Acme

Wassamatta U!?

I don't join discussion forums and I snack on smoked clams and IPA.

Wish I had read this before getting my pic; I thought we were doing colon cancer awareness. When someone pointed out that I was wearing 2 different socks, I said " I know; I have another pair just like this at home".

I will not go gently into that good night; I'll rage, rage against the dying of the light. I'm not holding my breath for 100 seconds, much less 100 years.

But can you prove that? I fixed it. While I ground the wrong axe-on the quote, I was chopping the right would. I think I'll start that drinking now. source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong Your title fails at the fundamental level of definition. A mathematical proof by definition cannot have a counter example. Nothing of what you have said puts the foundations of mathematics in peril. Please spare me further retorts and call it a wash.

I prefer not to be influenced or distracted either by other members' splendiforous beauties or hideous ugliosities. Nor do I think it fitting for me to inflict mine on them.

Yes but the OP asked something slightly different. D'oh! Agreed. I should have specified the title rather than the OP, as the title makes no mention of axioms. The question is not even wrong. What it, the question, says is that the questioner has some confusion regarding mathematical proofs. I suppose we could start mixing it up yet more by invoking proof theory, but that's a horse of a different kettle of fish. proof theory @ Wilted Petal: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_theory

I agree about the steps and find it proper that you put "partial proofs" in quotes. My point is that all of that understood and answering the OP, there are no counter examples to a proof.

These are not the only factors heating Earth. Tidal heating from the Moon has been and remains a contributor. Granted it is slight today, but it is there. source: >> http://lunarorigin.com/tidal-heating This source gives the value from tidal heating as .007 W/m2 (Scroll down to the illustration of cubes.) >> http://www.skepticalscience.com/heatflow.html

In such a case, the original proof of a conjecture or theorem was not a proof, i.e. it was wrong. A consequent proof the same conjecture or theorem, whether it uses part of the original wrongness or not, is then a proof all of its own. As Gauss said, there is no partial proof. Not 1/2 or 3/4 or 7/8. It's all or nothing. That is exactly how one works with mathematics.

Please forgive or ignore the angry adults. When you get to be an adult, try and remember what it's like to be a kid and treat kids accordingly. To answer your initial question, yes I believe -that is I trust- the evidence for a big bang. It is not a simple idea even for most adults, but it is an idea based on actual observations. The following is a short summary of some of the early observations leading to the idea's development. You can read more about the big bang at the link to my source. When you see words you don't know, look them up in a dictionary. If you have specific questions after reading the material, ask them. source: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#Underlying_assumptions

But the point is the proof would be viable by all axioms of Mathematics, but yet there would be a counter example to it which means, as abj explained, the axioms would be ill founded and would need reconsideration. That is a spurious argument. Regardless of axioms employed, a proof is either correct or it is not. If a counter example to a purported proof is given, then the proof was no proof at all.

I'm not intimately familiar with the subject, but reading the Wiki article on metal foams I see little to suggest they are anything more than structural in nature. That is, the chemical nature of a metal foam is the same as for the non-foamed metal. I do however see they exhibit some different thermal properties than solid metals. As to microscopy, that would just depend on the size of the cavities. OK? metallic foam @ Wiki: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallic_foam

I think I would go with stronger language even than that, and say the original proof was wrong if a counter example was found. In such a case the original proof would no longer be a proof or even a conjecture and if one felt the need to further classify it I would just call it a mistake. The proper technical exclamation for the originator would then be "d'oh". I mean the word proof not in the sense of lawyers, who set two half proofs equal to a whole one, but in the sense of a mathematician, where half proof = 0, and it is demanded for proof that every doubt becomes impossible. ~ Carl Friedrich Gauss

Nice find! Here's an impact calculator that allows the user to input size & speed of impactor, composition of impactor and impacted material, and observer distance from impact and outputs the result. http://impact.ese.ic.ac.uk/ImpactEffects/

I've often thought - is this process accelerating due to carbon removal from the earths crust and are these carbon 'veins' part of the earths windings? Have you considered this? If you use the quote function, it's easier for readers to find the post you want to quote in its context. Anyway, the short answer to your question is no. The longer answer is that there are no 'carbon veins' as such. Hydrocarbons such as oil and coal contain a lot of carbon, but they are insulators, not conductors. Again, while a cooling core can reduce and ultimately stop the dynamo of a space body and so its magnetic field, that is not the likely cause of the measured decrease of Earth's magnetic field. I'll quote just the most recent understanding of the geodynamo, but it will serve you well to read the whole article my quote comes from to get some insight into the science of space body magnetic fields. Note the mention of reversals, which I referenced earlier when I challenged Sensei's simplified cooling answer; these reversals are accompanied by periods of increasing, decreasing, disjoint, and absent magnetic fields. Dynamo theory @Wiki: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamo_theory

You & I won't be here in even the next century so we hardly need care about the next few thousand years. Given how well humans have done with a good number of past super volcano eruptions, and without current technology no less, there is no logical basis to conclude they will do any worse now or in the future. I should be so lucky as to croak witnessing a super volcano; beats the hell out of a common stroke at the market any day.

Poppycock. Drilling a hole into a magma chamber would lead to catastrophic decompression. There would be no stopping or otherwise controlling it. Edit: eruption simulation

Fortunately there are a lot of amateurs engaged in spotting asteroids and they are anything but secretive about it. On the rocks, right? Following up on my last post, I have this recent not-so-secret world-wide cooperative effort from NASA. As usual, should I be caught or killed, someone will disavow any knowledge of my actions. source: >> http://agcnotes.wikispaces.com/

We are not surprised to know that pumpkin is a type of squash. 'Rich' is a relative term, i.e. it only has meaning in relation to how much vitamin A other foods have. Here's a site that you can find out the nutrients and vitamins in foods. You can choose different quantities, different parts (e.g. pumkin leaves, pumpkin flowers, pumpkin seeds, etc.) as well as different cooking methods and additives such as salt. Nutrition Value dot Org >> http://www.nutritionvalue.org/ I have found it very useful in gourding my health. This page is gives nutrition facts and analysis for pumpkin, boiled without salt and drained. http://www.nutritionvalue.org/Pumpkin%2C_without_salt%2C_drained%2C_boiled%2C_cooked_nutritional_value.html For 100 gms of boiled pumpkin, Vitamin A content is 288.00 mcg which they give as 6 % of the Daily Value. I used to eat acorn squash as it's what Mother used to make, but a couple years back I got onto the butternut. Damn it is good! Unlike the acorn squash I find I don't need to add anything to it, like the butter and brown sugar Mom added. To prepare it I halve it, remove the seeds (which I rinse and bake), peel, chop into 1" 'cubes', and microwave in a covered dish for about 18 minutes on high. A little salt and pepper and down the pie hole. One time at band camp, I... oh... never mind.

Ok. But you said building a defense would be a great cultural & economic project and yet here you seem to suggest that's unachievable. I was simply giving reference to the most recent effort to work together that I was aware of . While I don't have a ready reference just now, my understanding is that 'we' have found 95% of the asteroids/meteoroids large enough to inflict an extinction level event, and none of them are on a collision course for at least hundreds of years. It may be the case that worldwide cooperation to divert an impactor just isn't going to get juiced unless it's something large scale. At best if someone spots a city-leveler before the fact then an evacuation order will ensue as we already do with hurricanes, wildfires, floods, etcetera. As we used to say back in the day, duck & cover.

I gave 2 contradictions. First, you give life the highest value, then you give death that accord. Second, you haven't killed yourself so you can't "not wait for death". Excepting what I tell you, you have no knowledge of what I do or do not know. Again you contradict yourself. No if's, and's, or but's about it. No; not everything is a zero sum game. That's illogical and that's it. Good luck with all that nonsense then.

You contradict yourself many times in this thread, but the above quotes stand out to me. Which is it? Life is all that matters or death is all that matters? If you really can't wait to die, wouldn't you have committed suicide already? And if death is really so positive, shouldn't the crying , starving child just be killed by the same reasoning? I see no logic in any of what you have written other than the word "logic" itself.

Will SMPAG do? [say same page] The work worldwide has been underway for some time regardless of the name of the rose, however the event in Russia last year did help spark interest according to this report. source: >> http://news.yahoo.com/united-nations-takes-aim-asteroid-threat-earth-114841316.html?vp=1

The special name is mirage. More specifically, heat haze or heat shimmer, a type of inferior mirage. mirage @ Wiki: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirage