Greg H.

Just to settle the whole are potatoes poisonous thing: Yes, they are, but they're only particularly dangerous if eaten when they have a green coloration to the tuber. So are eggplants, by the way. And cherry, peach, and apricot pits, and almonds (they all have cyanide in them). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solanine http://listverse.com/2009/01/06/top-10-poisonous-foods-we-love-to-eat/

What?????

Here's some more information about how the SR520 bridge is anchored to the bottom http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/SR520/I90BridgeAnchorCableRepl/Graphics.htm

Not really, because the standard scientific investigative method assumes you can test the predictions of your assertion - God, according to the standard Christian definitions, lies in the realm of the untestable, and you cannot falsify what you cannot test.

Based on my understanding (which, admittedly, could be very flawed):We would see in a circle 13 billion light years across - so would they. Both circles are centered on the observer. So they would see things we cannot, and we would see things they cannot. The universe itself is infinite. The observable universe is finite, and what is observed varies based on the location of the observer. Edit to attach a file showing a conceptual drawing. In this drawing the blu dots are the (vastly oversized) planets, while the circles indicate their observable areas. The football shaped area in the middle is the only area where both would be able to see the same things. Now, keep in mind this is a 2d drawing, and the effect would actually be spheres, not circles.

Are you really proving a negative, or are you simply concluding that the assertion p is false?

from http://en.wikipedia....thorium_reactor

The problem being that those aren't our only two options.

Teach them what? They don't need astronomy, inorganic chemistry, or physics to research brains. And once your great change is complete and there are no more physicists, chemists, or anthropologists left, who takes up where your disenfranchised generation left off? We just going to leave behind a few Post-Its to help them carry on? Your approach will not save the human race - it will doom it to slow extinction. Funnily enough, I am pretty sure that in the early 20th century we were still bashing each other in the head with rocks (figuratively speaking) on a grand scale. And our ethics development doesn't need to keep pace with the development of knowledge, it needs to keep pace with the development of our society, and the changes in how they interact. Thus far it seems to be doing that.

LOL. Nice try, my friend, but I know you don't have nukes. My spies have confirmed that your WMDs are really nothing more than a crack pipe and a slingshot. And not to derail the thread, but what is a Weapon of Mass Destructions (WMDs) Isn't one mass destruction bad enough? Or, more appropriately, shouldn't they be called Multiple Weapons of Mass Destruction (MWMD)? Sorry, on with the thread. Humans are competitive, selfish outside of our acknowledged social groups (and sometimes within them), and driven to discover and succeed. This is why we developed the field of ethics - to help us over these hurdles in our relationships with each other. You can't evolve those traits out of us, because it's a fundamental part of why we have reached the point we have. We can certainly evolve our ethics, but that's a societal change, not a physiological one. Ok, that's less patently ridiculous, but it still leaves the problem of what all the physicists, geologists, archaeologists, computer scientists, astronomers, cosmologists, biologists (who aren't doing brain research), chemists, etc etc, are going to do with their time. The point I am trying to make is that we are solving this problem, slowly, but surely, by improving our understanding of the human family, and resolving our differences in some way that doesn't involve bashing each other in the head. But there will always be fundamentalists who resist change that slow this process down. We need to let our society evolve naturally, not force it to change to match our expectations.

Not to be offensive, but this is patently ridiculous. Why would you have physicists, for example, researching the human mind? And you're not even discussing the physical brain, you're discussing the ephemeral consciousness - that's more the realm of psychologists and neurologists than physicists.

So the question then becomes how do you identify "dangerous science"? And how do you prevent the inevitable "I don't like what evolution teaches so I am going to classify that as dangerous to stop funding and ban it" mentality that WILL erupt, because let's face it, humans are also very self-interested. I never said it was impossible. People change themselves for better and worse all the time. Changing the nature of the human species, however, is not quite the same as deciding to be more eco-friendly in your consumer choices. How is that different from the Crusades exactly? As was pointed out to you before, the year really doesn't matter. Humans have been capable of massive destruction on a widespread scale since we figured out how to bash each other in the head with a club.

This is true of any probabilistic event. The chance of the Earth being struck by a GRB at any given time is very low, but if you add in enough time to the mix, it is almost guaranteed to occur. Should we therefore cower in fear of the future, or accept that there's not much we can do about pure, dumb luck, and move on with our lives? And I do understand the differnce - in your example, we do have some measure of control over our governance of our species fate - but that means that we need to approach the situation from an ethical standpoint, and not with a knee-jerk reaction that will hamstring the human race's ability to move forward. Nothing is impossible, but it will certainly make the task orders of magnitude higher. On the other hand, it does avoid the "all your eggs in one basket" problem we have now. Option 3 is really the only choice. Even if we choose one of your other options, we are still also picking option 3 because we are then assuming that whatever comes next will be survivable. If we choose option 1 we're making the assumption that the cure isn't worse than the disease. Option 2 assumes we won't need expanded power in the future to avoid some cataclysmic event (asteroid impact anyone?). Option 3 has worked out fairly well for us so far, I see no real need to change at this point.

Your woo has no power here. Come back with a substantive response to the challenges indicated, or kindly admit that your theory is a load of horse droppings and abandon it.

I'll take one for the team and eat them. On a more serious note, call it what it is: killing creatures that we consider no longer of any use.

So you're saying the surface gravity of the earth 180 million years ago was 4 times higher than it is today? I have two words you need to explain - continental shelves. What does this have to do with anything at all? And...wait, what? I thought we were discussing the earth. While I realize I have taken this out of context, it's the only portion of your post that makes any sense at all.

Right about....what exactly? Completing your thoughts helps people understand you. First, if I insulted you, it was unintentional, and I most certainly apologize. Secondly, lift is the upward force applied on an object as it moves through the air. It is not, however, necessary for the surface to be curved in any fashion, as evidenced by the vast number of aircraft with symmetrical wings that manage to fly just fine. I suspect (and maybe a physicist can confirm this for us) that the curved shape may make the lift more efficient, but it's not necessary at all. As Moontanman said, I can make a brick fly if I strap a rocket to it. I am well aware of how language changes over time. However, the closest definition I could even find for what you are espousing was an archaic definition that equates levity with the lightness of an object. A light object certainly requires less lift to fly, but being light does not cause flight. I stand by my correction of your terms. Communication requires that you present your message in a way that gives it the best chance of being understood. Unless, of course, you're just engaging in sophistry, in which case, by all means, carry on gibbering word salad all over the place. Wings don't levitate. They are lifted by the motion of the medium they are moving through in a lateral direction across their surfaces. If wings levitated, planes wouldn't need engines to fly. Neither. Except for the patch in contact with the ground, it would flow the same speed across the entire surface. This is why balls rolling down inclines do not spontaneously take flight.

No idea. But they license barbers these days too.

Well, you can't say that they're an impartial observer - they get paid a fee when you register through their credentialing arm, the Commission of Dietetic Registration. That aside, in North Carolina, you have to be certified to be a nutritionist, which is not the case in all states. According to the CDR's website, here's the list: Alabama (1989)* - licensing of dietitian/nutritionist Alaska (1999) - licensing of dietitian/nutritionist Arkansas (1989) - licensing of dietitian California (1995)* - registration* of dietitian Connecticut (1994) - certification of dietitian Delaware (2009) - licensing of dietitian/nutritionist District of Columbia (1986) - licensing of dietitian and nutritionist Florida (1988) - licensing of dietitian, nutritionist and nutrition counselors Georgia (1994)* - licensing of dietitian Hawaii (2000)* - certification of dietitian Idaho (1994) - licensing of dietitian Illinois (1991) - licensing of dietitian and nutrition counselors Indiana (1994) - certification of dietitian Iowa (1985) - licensing of dietitian Kansas (1989)* - licensing of dietitian Kentucky (1994)* - licensing of dietitian and certification of nutritionist Louisiana (1987)* - licensing of dietitian/nutritionist Maine (1994)* - licensing of dietitian and dietetic technician Maryland (1994)* - licensing of dietitian and nutritionist Massachusetts (1999) - licensing of dietitian and nutritionist Minnesota (1994) - licensing of dietitian and nutritionist Mississippi (1994)* - licensing of dietitian and nutritionist title protection Missouri (1998)*-certification of dietitian Montana (1987)* - licensing of nutritionist and dietitian title protection Nebraska (1995)* - licensing of medical nutrition therapists Nevada (1995)* - certification of dietitian New Hampshire (2000) - licensing of dietitian New Mexico (1997) - licensing of dietitian, nutritionist and nutrition associates New York (1991) - certification of dietitian and nutritionist North Carolina (1991) - licensing of dietitian and nutritionist North Dakota (1989)* - licensing of dietitian and certification of nutritionist Ohio (1986) - licensing of dietitian Oklahoma (1984) - licensing of dietitian Oregon (1989) - certification of dietitian Pennsylvania (2002) - licensing of dietitian-nutritionist Puerto Rico (1974)* - licensing of dietitian and nutritionist Rhode Island (1991)* - licensing of dietitian and nutritionist South Dakota (1996) - licensing of dietitian and nutritionist Tennessee (1987) - licensing of dietitian/nutritionist Texas (1993)* - licensing of dietitian Utah (1993) - certification of dietitian Vermont (1993) - certification of dietitian Virginia (1995)* - certification of dietitian and nutritionist Washington (1988) - certification of dietitian and nutritionist West Virginia (2000) - licensing of dietitian Wisconsin (1994) - certification of dietitian Wyoming (2012) - licensing of dietitian

Actually, what you have is a very precise way of measuring simultaneous happenings in a scientific setting - that's the only difference between the two versions of the definition. For normal conversation your shortened definition is fine - scientists need precise definitions because they are dealing with very precise equipment and concepts.

It's certainly a better choice.

That's not the only problems it needs to solve. Where did all the new mass come from? Because either the Earth was on a heck of a diet back then, or someone needs to explain away the four fold higher surface gravity at the time. In order for the gravity to remain relatively constant over the intervening 180 million years, the earth would need to have had 1/4 of the mass it does now. That's not an insignificant problem to surmount. Essentially, you're trying to prove that the earth went from roughly the same radius as Mars and a little more than twice the mass to the size it is now in 180 million years. And that's AFTER blooping off 5% of it's total mass at the time as the moon (unless you're saying it, too, is gaining mass). So we have the earth gaining (if my math is right) 55,300,000,000,000,000 kgs a year. That's roughly 1.8 million kgs a second worldwide. I think we'd have noticed by now.

No, evolution is "just" a theory. General Relativity is "just" a theory. What you have is the basis for a hypothesis, assuming you can come up with some sort of predictions that aren't better explained by some existing theory or model, and a testing methodology for your predictions. Once it's grown up a little, it can be a theory. Maybe. Though, frankly, I'm inclined more to the "woo" camp myself on this one.

It's not circular, just mathematically precise. All it's really saying is that if you have two visible events (in our case we'll use flashing lights) set some distance apart (called ab) then the lights can be said to flash simultaneously if and only if the light from A and the light from B reach the exact mid point of the distance between them (midpoint of ab) at exactly the same moment in time.