Severian

It is probably possible to survive either given enough technological sophistication. However, I voted for 'There is no surviving either' since I don't think a Class III civilization would be technologically advanced enough to do it.

That was only the earlier models. the new ones seem to have lost that functionality - or at least mine has (maybe its just a fault, but there was no warranty ).

I am not sure I understand what you mean. Please explain.

I like this one:

It must be somewhere in here: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/House' date='_M.D. Probably:

Any theory with CP violation predicts more matter than antimatter. The question is, is it enough? The current feeling is that the Standard Model doen't have enough CP violation to cause the baryon asymmetry we see. But this is not a big problem (in my view) because we are bound to find new physics to explain it. I am sure one can generate a baryon asymmetry from other sources. For example, a heavy right handed Majorana neutrino would violate lepton number in its decays, so may be the source of the imbalance.

What do you mean by 'why'? Science never asks why - it only ever asks 'how'. Is this what you mean? i suggest you take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cp_Violation and come back to us with any questions.

Actually, I think the divorce rate has soared because of people like herme3. They have unrealistic expectations of their partners (created by hollywood's representation of the perfect man or woman). They pretend to themselves that their current partner is perfect long enough to have a relationship and get married. And then when the first problem comes along and they see that their partner is not perfect, they scream 'divorce' and run for the hills. They think that the 'perfect soulmate' is still out there and this was just a silly mistake. Well, that's not real love folks. Real love is when you stick by someone even though you know they are not perfect. Modern relationships need a lot of work to maintain, and need a lot of plaintalking, honesty and the ability to see your relationship (and your own feelings) for what they really are.

Two words for herme3: Seek help.

*sigh* That was part of the entrance exam! The first step of the test for admission is to figure out how to download the prospectus. I hope you are happy that you have just opened the doors of Cambridge to everyone!

Does it matter? It is non-predictive, so it is not a valid scientific theory anyway. So why do they bother trying to accommodate observations in some semi-scientific way when they are throwing science out of the window anyway?

Yes. That is what I meant. You need a further condition though. This just gives you a relation between D and F. You need another relation to solve for them. So, what should happen to the funtional form of $\psi(x)$ as you pass $x=a$?

$|\phi|^2(x)$ is the probability of finding the particle in position x. So $\int dx |\phi|^2$ is the probability of finding the particle anywhere. What should this probability be?

A few friends have started up a poker night, just for fun (we each put a £5 in the pot, divide out all the chips equally and last man standing takes the pot). The trouble is that I have never played poker before, so I could do with some training (Texas Hold'em rules). So, can anyone recommend online or offline free poker software that I could use to learn the game? I definitely do not want to play for real money. I tried a few rooms which google through up but even though they say 'free' all the games were for money.

Actually, this is a very good question. It is not like a bullet because you could see a bullet moving away from you in principle (or in practice if you had a video camera with a fast enough frame rate). You could see the bullet because light (from a source like the sun or maybe a lightbulb) bounces off the bullet, and the travels to your eye. What we really mean by 'bounces' is that the light interacts with the charged particles in the bullet, which causes it to change direction. This doesn't happen for light because the photons themselves are not charged. Light only reacts with charged particles so one photon cannot interact with another. Therefore any light falling on the light you want to see passes straight through and you can't see it. (This is not quite true - there is a contribution to light-by-light scattering from a quantum effect where the light splits into a virtual electron-positron pair, then the electron-positrons which are charged interact with the incident light, causing a scatering. But this is a very small effect.)

I only know as far back as my grandparents. To be honest I have never had any desire to delve back into my ancestry - I am who I am independently of where my DNA comes from.

There is a difference between pragmatically tolerating slavery for the good of the nation as a whole, and keeping slaves yourself.

That is really the fallacy here. It is not demonstrated by reason. It is simply an assertion. But the context you put it in is interesting. By placing the emphasis on 'divine right', as in whether or not one should have a King, are you claiming that it was never intended as a statement of 'lower' social equality? This is interesting because it seems much more in keeping with how the founding fathers behaved. Many of them kept slaves for example, and most were not squeamish about regarding themselves as superior to commoners. Although it is not very consistant with them offering Washington the position of King after the revolution.

Nope. A dichotomy is when their are only two alternatives. So, a false dichotomy is when there are a number of alternatives different from two. Either a statement is provable by science or it is not. That is two alternatives (go ahead, count them) - there is no third option. Please try again.

Happy ANZAC day! It is a bit sad that google has special logos for lots of ridiculous 'special' days, and misses ANZAC day.

Which definition? I didn't give a definition. Are you refering to "Science says if Axioms A are true' date=' then X, Y and Z follow."? How can you possible object to that?! Many of these definitions are not very good, and obviously I am not going to go through all of them, so lets just take your 'pattern'. I am going to take the second part of your 'or', ie. Belief in the supernatural/metaphysical. So how is supernatural defined? In its broadest sense, it is something which cannot be explained by science. I think this is a bit weak, since you could then call quantum gravity supernatural! I would rather say that it is something which can never (ie. in principle) be explained by science. This is still rather wide. There are lots of things which cannot be proven by science, including the existence of God, the soul, freewill, morality and human rights. If you say you believe in any of these then, by your own definition, you are making a religious statement. This now becomes easy because all I need is a statement unprovable by science. "We hold this truth to be self-evident, that all men were created equal." will do nicely.

Yes' date=' photons who have an energy of 4.2x10[sup']-43[/sup]J. These are produced in the tail of a perfect black-body spectrum (so there will be some in the CMBR for example).

Do you think that? I don't and I hope you do not. Are you so naive as to think there is only one reason? Politics is a lot more complicated than that. Wow. It must be much worse where you live. I have never seen anyone beheaded, or even stoned. I have never seen any schools blown up.... Wait, do you mean on TV? If so, you have probably seen the genocide in Darfur on TV too. Are you going to invade there next, or does that just not make good TV? Can you provide some sources of all this info please? However, I agree that to call for the destruction of Israel is very evil - in fact, just as evil as your call for the destruction of Islam. Indeed. But if you threaten people you should not be surprised when they take it badlyl.