Death_By_Pod

Do they have a demand registry where people can register their interest for DSL? If so get some neighbors to add their phone numbers to the registry, even if they don't plan on getting DSL it would be nice to have that option for them in the future. In a couple of months a few ISPÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s are putting in non-government DSL equipment, which means uncapped DSL (currently you can only get 1.5MbitÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s, which isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t super fast) :).

So there arenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t such secular things as psychologists and topic specific (e.g. marriage) counseling? Secular society does a better job in this area; I donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t see your point. Define goodness Define Good and Evil ThatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s a pretty big call, how about those people who think they are holier then thou and as a result of their holiness think they are better then you? It exists everywhere there is some sort of formalised system (a measurement of intelligence or how close to god you are); some people want to feel like they are at the top no matter what. Thinking you are better then someone else due to your intelligence is ignorance plain and simple.

Now I'm just lost. Nonetheless what we were talking about really doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have much to do with the topic specifically.

ThatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s a little concerning, you don't own your girlfriend; she mutually chose to spend time with you. From your post it seems she isn't that interested in you, she makes no effort in finding the time to do something together. Sometimes you go out with someone and find out you don't want to go out with them again, it sounds like that is what she is experiencing. The best advice is to tell her how you feel, maybe she thinks ignoring you is ok.

I donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t know, it depends on how you define intermediate. In my definition there are 6.5 billion intermediate Homo sapiens living among the world now. I was trying to say is, you canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t state a premise about whatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s going on outside the universe since there is no way to validate it or infer it. Your conclusion isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t valid if the premise isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t assumed true. It isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t assumed there was nothing before the big bang; anything could have happened we just canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t see it. Yeah it has its advantages if youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re applying it to a supernatural idea, not evolution. Survival of the fittest is just a generic term, the virus is creating new opportunities to increase the number of hosts it infects and hence increase its survivability. If you had a bird with a very long beak so it can reach deep inside a flower to get nectar, then you have a bird with a small sharp beak to catch small animals, you wouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t automatically say they are the same species. They clearly have different methods of providing sustenance, which impacts on other areas of how the bird lives and breeds creating even more disparity between the two birds to the point where you might not call them the same bird. Evolution isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t separated by micro and macro, it is the same theorem. Adaptation = microevolution = macroevolution, your saying the same thing yourself. I would respect your opinion if it wasnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t so blatant the opinion was founded on ignorance of what evolution is and means. If macroevolution didnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t exist then how come chickens have left over genetic material of their ancestors (alligator type creatures)? http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000E9965-99A6-13FB-99A683414B7F0000 ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s not about disrespect, its about correcting your misconceptions. YouÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re the one who said I'm impeding on free speech (when I wanted stricter punishment for communicating falsehoods in science), now you demonstrate there are times when itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s practical to impede on free speech. Why did you create the original post in the first place? Sure these are real, defined terms but they have been high jacked by creationists to claim that macroevolution doesn't exist; which is completely false. How do we get macroevolution without having to resort on a base of microevolution? ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s like having a head without a neck; Microevolution sprouts the head of macroevolution in a sense. The definitions of macro and microevolution were created in a time when genetics didnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t exist which made it hard to understand how a banana was related to a human when looking at fossils. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ - a well maintained collection of articles which explain and demonstrate macroevolution with proper citation. I have yet to see something as comprehensive as this article.

There have been many controlled experiments on things with short life spans such as mice, drosophila (flies) and bacteria. If you want an example of evolution look at the bird flu pandemic; the bird flu virus has been mutating into forms which can infect other species such as cats and humans; its ability to rapidly multiply and spread is a good example of macroevolution (changing from a bird infecting virus to a human infecting virus is a pretty big evolutionary change isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t it?) and natural selection. Its not radical speculation, its common sense; you just chose to ignore it. Like I have explained many times, fossilization is a rare process; it only appears common because so many things have died. People fake things for personal gains much like they fake religious relics; if religion was such a common phenomena then why do they need to fake religious relics? Yes he was right; we uncover more fossils every day. WhatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s your point, fossils arenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t the only thing to ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâproveÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ evolution. In DarwinÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s day things like genetics didnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t exist, which proves evolution 100%; whatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s next, Darwin recanting on his death bed is evidence for disproving evolution? Exactly every premise we assert is a blind one, me saying physic works outside of the universe is exactly the same as assuming there nothing; its just a supernatural guess. Your right, we can go from the supernatural to the natural so long as the supernatural assumption is reasonable. There has been a tradition of scientific findings proving just that; e.g. postulating the existence of the electron, at the time they couldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t prove its existence however it makes sense to have electrons to balance the positive nucleus. Also the postulation of the Higgs Boson is a natural consequence from particle physics; however we need better technology (which we are building) to actually see it. It is so well grounded in physics, it is taught at a university level. In the case for god, the only reasonable evidence for god is that a lot of people have faith. There isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t an underlying physical reason for a god to exist, for things such as the electron and Higgs boson, there is. We need better equipment or we need more complete fossils are good excuses for not being 100% on validating an objects existence, faith isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t a good excuse. I should have been a little clearer, I donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t spend hours making sure a post perfect, you do a good job niggling. You do know that astronomy and geography rely on similar principles to evolution, we werenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t there to see the planet evolve we can guess how the countries, mountains rivers and gorges are formed. In astronomy we canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t create a sun and see if we can correctly guess how it evolves, we canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t create a solar system and see how it forms. These things are exactly like evolution, statistical sciences. We know the rules of how things work and we have lots of data in the present, combined we can infer things about the past. I only looked at the citations of one article on speciation but you could easily search the net for some online articles for evidence on evolution. Here are some that speciation (hence proving evolution): Callaghan, C. A. 1987. Instances of observed speciation. The American Biology Teacher. 49:3436. Clausen, J., D. D. Keck and W. M. Hiesey. 1945. Experimental studies on the nature of species. II. Plant evolution through amphiploidy and autoploidy, with examples from the Madiinae. Carnegie Institute Washington Publication, 564:1-174. del Solar, E. 1966. Sexual isolation caused by selection for positive and negative phototaxis and geotaxis in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (US). 56:484-487. Dobzhansky, T. and O. Pavlovsky. 1971. Experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila. Nature. 230:289-292. Dobzhansky, T. 1972. Species of Drosophila: new excitement in an old field. Science. 177:664-669. Koopman, K. F. 1950. Natural selection for reproductive isolation between Drosophila pseudoobscura and Drosophila persimilis. Evolution. 4:135-148. Here are a few, notice the dates on some of these articles; there has been evidence on evolution for many decades now. If you want to cry over spilt milk IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ll be happy to find some online peer reviewed articles for you to read. Go ahead and shout, I have a bomb at a busy airport, go wave the Mohammed cartoons at angry MuslimÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s, hey its free speech I can do what I want and not get in trouble. How about those restrictions on the movies that children can see (If you want to be picky about this the movie ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅThe AristocratsÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

Evolution can be simplified down to: ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Ågene frequencies change over time and will stop changing when itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s reached 0 or 100% of the population.ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

If this is high school: Tough it out, there is a lack of qualified teachers. At least you don't have a Physical Education teacher, teaching you maths or science. Why donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t you be proactive about your education and teach yourself the things you should be learning, instead of complaining about your free education. ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s not the teachers fault that there isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t enough incentive to attract qualified multidisciplinary teachers; it sucks that you canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t make as good as a living teaching people as you can doing a white collar job. If this is a university course or a private high school: contact the department and report their lack of proper teaching and grading, in this case you are paying for an education and receiving something you could get from the understaffed public system.

I'm not a certified lawyer but it would be pretty common sense that a forum has absolutely 0 liabilities (unless itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s hosting criminal activities, i.e. warez) over what a person posts regardless of age. If the worst comes to worst and someone wants to sue you, how on earth will that be done? Most likely they are in a different country, pretty much making it impossible to sue. If it actually comes to court you can pretty much defend yourself (no doubt someone would take your case pro-bono, since something like this would be great for their resume) by saying itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s the parentÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s responsibility to monitor the childÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s internet activities and that you use the COPPA system for children under 13. Come off it, this is like buying volcano insurance when you live in a country without volcanoes, sure it could happen but its amazing close to zero of actually occurring. Has there ever been such a case where a forum has been sued for letting someone post identifiable information? I know you canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t keep an eye on kids 100%, but wouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t it be irresponsible on the parents part to allow a child to own a camera if they didnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t understand certain things arenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t allowed to be photographed (for e.g. your child nude)? Why not extend this to the internet, if you donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t teach your child about the hazards of the internet, donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t give them the internet. ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s not the issue of keeping an eye on your child, its teaching responsibility and delegating rights as a reward for their responsibility. If you buy something like the internet and you give your child free reign and they get stalked as a result you are a failure of a parent. How hard is it to drill ideas as donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t post personal information, donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t post pictures etc.? If they donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t want to play by your rules then take the internet away, simple. Once you teach them the responsibility, then you donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t need to keep an eye on your child 100%. I donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t think TIF wants to restrict your posting; itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s the legal repercussions that come as a result of posting freedoms. The problem that liability is a perceptive threat much like communists are under your bed or that the world is going to end because of a religious war. ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s a load of fud hyped by the media; people won't sue you over not proving enough serviettes with your burger meal, they won't win and get millions of dollars in 'damages'. Most of these cases are complaints filed against a company, they use the media for publicity and then you never see them file a court order, you never hear from them again.

I thought a lot of these parents that go on about $700 computers (you only got one 4 years ago!) are the ones that don't understand how fast computers get outdated. If thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s the case you just need to point out that the computer roughly doubles in speed every 2 years so after 2 years is 1/2 as powerful, 4 years 1/4 and so forth etc. Hey you need to get a faster computer so Matlab takes less time solving math problems :wink:.

To be honest it's a pretty average high school paper (I hope English III is a high school class). Overall, you spent too much time writing about history instead of expanding on some of your ideas. The essay didn't really flow well towards the end (you need to separate different ideas by a new paragraph) and comparing TV sales to political events is like comparing computer sales to operating systems (the newer the operating system, the more computers there are worldwide). You only talked about 2 topics in depth, how politicians used the TV and a rant on corporations making money and promoting bias ideas. You didn't really discuss how peopleÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s opinions are influenced; rather you discussed about things on the TV that influence people. I would give it 6-6.5/10, maybe I'm just tired and the formatting isn't helping your cause, Ill have another look tomorrow.

I'm not worried so much that it is too commercialised, rather you need something like Valentines Day to show you care about your SO. ShouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t the fact you are in a relationship be proof enough that you care for each other (not saying you shouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t ever do nice things)? Furthermore you should be doing something nice for your SO because you care about them not because the day is Valentines Day. I donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t know but I like occasionally doing nice things for SOÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s because I care about them, not saving it all up for that ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâspecialÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ day.

Probably hazard a guess to say dwarfie76 is female, so itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s probably just gender bias. I just don't get it myself, I stick with words like it, they or a generic term (e.g. your pet bird is pretty, instead of he is pretty) if you don't know the persons gender.

Much in the same way someone with schizophrenia might have faith in that their delusions and hallucinations are real and a fact? Scientific facts are facts regardless of personal opinion, it can be repeated independently. If you ask someone why they believe in faith you will always receive a unique answer, people can believe what they want so long as it doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t get in the way of scientific fact. When it does get in the way, then it becomes a problem.

What, we canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have a simplified discussion (universal pull isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t a technical term) and talk about mind experiments (like what do you call a black hole, if you compressed Earth small enough eventually it would have to be called a black hole)? A lot of the things that have been discussed are theoretical and donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t match observation (like big crunches and turning Earth into a black hole). Just because you donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t understand terms like antimatter and dark energy doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t mean its science fiction and a gimmick. Negative numbers, irrational numbers, fractions and complex numbers make mathematics fuzzy; letÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s stick with positive whole numbers ok. Things do move to their rightful resting place, Aristotle didnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t explain why or how they move to their resting place, I doubt he could explain why the moon orbits the Earth instead of falling to the ground like everything else. An Aristotle equivalent statement would be ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Åthe universe expands at its rightful speed,ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

So science is the only thing that can explain the past, and anything that is non-scientific cannot? Is creationism wrong simply because it is not science? Yes, because the past is naturalistic and science by definition is the explanation of naturalistic phenomena. It's like comparing apples to oranges, religion deals with the supernatural and science deals with the natural.

Well the current idea is that dark energy causeÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s repulsion. Dark energy is just a fancy name for energy in space; if space has energy then it also has negative pressure since pressure is negatively proportional to energy. Pretend you have some tennis balls bouncing around inside a box, as they bounce around the box they push against the walls. If it wasn't for the box being inflexible it would expand. The more energetic the ball the harder it pushes, the more balls the more they will hit against the wall. If gravity is a variable then it would produce a pretty unstable universe, life probably wouldn't be able to exist. Sure you can drop a ball and watch it bounce up and down forever (if you didn't have things like air resistance) but that begs the question; who dropped the ball, why and how. However like I said, it doesn't really fit observation a collapsing universe would be accelerating inwards, not out. There is nothing to suggest that there were two clumps of matter and anti matter that got blasted apart. How did the matter and anti matter separate itself in the first place and what explosion forced them in opposite directions? Current theory suggests that there was more matter then anti matter, and this extra matter is what you see today; not that there are equal amounts but they were thrown far away from each other. If there were equal amounts of antimatter and matter then the universe should be in thermal equilibrium. Matter-Antimatter pairs would get destroyed, turned into gamma rays, and then bump nearby gamma rays (from other destroyed pairs) which creates another pair of particles; starting the whole cycle again. I think I misunderstood you, as you approach the singularity you approach infinite gravitational pull. That's kind of the whole point of a black hole; the strong nuclear force (which pushes protons and neutrons away if they get too close together, thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s why they form an atom instead of gravity slowly pulling them to a single point) is overcome by gravity. However the further away you are from the black hole (or any other object) the weaker it is, that's why we don't get pulled in by them, and we are too far away to be affected by them. Now this comes back to the whole concept of infinity: If you believe that space is quantised (there is a minimum length of space one has to move, to get from (x,y,z) to (x+1,y+1,z+1)) then the black hole will collapse down to this minimum length since it can't get any smaller. At this point in space it has a finite mass and hence finite gravity. If you don't believe space is quantised then matter in the black hole will get squeezed smaller and smaller (forever) and it will take an infinite amount of time to reach the singularity (since it continually gets smaller). Hence you won't ever reach infinite gravity but you will approach it. Also it is possible for Earth to become a black hole, if you squeeze Earth into a radius of 9mm (good luck with that) it will be technically a black hole. Every object can be squeezed into a black hole, thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s how people can talk about making black holes in particle accelerators (the atoms as they collide get squeezed down to a point where they are classed black holes).

Black holes are not a point of infinite gravity; if they were we would all be sucked into one, as you can see this doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t happen. A black hole has the exact same mass/gravity as normal objects. If the Earth turned into a black hole it would still have the gravity of 9.8m/s, the moon will orbit ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹Ãâblack hole EarthÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ as if nothing happened.

Yes, youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re correct there. The difference is we now consider events to be described as (x,y,z,t) on the Cartesian plane rather then how we used to describe an event as (x,y,z). It is really a common sense addition to us rather then anything mind-blowing. If a big crunch happens all that will occur is that the universe will shrink as time moves forward in all positions and directions. I donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t quite understand your reasoning for why space will cease to exist. LetÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s say the universe collapses, all matter will collapse into a single point and the matter will be so heavy that it will not be able to support itself and will form a black hole. When the universe shrinks down to a radius less then the Schwarzschild radius, the black hole will be unable to produce radiation and get smaller. At this point I would consider the universe to be ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâstaticÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ and hence undeterminable from one point in time to the next, every event will be exactly the same. However this doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t mean time stops, it just means one moment in time is indistinguishable from the next. This event will occur in the last few moments of the universe so I donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t see how this is relevant to anything. So how would space go missing after this point? (As an aside, you do physics (at a university level?)?) Ok, letÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s assume that universe is too young; it still doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t explain why the universe is accelerating. It appears that there is some gravitational repulsion constant that causes the universe to expand. To counteract that there is a gravitational constant (mass) that causes the universe to contract. If there isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t enough mass in the universe to counteract the repulsion then there will always be a net force causing the universe to expand. These net forces are what cause acceleration, the acceleration we see in the universe. The universe expands independent of time, if the is more repulsion then attractions then there will always be a net repulsion simple. The only ways for this to change if the repulsion constant changes dynamically (which could be caused by things like friction if the universe sits inside some sort of non-Newtonian fluid), however since the universe is accelerating I would rule that out any decrease in the gravitational repulsion constant (it could also mean the constant is increasing). Your example of the bouncing ball doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t compare to our model of the universe. The biggest blunder (any physicist could quickly pick this out) you made is that the ball isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t always accelerating like the universe. The ball will always be decelerating at 9.8m/s if velocity is pointing radially outwards and similarly the ball will always be accelerating 9.8m/s if the velocity is pointing radially inwards. The added complexity of a roof (and also the ground if you like) does nothing to change the above fact. The only property the roof/ground has on the ball is that it causes the ballÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s velocity to change in the opposite direction. Now you might think your example is good because, hey you throw at ball and it comes back, however that does not explain what is actually happening in the universe. A proper example involving throwing a ball would be this: ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅYou throw a ball at 10m/s, after every second you grab and throw the ball a further 10m/s. This means that after every second there will be a net force of 0.2m/s away from Earth (since all the gravity of earth will counteract your throw 9.8m/s), slowly the 0.2m/s will add up and hence you get an accelerating ball (at 0.2m/s). Not even all the mass on Earth can stop this ball from picking up speed and escaping out into deep space.ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

What on earth are you talking about? This is more pseudoscientific sounding then creationism/Intelligent Design. Try to rephrase yourself using simpler terms; you know science isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t all about using big fancy sounding words. Also from what I can see in your posts, you donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have a very good understanding of current cosmology. ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâBig crunchesÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ go against current observation that the universe is accelerating, if we had enough mass to cause the collapse of the universe then the expansion would be decelerating rather then accelerating. Winston Churchill has not seen quantum field theory Lagrangians.

Yep, dark matter surely doesn't exist so what would be causing the anomalies? Jesus playing with the observational equipment? There is a fair bit of evidence for dark matter (otherwise we need to refine existing theories); they have even started to measure properties of it. Check out the link below for some more info about the latest results. Research into dwarf galaxies starts to unlock the deep secrets of dark matter: ÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâ÷ Mysterious substance described for first time ÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâ÷ 1,000-light-year-wide bricks make up universe Alok Jha, science correspondent Monday February 6, 2006 http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1703203,00.html Note: IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m not saying this is conclusive ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâproofÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢, just an article trying to quantify the gravitational anomaly that people call dark matter.

Well then by your definition the number pi doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t exist because you can always add one more decimal to it, however it does have its place on the real number line (like all other irrational numbers do). Integration involves summing of infinitesimally small portions of a function, yet it can add to give real and natural answers. How about limits that approach infinity or infinite series, they too are important concepts in calculus which talk about approaching an infinite endpoint. Although infinity is undefined, the process to get to infinity is indeed defined. 1 second + 1 second + 1 second just because it is some godly number means it doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t exist. For example you can add 2^1+2^2+2^3+2^4... however the more terms you add, the more it approaches infinity. After about 1000 terms it reaches somewhere around 10^304 and cant be defined under by computers (lack of memory). Very large numbers are only restricted to the space that they can be represented.

On the other hand 0/nothing/etc. is a pretty absurd idea (since there is always something in the universe, even space has the occasional atom or two), so how would you consider the other creation idea (god created the universe from nothing) to be valid. It would appear one is as bad as the other, so now we are back to square one.

I don't understand statements like these; they are one of the biggest appeals to ignorance one can make. You can't mix the natural with the supernatural, since the supernatural exist outside the realm of the natural. It's like saying ghosts cause cancer or unicorns make computers work, however we do know what causes cancer and how computers work and they don't involve ghosts or unicorns. There was once a time when we didn't know how computers worked or what caused cancer so would it be fair to say at the time that god did it? Just because we discover something new and are developing an understanding to how it works doesn't mean that we will never find a solution to the new discovery. What you proposed is a god of the gaps argument; we don't understand something right now so god is there as an answer for us. I don't know of too many scientific problems that are unsolvable, it would probably be a first. What makes you so sure that it is unsolvable and that the supernatural needs to step in? Not to be a flame or anything, IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m genuinely interested in why you came to your conclusion. Fun Fact: At one time people believed that poverty caused disease. Why not just say god did it, pack up our bags and go drink coffee, if we had done so we would have never reaped the benefits of modern day medicine.

They are warrant-less. They arenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t always wiretaps, they also intercept wireless (Radio, Microwave etc) and digital communication. I never was talking about intercepting data with a warrant in the first place; these illegal actions have been going on for decades without the patriot act. The problem is that the actions of ECHELON are coded top-secret or higher and are never revealed to the general public; what you don't hear doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t hurt you.