Endy0816

Well the initial statement is incorrect. What you are defining either needs to have a smaller event horizon or a greater mass to be a black hole. That 'Rosetta equation' uses an incorrect definition of the Lorentz factor. ie. I think you are mixing and matching equations too, but it is late Halloween night here so I could well be mistaken on that.

If we're talking about physics, I generally think of the properties as defining the informational content. ie. mass, charge, spin, etc.

Crop circles are well explained via human action.

How is the chemical energy of the kerosine being converted into electrical power?

Accidents happen. I wouldn't even consider them as sad unless there is a loss of life. Just to give an idea on the numbers of reported accidents: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight-related_accidents_and_incidents The ongoing transition to private industry contractors could also have been a factor, though NASA certainly had its fair share of accidents.

There are different languages used for app programming. Objective C would be the closest to C, but some of the others may be a better fit depending on what you are looking for. Do you want it to work best on a particular system? Do you want it to work across multiple systems? I definitely agree with what Sensei was saying above, find a problem first then look to programming to provide your solution. I've never sat down and said, "I'm going to make a program today." Instead it has always been, "I have a problem, my friends have a problem, how can I use my programming skills to solve it?" Automation, enjoyment and added functionality are the main three I've seen, with no small amount of cross applicability. ie. Something more automated can be more enjoyable and more functional.

The potential for mass-energy gain or loss would be the biggest issue.

Sounds are normal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnagogia#Sounds You were also likely feeling the effects of sleep paralysis. Creates a feedback issue. Your brain attempts some motion, but then receives word back that the muscles were unable to comply. Common to feel unease as a result. As to the rest, it is possible you were asleep without knowing it and/or sleep walking. Basically sleep is supposed to be a skeleton crew minimal activity mode. A balance between recuperation and still being able to respond to generalized threats to oneself. Can seem a bit weird when you become aware of everything going on.

From reading, it seems that Huxley's mentifacts were less concerned with transmission of an idea than Dawkin's memes.

Can do something similar using straight algebra as well. example of '!=' x = a-b; x = x/x; // note: 0/0 needs to result in 0 for this line to work... balance = balance - n*x; As for the And/Or question I'm really not sure. Am aware of the necessity of essentially the Not gate along with either And/Or for functional completeness, but had not considered this in relation to conditional branching.

You can also remember your failures. In contrast every single one of your ancestors was a success at passing along their genetic material.

I mean the poles of your magnet would present an issue for a standard approach. There are more complex methods under development though.

Northern Lights?

Humans can posses prior knowledge that evolution lacks and evolution never assumes the way we do. Very different processes each with their own strengths and weaknesses.

I'm sorry but to me this seems longer instead of being any clearer. It also keeps diverging from topic which is less likely to happen when communication is kept short and concise. I personally like talking about systems of symbolic expression, Einstein and the like; but none of that is what the thread is supposed to be about. There's also a need to adopt your writing style to the medium of expression, which notably many here already do and achieve better results as a consequence.

@fiveworlds: I wish you the best of luck at restoring feeling to your finger.

It is all back behind the event horizon in any case.

Some points seem to be of interest though please try to avoid too much verbiage. Generally short concise statements work best in forum discussions.

There is a huge difference between choosing not to participate and being forced out.

Anything you code in X language you can code in Y provided they are similar enough and a means of translation exists. We found retroviruses which can go RNA -> DNA. So we know translation is possible because they do it. If we didn't have retroviruses or didn't know about the process we would only have guessing. The mitochondria are widespread amongst the world's species and the mtDNA and nuclear DNA meshed together. Our relationship with plants is really what you would want to look into. Gives a good sense of the broad timeline of events. If there was any sort of seeding it would have needed to have been in what we generally term the primordial soup period. All your cells have the same DNA. Phenotypes are the result of expressing basically different parts of that DNA. The stem cells wouldn't be evolving themselves and this is a good thing as them evolving we call cancer. The DNA they and the rest of your cells use can evolve but the stem cell itself hopefully not. Anyways gotta sleep sometime. Come to think of it I can blame evolution for that one too.

Based this off of the self portrait done by Ernst Mach(yes, that Mach). Think it shows most of the effects quite nicely. In reality only the area that overlaps would have doubled imagery and reversed sides of the nose in the field of vision. Related if a 360 of the topic title, how exactly do people "normally" see their nose(or not)? I found accounts online but not much in the way of description of what exactly is being observed.

Code wise it probably already did switch once(RNA -> DNA). Though we still utilize RNA as well as DNA. If there was coding scheme before RNA though, we might indeed not recognize a species still employing it as being related. As far as stem cells go, there is an alternative as you can create spin and simulate gravity that way. Radiation will likely be the biggest issue. Mostly depends on what happens in anticancer research. The Bee article is an example of a phenotype change, rather than genotype. You really do not want to have to rely on evolution to solve your problems. The application of your intelligence is often the better option. May not be as refined as what evolution could pull off, but you'll have a solution faster than evolution would allow and without the death and suffering.

I'm not disputing the videos existence(giving benefit of the doubt). What I am disputing is that there is enough evidence in the videos to make any kind of claim as to the cause. Building a case might consist of some math to show how such a life form might maintain itself, comparison to images for which the cause is known and a discussion of local geography/weather. These are all reasonable and scientific avenues available which cost little to nothing. Note: There is more than just optical data available for astronomical phenomenon and most phenomenon for that matter.

Uncorrected my eyes cross. Initial effect is simply my nose being mirrored. Right side is on the left and vice versa. There is something of a "see through" effect that also occurs. Staring at a particular side of my nose I also see what is behind it at the same time. Something like a transparency or image layer effect. For myself at least one eye normally dominates and I don't tend to see doubled images(though easy to do so if I choose to). It's weird, I'm reading about people not seeing their own nose without closing an eye and being shocked later in life when it "suddenly" begins appearing in their regular vision. Live and learn.