DrP

2012? We were being taught about greenhouse gasses and ozone depletion at school in the 1980s! What's he on about!?

Basically I still stand by post#2 - Time is not the cause of motion. It requires a force. Maybe it could be argued that it requires an impulse? Which, being Force over Time, kind of uses time in it's making..... but I still think it is plain wrong to state that the cause of motion is time.

They aren't StarTrek replicators yet. They use polymers. You won't have enough of the exotic raw materials in the polymer mix to make a computer.... you need most of the elements on the periodic table.

I am talking about 'change' of motion - or causing motion from rest in a frame of reference (which I agree, requires/is acceleration) - which requires a force.. the guy before me posted something about "Time is the cause of motion.." and "Work out the cause of motion and you have time". Maybe it was over my head or philosophical or something - but it didn't seem like physics to me. Not the way I learnt it at Uni anyway. Can you correct me if I am wrong here please?

The push is not going to be anything.... because it is a pull - and attraction between masses. Seems pretty well covered above. QUOTE: "Explanation requires a deal of intellect" Yes - it requires intellect to explain it correctly... I suppose it requires intellect to come up with an idea that is totally wrong too - it shows you are thinking about it.

No - an applied force, strong enough to overcome inertial constraints and friction, is what causes motion.

I don't know what the most recent methods of artificially creating diamonds is, but it used to require huge pressures and temperatures. It isn't just as simple as adding a catalyst and it forms a tetrahedral. Most of the other allotropes are more favourable, thus you need the very high pressures to make the tetrahedral energetically viable. There are loads of youtube vids about making diamonds with autoclaves and presses - some people add impurities or certain things to encourage growth, but I think we are still needing huge pressures to mimic how they form naturally. Think about it - if it were that easy then people would be doing it all over and forming there own diamonds rather than paying for them. They are rare for a reason.

QUOTE: ..."Eureka!!.. I always thought that was Archimedes - I remember a little cartoon of him jumping out of the bath with his hair all over the place flapping his arms in excitement. lol. ... google thinks so too.

Utter nonsense. Your title suggests proof - but we all know there is none. You are deluded, misled or trying to mislead. Utter rubbish and you know it.

I have read about the mozzie attraction to CO2 before. It still has to be more complicated. I used to go fishing with a mate of mine. He loved me going because all of the mozzies ate me and left him alone. lol... Some people attract them more than others.... maybe I just stink.

Hmm.. After an hour we have a couple from either side commenting... so far there is no discussion though - just statements and soapboxing, lol. I am hoping they will actually talk to each other. Disclaimer... I do not want to highjack this thread. Maybe I should have started a new one, but it seems relevant to the OP.

Or just better education...

OK - I will post my findings in a day or two... I have a feeling it will be ignored though... Posts get overlooked in the sheer numbers of things that get posted on FB. I though it was a good idea though.

OK - Social expt. time! All my Brext friends say they do not even know any remainers.... all my remain friends say they do not even know any brexiters.... time for an expt.... There is talk of a second vote - so I posted this on face book:- "With the vote so close and the result so important to the future of our country and the world.... maybe a second round of voting just to make sure ain't a bad thing. Discuss..... (*Lights blue touch paper and stands well clear*)." With a note underneith to say that I will not participate in the conversation.... hopefully the 2 camps can discuss it out... somehow though I feel it will either be totally ignored or start a flame war.. lol. Let's see.

Yea - but they do this by puking all over your face first to pre-digest said skin, salt and oil, lol.

Who needs qualifications and experience anyway? Just apply for whatever job you like.... Not having qualifications or experience didn't stop Donald Trump applying for and getting the POTUS job did it? The world is your oyster if you are are bold enough to pretend you know what you are talking about - just wing it!

I think it has helped bring us up to a point... but as with most things we know/knew we are progressing/have progressed beyond the point where our old views aren't good enough any more and it all needs re assessing with a level head.

I disagree here Pro, because the religious texts are taught as fact. HP and StarWars are not. lol. I do believe there is good in Christianity - if it causes people to soul search and repent from wrongdoing then that can't be bad - the world needs better people to make it a better place, but in this day and age it is time we moved on from works of fiction and face facts. PS - wrt to I am the Walrus... I think the next verse sums up how I feel about religion at the moment: "Yellow matter custard, Dripping from a dead dogs eye!"

Of course we do - how else would we know them to be the best fits to our current way of thinking? In fact Darwin's thoughts and premises have been built upon and the current theory of evolution is different in many places from what Darwin first postulated... (I will let an expert expand on that if necessary, not me). Also Newton - His gravity theories are correct for the macro world but I think it all breaks down at silly speeds and at the quantum level. I used to think that the singularity model for the Black hole was probably incorrect - I even got laughed at for suggesting that it was just a mathematical modal and it couldn't really be an infinitely small space that houses all that mass. I never believed that in reality it was an actual singularity in there, just that it appears that way to the observer and that the maths was the best fit. I still don't really believe it, but I know it is the best modal we had available that actually fitted the maths. Not sure what the current thinking is, but I know that the maths is probably a bit over my head. I think I even commented about it here - I never got negative rep for suggesting it though because I concede that there are people here that know a lot more about it than me and didn't try to force my issue that I do not believe in an infinitely small dot containing all of the mass inside a black hole and I have absolutely no way of proving it....and...just because I personally have a hard time understanding it,doesn't make it untrue.

I have no hate of god.... I do not believe there is one (not that is defined by any of the worlds books anyway). I used to believe it.... but I seriously think that I must have been crazy.... I forgive myself for that. I used to love what I thought was God. Maybe I am still sore after a lifetime of lies Dim - you may be right. I am not perfect by a long way and maybe there is some bitterness in me that needs working out.... I would have put it at the foot of the cross in the past - maybe I still can as way of working through it, but I will not lie to myself or anyone else any longer, it isn't the truth (from what I can see) - but it is a damn site better than a lot of things I hear.

QUOTE: "your hate for them".. I presume you mean muslims? I never said I hated them - I said I hate the religion. Sorry if that was not clear. "from this I am getting.... adorn that stick" Sorry - I do not understand that sentence at all.

In dim's defence, I used to get a lot of positivity out of it... but we were taught to read it whilst being guided by the holy spirit. My whole life, before I read the bible or listened to a sermon, I would pray first that the holy ghost would guide me through it and let me hear (or read) only what he wanted me to hear so that I would receive his message. Basically, you ignore a lot of BS. ;-) I love the messages of love and forgiveness etc.. I would still be a Christian today if I believed in God. The NT does supercede the old and brings a completion/evolution to the storey and is full of love if you ignore some of it (let those that have ears listen). I still love the Holy Ghost!! lol - only I believe it to be something other than what I used to belive it to be. (I used to believe it was God, but now I believe it is the best of me or something different that I can't explain). Maybe I am prejudice against the Koran and Islam because I was a Christian, but I really DO hate it. It is all OT stuff and Christianity is about moving on from Dogma and being free... However, in this modern day, I can no longer make excuses for the crap in it and have now started to distance myself from it completely. Also, it is pretty obvious that there is no god as it is described in any of those books. (thus I called them books of lies earlier - because I believe they are).

Sorry Klaynos - you put it much better than I. I wouldn't normally post on such a topic as I am not an Astrophysicist. Presumably David Levy IS an Astrophysicist though or some kind of NASA space scientist if he has evidence that goes against the last few hundred years of scientific observation. He must be at the cutting edge of research. David - out of interest, where did you do your Astrophysics Ph.D.?

I am not a moderator, but I often read these pages. As I see it (and I am no expert in cosmology or astrophysics) It isn't 'forbidden' to criticize any science theory at all if you have some kind of evidence to point to why it isn't the best fit of our observations. The BBT is the best fit of all of the data we have.... so if you want to propose something else then you need to do all of the math and show where you think it's wrong and suggest an alternative that fits the observed data in a way that is superior to the current theory. If you can't do that then your new theory will not hold up. The BBT is the result of many, many decades of research and findings and you just look a little naïve when you come along with no experimental data, no maths, no thought experiments and a theory that doesn't match the observed data recorded in reality. What do you expect? If a child started to criticise the theory of gravity, you would say to him that he better go to college and learn some physics before he tries to re-write the theory,. Look at it like this: How important are electrons to modern science? (very) Can we discuss science without electrons? (difficult) Should a discussion be closed if someone dares to claim that there are no electrons? (without proof of that claim then probably yes) Is it forbidden to criticise the electron on this forum? (No - not if you have observed something new that no one else has - but you better be ready to have your idea scrutinised and you can expect a drilling). If someone came along and suggested that electrons did not exist, would you think they were a crackpot? We all know that the model for the electron is not exact. No-one can fully explain it fully.... but our understanding of it has evolved and grown over centuries... if some 30 year bloke skips up and says he thinks electrons have no charge you would ask him for proof. You'd ask him how we get the observed results from Millikan's experiment if the electron did not exist. If he provided NO proof that the e did not exist and had no maths or substance other than he doesn't think it right, should he be given any credit at all and allowed to continue soap boxing about their being no electron?.... sorry - I hope that is not a strawman, it is just a similar thing because BBT has a lot of support for it from what scientists that actually have been working on these problems have observed.

what about a volumetric pipet? They tend to have the bulge in them to hold more volume and have a calibrated line on them for exact volume at stp. Same thing though I think.