JustinW

Yes, I had figured it would be something to that effect.

This question is a little late. My network server has been down for a few days. md, I agree with most of what is being said about the light cone, but the bolded part of the quote struck me as inaccurate. If something that is moving away from us at more than the speed of light projects light toward us, the projected light will still travel toward us at the SOL from the point it was projected. In order for us never to see that light from the object we would have to travel away from the object at more than the SOL. On a smaller note, could we call it a light circle or sphere instead of a cone? Since we do have a 360degree field of view it would be overlapping circles instead of intersecting cones. Right? Probably not impotant. This is just how I've mapped it in my head. The graph just shows all points looking in the same direction. But with a 360degree field of view there would be no up and down or side to side limitations.(just the furthest point of any direction you look) The principle would still be the same though.

I have the same problem as Ophiolite. I have been waiting for clarity. The OP was about an ice age theory, then goes on to talk about all weather and current forcast models. But you do not state your case anywhere in the thread.(Or at least stated it clearly.) Are the current models wrong, if so, then how? Do you have a model that differs from those currently used? If so, explain what is different. Maybe try to give examples of what the other models have done wrong and why. Tested what? Give examples of what was tested, how you tested it, and the end result of said tests. Like I said, I think we could better understand what you are saying if we had some real life examples to go by.

Ah, clarity. Things are starting to pick up.

Ah 'tis true. But Obama has given everyone plenty of ammo.(not for guns,he's against that) I know people say that as Americans we're a forgetfull nation. But the backlash that Obama recieved from alot of things hit home to a lot of people. It won't be good for the DNC once the public is reminded constantly during the campaign.

You gotta admit, the Q and A part of the model is definitely an axiom. Superball, How do you figure the earth's climate is a closed system?

I disagree with the statement that Aristotle retarded astronomy for 1500 years. Just because he had the idea doesn't mean he was responsible for someone else not proving it wrong. In fact I would go as far as to blame everyone but Aristotle, because no one challenged the idea for so long and put it to the test. I also believe philosophers deserve a great deal of respect.(the good ones at least) It was that form of logical thinking that made so many things possible.

No not at all. Once the Reps get one candidate to back I think you'll see their poll numbers will go up. Okay, I'll give you that. It was just a thought, my knowledge of foreign government is limited at best.

Wouldn't it still be that way no matter how many parties you have? It seems to stop that from happening it would have to be all or nothing. Every political view point would have to be represented to stop the winner take all mantality. I think it might be split as you suggest but with a little twist. I believe that the majority of independants lean towards a conservative set of principles, but to a limit. If the Reps get out of hand the Dems usually walk away with the election and vice-a-versa. I completely agree. I think most Americans would agree with that too. As bad as politics are it would probably amount to political suicide to agree too much with the opposite side of the isle. The only way it could work is if they threw their own agendas out the door and focused on the problems in a general way. But every one in Washington has their own agenda. Whether it's using the Federal Government to support local Government issues with outrageous earmarks or being stubborn with the idea that "I'm right you're wrong" instead of working together to come up with the best possible solution. I do vote for the candidate that most closely represents the stand I do, but I was talking more about policy. Here lately the policy matters have been pretty big with Health Care, Lybia, etc... The political protests have been growing in number and severity. If a larger number of factions had more of a say, I would think that policy would change switch from one extreme to another in a shorter amount of time. Which deffinitely give rise to more unrest and protest. Sure they do. I meant someone should run against Obama on the Democrat side. The way his numbers are, the only thing the Dem's can hope for is to have a strong Independant candidate that splits the conservative vote. That would be the only way I could see him winning another election.

Philosophy and science do go together. Like Prolific and Tar said, you can't have science without first having rational questioning. (which is philosophy) But I would also say that once in a scientific method rational questioning has to be backed by fact.

I don't mean to sound critical either but I don't think you've clearly stated any assumptions. The earth's axis is already proven to have changed an areas climate. That's why we have the sahara desert.

Wouldn't a growing number of parties deminish the effectiveness of government? You could look at it as, the more parties a government has the more ideologies will be in play, and that it would be near impossible to elect a president whose ideology would come close to the majority of the nation. Not to say that I do look at it that way. Other parties are already represented. This is the reason for having primary elections from a group of candidates who represent a platform's intentions. Not to mention that if there were more people that didn't come close to agreeing with the ideolog and policy of one party or another, you would see Independant candidates at least come closer to winning elections. When it comes to fiscal cause or social cause no one will ever agree completely. The republican platform have conservatives, libertarians, and recently folks who claim tea party principles. While democrats have progressives, liberals, and folks of many different social and fiscal stripes. They all get sorted out in the primaries to represent one of the two main platforms. So just because there are only two platforms doesn't mean that no other view points aren't represented. That is why I like to consider myself an Independant until election time. Listen to what everyone has to say and pick the lesser of two evils. Having to pick between two evils at once is better than having to pick between more than two at once. The country would be back and forth on policy at a more extreme level if this were the case. I think this wold cause more unrest in the nation. Oh! I forgot to answer the original question of the thread. I think you'll see Newt rise in the ranks. He is becoming better able to articulate what he is saying, and also becoming more convincing that he believes in what he is saying. I also believe that he is the best candidate they have for GOP nomination. I do wish someone will get into the race on the democrat side. It would make things a little more interesting.

I'm not sure I understand the reason for the topic. Are you trying to provide reasons as to why there are dramatic climate changes through out history? The posts that I've read so far only state facts, for the most part, that are already known and doesn't state a possible conclusion as to why you need a theory. I'm not even sure you've stated a theory yet. Is there some possible outcome or future prediction to your theory? Or are we just sharing information on climate changes throughout history and the causes of those changes? It's highly possible I've missed something so please elaborate as to the point you are trying to make and to what your theory is.

One thing I have never heard mentioned are the BTU's given off by a living being and if it would have an affect on the worlds average temperature. An average person gives off between 350-1800 BTU's per hour depending on activity. The worlds population has now exceeded 7 billion. I'm not good at math so if I tried I would probably get it wrong, but added together would it have an affect to a degree of a rising average of 1 or two degrees?

I heard a good quote today and thought I'd share. In all the years of evolution you would think that at least one buzzard would have said," Maybe we ought to drag it off the road." I don't know who it's by, but it struck me funny when I read it.

Interesting. Do you have a link to the experiment?

Can fate and free will work together. I always wondered if maybe fate is the door presented to you and free will is your option to walk through it. Or is fate something different alltogether? Do we stumble through life or are we guided by some plan from a supreme being? If fate does exsist and is not just a door of oportunity, then what wold be the point of doing anything at all? And if you did nothing, would it be able to be called fate or would we always wonder if we had an oportunity to do something. Do we guide our own fate? Or is it guided for us? The real thing I want to ask is what exactly is fate or free will? And can we tell for sure which one we are participating in?

I was thinking way too hard on that one. Probably should have stayed a little closer to the problem. Good puzzle.

in. I kept thinking WHAT DOES IT MEAN! AAAHHHHH, sweet clarity

Not to mention that if there was this ENERGY flying around, anything around us could spontaneously combust without warning. Maybe it was from some of that Irish shine. I don't know how it is over there, but where I come from it makes you want to combust.

I completely agree with Phi. No need to think about the glass being half empty. When it gets that way, just get a different size glass. What you do always matters to someone whether you notice that change or not. Some of peoples best intentions can turn the worse for others. Just like the early thinkers on chemistry and physics didn't intend to pave the road for atomic weapons. My point is to do what makes you feel fulfilled, just not to an extent of feeling utter failure and deppresion for not seeing an immediate impact on the world. Just think of all the cool stuff we'll do in the meantime.

you're a box

Aha I still didn't get it. Time? that could still be an arguable point since you didn't say when one was to tell if you were in the box. We are typing over eachother and it seems I missed again. Now that I get it it is a pleasant puzzle that I thought way too hard over. I appologize this was two different post for your last two answers. You are a letter in the puzzle.

Space would be the obvious answer to the absence of everything. Also to the bottle of gin, glass of water senario.(at least at my house) But wouldn't space apply the same way as my use of nothing? Sorry for being dense.(I have problems) The answer is you are you. You don't ask what's in the box. It took some time even after the spoiler