Deified

I didn't say it was unknowable, I said the knowledge wouldn't have any practical applications. And yes, I am a bit pessimistic most of the time.

You were saying that someone elses theory was wrong... a bit hypocritical I think. Also, your theory was ridiculous and does not fall in the realm of reasonable doubt.

Fair enough, i am now dropping the example as a failed experiment.

It's useless to speculate what the ends of the universe might contain as they are well beyond the hubble distance meaning that we will never reach them or even see them. Our universe doesn't have boundaries in the classical meaning of the word but it has effective borders.

I merely meant that when the child is threatened and the mother sacrifices herself.... if she doesn't then the child dies. with the point above taken into consideration I think you will find that it is false. There is no G outside of the GN term on the right side because the original baby has died without the self-sacrifice. I agree with your larger point, I chose a terrible example and since that time several much better examples have been given much more ably than I managed. It is true that any adaptation that will increase representation in the gene pool is likely to be adopted by the species in question whether it includes survival or not.

Ok first off, the infant dies if there is no self sacrifice so it is just G*N. Secondly, this is clearly more advantageous in older mothers. Secondly G < G + GN is also false. Without the self sacrifice the correct expression is G < GN which is not necessarily a true statement. Both G(infant) and N can die. But the probability of N survivng is greater than G surviving because N has a mother to care for it. That result may change depending on the age of the original child. If I'm wrong about this, which is quite possible, then it's is still true that many mothers are willing to sacrifice themselves for their children.

Not quite sure what you mean by that but I think the problem arises from the semantics used. Surely you don't mean that. You mean to tell me that individual behavior is not governed by genetics and therefore evolution? How about the individual behavior of eating? I suppose that a species that doesn't have the tendency to eat is just as evolutionarily fit as one that does because thats individual behavior... Lets do a thought experiment. A mother (any parent really) is forced to decide between sacrificing her own life or her child's life. If she allows the child to die then she has no representation in the next genration of genes (assuming she has only one child) therefore the tendency to allow the child to die would not be passed on through her. IF she was still of mating age then she might have another child so this gene would have a decreased chance of surviving. Now lets suppose that a different mother is posed with the same question. If she allows herself to be killed then she is more likely to pass on the trait for allowing herself to be killed. Obviously these results vary slightly with the number of children. coquina- I think that the salmon thing is a more extreme form of what I outlined above. Forgive me for not being clear enough as I am pressed for time.

Organisms will evolve towards anything that increases their representation in the gene pool. If the most effective way to do this is by killing themselves (unlikely) then it is likely that they would evolve a way to kill themselves quickly and effectively. A more realistic example is a mother putting herself in harm's way for her child. This is a trait that clearly increases the representation of the mother's genes in the gene pool. Someone sacrificing themselves for their offspring doesn't seem like pure survival to me.

Waldorf schools are technically non-denominational however there is a christian slant to some things (mostly music).

I have begun to realize that I am turning into a lonely old man (all of 15 years) sitting here brooding in my basement and I decided that I needed a companion. Since my social skills amount to basically nil I think it best that this companion be non-human. So, I am looking for the perfect pet within these parameters: 1. Should be friendly, or at least entertaining 2. Smell should be not terrible 3. Living accomodations should be cheap, (>$100) 4. SHould have an interesting mind ( I might enjoy doing some experiments on animal intelligence) Hit me with ideas people. What pets have you liked in the past/present?

I don't think they do follow the same formulas. First of all, every point in space is expanding in all directions at once. In an explosion it only expands in one direction. What I just said means that the farther things are from us, the faster they recede. Not too hard to grasp. I'm sure you know about the hubble distance and such, so from what I just said I don't really see how the two explosions could be related in anything but name.

Why on earth would you not have ANY doubt? You don't even know what the "Unified Field Theory" is. Why are you accepting it as the truth? [edit] Just because you or anyone else says "there are papers" does NOT make it true. Also, when researching science or history or really anything, always be wary of ".com"s.

So thats independent of rest mass?

I have notified 'echo 3' of the whereabouts of 'condor' the 'party' should happen around 'midnight'

Another hint: five variables needed. Think about it as though it were an object with forces working on it. (note the plural) The last trick, I leave to you.

Fair enough. So what exactly is relativistic mass?

Global conspiracies are cool!

Swansont, yes "p=c" was a typo. I understand mass-energy (as in the law of conservation of mass-energy) as being energy or mass, because they are different forms of the same thing. So if I say that a photon has mass-energy greater than 0, I don't see why this is inaccurate. It has 0 mass + a substantial amount of kinetic energy. The simplification E=mc^2 doesn't apply to photons. Here is another question, when a particle is accelerated in a particle accelerator it is said that it "gains mass" as it gains speed. Do they mean that literally ( it actually increases in size ) or in terms of mass-energy (it gains kinetic energy, and therefore indirectly gains mass). Thanks for helping me out, I'm pretty new to this stuff.

I actually found that link posted by zahizahi to be one of the funnier reads I have had in a long time. It very directly stated that ALL evidence presented by Darwinists is "imaginary" and simply propoganda designed to foster a materialistic world in which selfishness and evil rule supreme. It actually made out evolutionary biologists, zoologists, botanists, etc. to be evil masterminds in some kind of huge world domination conspiracy that has lasted 200 years. I laughed so hard. Of course after stating these things, they said that it PROVED that God had created all species.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but it seems that you are saying that photons convey energy. Photons have no rest mass, but they are NEVER actually massless. I hope you are familiar with E^2=(c^2)(p^2)+(m^2)(c^4). (when p=0 it reduces to E=mc^2). This equation works to illustrate both of my points, firstly, photons NEVER slow down. They always go at c. So if p=c in the above equation, then we have a substantial amount of energy that is ALWAYS present in the photon. The second point is, Einstein showed that mass can be converted into energy and the other way round too. So we often refer to this as mass-energy since they are basically the same thing. So photons can interact with our eyes and they are affected by gravity because they have mass-energy, ALWAYS. If I made any inaccurate statements PLEASE correct me, I'm learning this stuff too.

Think "acceleration". The first zero is not really part of the pattern, it's just the null state.

Here is a number puzzle I created the other day. I think it's pretty hard. Find the next number: 0, 1, 1, 0, -1, 0, 6...

I feel so... stupid. I originally had exactly what you wrote but I edited it out because I thought it was unecessary. I thought it was a shortcut. Oh well.

BLACK CLACK CLICK CRICK (not in original answer) TRICK TRICE TRITE WRITE WHITE Thats a tough one. I'll bet there's a shorter way.