the asinine cretin

Yikes! I'm familiar with a couple of those books (namely Gravitation and Cosmology) and they are, uh...grad level, one might say. Don't get me wrong, you're right to recommend them, I just find them to be highly intimidating recommendations. I've actually had Weinberg's Cosmology on my wish list for quite a while but I'm still wading through undergrad texts and Schaum's outlines on my limited free time. Suitable for a more popular audience (from my own experience) I would recommend one or more of the following: Infinity, by Brian Clegg; Infinity and the Mind, by Rudy Rucker; maybe Godel, Escher, Bach, by Doug Hofstadter; Yearning for the Impossible, by John Stillwell... There are other texts of this sort that I'm aware of but have not read. Maybe I'm wrong, and if so I apologize, but my hunch is that the original poster is not at the graduate level in physics or mathematics. P.S. I mean no disrespect, Dr. Rocket! As a lurker on this site I have to say you're probably my favorite regular poster.

Click here to download textbooks for free.

Awesome! I'm glad you liked it. I was pretty stoked to find that. Actually, if you dig space I recommend subscribing to that SETI channel; their talks are great.

It matters to me... You make me sad.

Have you tried the Stellarium quick start guide and user's guide? http://www.stellarium.org/wiki/index.php/Quickstart_guide http://www.stellarium.org/wiki/index.php/Category:User's_Guide

Those are very urgent and existentially significant questions. I feel your pain.

1. The big bag theory does not involve a chemical explosion. 2. The general concept of abiogenesis (what I believe you're referring to in the "primordial soup theory" paragraph) does not assume preexisting cellular life but refers to the emergence of biology itself. Your questions are understandable but I think you should first read about what those theories actually entail and why. I will spare you the wikipedia links as I don't want to be condescending. ETA: Moon's reply is better than mine. I now regret posting at all. :-D Good luck to you anyway!

The great pacific gyre is estimated to contain 100 million tons of plastic but it is overwhelmingly particulates and isn't visible from satellites. You might be interested in the following research. Moore, C.J., & et al. (2001). A Comparison of Plastic and Plankton in the North Pacific Central Gyre. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 42(12), 1297-1300. Full Article (PDF) ETA: While this problem is often presented in an incorrect way and then written off as alarmist or mythical, it is a very serious problem with respect to marine life. More later if you're interested.

I got carried away but what follows has been trimmed down a lot. Here are some texts that were interesting and stimulating to me at some point. A fairly eclectic sampling I think. D. von Hildebrand, Ethics D. von Hildebrand, The Nature of Love M. Heidegger, Introduction to Metaphysics M. Heidegger, Being and Time D. Hume, Treatise of Human Nature D. Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding A. Tarski, Introduction to Logic D. Dennett, Darwin's Dangerous Idea D. Hofstadter, Godel, Escher, Bach Kirk, Raven & Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers Lucretius, On the Nature of Things H. Wang, A Logical Journey J. Searle, The Mystery of Consciousness I like a good history of philosophy as well. I can vouch for these: F. Copleston, A History of Philosophy (9 volumes) W.T. Jones, A History of Western Philosophy (5 volumes)

I was just reading this article. Interesting. A Plan to Power 100 Percent of the Planet with Renewables: Wind, water and solar technologies can provide 100 percent of the world's energy, eliminating all fossil fuels. Here's how. I wonder how factual this video is. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifF-MOuzM_s

:applause:

How DARE you! I love being a pile of hadrons...

That conference was incredibly helpful. Thanks.

I'll try to explain, I think there is a misunderstanding too. I'm referring to this: "You can extrapolate Kepler's findings by multiplying the numbers it detects by approx 200." In my understanding there are many more factors to take into account and it is too preliminary to make such a general extrapolation at all. Further, the wiki article isn't saying, "For an Earth-like planet at 1 AU transiting a Sol-like star the probability is 0.465%," therefore, it is appropriate use this figure to make a general extrapolation about all stars and possible planets.

You might start by looking at the most recent IPCC report.

Who or what were you responding to? Just sharing?

yeah, no kidding. so was I obviously.

you tell me. I'm not hip to that kind of physics.

I was with you until about here. which hardon? does this have something to do with the large hardon collider?

Thanks!

Agreed, and in the question of causation and the mass extinction event I would see that as an expected correlating effect. Yay! hehe.

Being a bit impressionistic about it, liberalism & conservatism, as labels, call to mind pigeonholing and regimented thinking.

I'm reticent to vote given the variety of potential meanings behind the term but I'm quite in favor of cooperative/participatory social structures and the like.

Agreed, but the OP was proposing something more than that; namely, that T. Rex in some sense "caused" the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event. Based on my patchy, amateur understanding of the science I don't think this is a valid notion. Also, it is my understanding as well that climate change is one of the real-world factors that attenuates the modelling efficacy of the Lotka-Volterra equations. My surface understanding of predator-prey models does not concur with the notion of predation unto mass extinction. It might be interesting to discuss, but I must point out that the discussion with the OP has shifted from the plausibility of a T. rex causal relationship to the evolution of species following mass extinction events. It's nice to have a concurrent voice anyway. No apologies are necessary, but thank you.