microscope. With light microscopes you are limited to things about the size of visible wavelengths, regardless of how good the microscope is. Then there's electron microscopes and various other fancier and more expensive ones that can see even smaller -- but with most of these you have to kill what you're looking at.

Horizontal gene transfer doesn't create new genetic information, it mostly just shuffles it around. But yes, with microbes we have to abandon the idea of a species and focus on "strains" instead.

Self-control is hard. People do stuff that's definitely against their best interests all the time, such as procrastinate. But yes, I think that from the looks of it most people don't really believe their religion.

The irrelevant questions.

I think it means that the mutant form of the gene, is dominant. Same as any other gene being dominant. Say, an enzyme that is stuck in the active form due to a mutation at a repressor binding site.

Also you'll need extra data (find it online) to compare to air density. What will be the volume of your hydrogen at, say, standard temperature and pressure?

There's no such thing as "scientific fact". Simply put, some formulas and explanations can be used to accurately and numerically predict what will happen in a particular situation, and have done so in every situation scientists tested it in. Is it true? There's no way to tell. You could say at least it is close to true.

Oh, and do people consider this an accurate resource?: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html Then I wouldn't consider your English teacher an accurate resource Should probably stick to teaching English.

Wikipedia is very good, especially in science. Some people don't like you using it as an academic reference (in fact it isn't). However, wikipedia does require people cite sources for what they write, so odds are you can quote one of the sources in wiki's list of references. (Just wondering, did you think those people would consider computer games more accurate than wikipedia?)

It is a game, you play it for fun. If someone wrote 1 page on the organelles, that would probably be better information quicker. The game's info is mostly accurate, but it is extremely simplified to the point that there are also inaccuracies. How about you just check out wikipedia, and skip over the stuff you are familiar with?

Eventually, yes. As more countries acquire nukes, this seems like it would be both likelier and more desirable solution. In the meantime, we seem to be heading toward the destruction of projectiles. We can knock down RPGs and missiles, and we are testing laser systems for shooting down shells and such, but these are very heavy. More cat-and-mouse games with stealth seem likely too, with both better stealth and better detection. We're working on an exoskeleton for humans that would make us more armored and stronger, but it won't be much use unless it is also quick and agile and dependable. Unmanned vehicles are another obvious venue, whether as remote controlled or future AI. A mind-machine interface would help with reaction times and maybe accuracy, and allow complex controls to be used with ease. Railguns may be used by the navy, to make some good use out of those nuclear reactors. Perhaps we might make guerrilla fighting nearly useless if we have good enough defenses. That would certainly have interesting effects.