Death_By_Pod

Your BMI is 22.9, A healthy BMI is between 20-25. Why do you need to lose any more weight? It's important that you maintain your current weight and fitness, however losing any more weight will push you towards the underweight side of things and that probably isn't too good for a growing body (assuming youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re a teenager).

Magnets are a typical part of a perpetual machines; it probably stems from people's fascinations with magnets, being able to exert forces on objects from a distance. In most static setups involving magnets you find out when doing a line integral around the geometry of the setup, there is no net force on the moveable magnet. With headings in the patent like ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅLow energy magnetic actuatorÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

I thought I didn't have to since when we argue about the age of the Earth we don't use carbon dating, the article doesn't argue against the methods used to find the age of the Earth. However just for you I've gone through the article and refuted the points. The amount of Carbon-14 in an organism is proportional to the amount of Carbon-14 on Earth (since the carbon used to make organisms comes from the Earth), so if we can find out how much carbon is in the earth we know what proportion of it should be in a organism. However this isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t a problem since we can find out the amount of carbon in the Earth at a specific point in time. One way which we can do this (There might be more but I havenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t really researched into it) is to take samples of glacial ice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core for more information). An ice core is made up by bands of ice that accumulate over time, in each band we can measure how much Carbon-14 is frozen thus telling us how carbon-14 concentration changes over time. It doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t matter if caron-14 concentration changes over time (like say a canopy cloud covering the Earth preventing solar radiation entering the atmosphere) since any changes will be recorded in the ice core. The article argues that Carbon-14 dating for things older then 60000 years. This is true and IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m not going to deny that, however as you know there are different isotopes with different half-lives. Therefore we use an isotope that has a longer half-life instead of carbon-14, thus we can get dates >60000 years. If an article specifies that carbon dating is used in a case where the age is >60000 years itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s most likely that the person writing the article doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t understand that there are other dating methods. If they did use carbon dating, well the age is obviously going to be wrong and the person who used carbon dating is a clown. The article claims that background radiation is a problem; however carbon dating tests the concentrations of carbon-14 and stable carbon (radiation doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t make it harder to count atoms). The author assumes the test is done by counting the number of carbon-14 atoms that decay in a certain amount of time (which would be affected by background radiation). The part which states that neutrinos emitting rocks (or any other type of radiation) affect radioactivity is a flat out lie. If neutrinos do affect radioactivity (which they donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t), any neutrinos that are emitted by the rock would be insignificant to the amount of neutrinos that our sun produces. Our sun is an extremely powerful emitter of neutrinos ~40 billion pass through us every second, any that are produced by rocks would be insignificant compared to the sun. The final argument states that it incorrectly guesses the ages of living clams and ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâoldÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ parchment. Much like how you canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t use Carbon dating to date really old things (>60000 years) you canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t use carbon dating to date really young things. You need to wait a few half-lives in order for the amount of carbon to change a lot. There is an optimal range in which we should use carbon dating; too old and there isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t enough carbon-14, too young and there hasnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t been enough decays. Personally I donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t know what that range is (I donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t use carbon dating), but from what I know about nuclear decay I would guess that 10000-40000/50000 would be a decent range. If you have any more questions on radioactivity feel free to ask. My ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹Ãâstraw man fallacyÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ is not a fallacy at all. Micro and Macro evolution are arbitrary distinctions and have no basis in nature. If you have heard on the news lately about astronomers arguing over the definition of a planet and whether Pluto is a planet or not, is an example of an arbitrary distinction. Planets are not in any way different from asteroids of moons, the big difference is size and as we know there are some asteroids that are planet size. Much in the same way Micro and Macro evolution describe the same thing, the difference is also the size, micro evolution is a few changes and macro is many changes. Using another example, the numbers 1 and 1000 are very different; one is small and one is large, however you still can count to 1000; the small size of 1 doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t affect your ability to count to 1000. Evolution works in the same way; we have a single change to your DNA. If it is a good change then it is likely to go to 100% prevalence, if it is bad it will likely go to 0% and if it is neutral it can go either way (most single changes are neutral). These single changes alone will not affect us in any way; the problem is when you get 1000 changes and how these changes whole sections of DNA. If a section of DNA is altered radically from its original form it may produce a noticeable difference at this point, this difference will either be killed off or passed on. Repeat the process and eventually there will be enough noticeable differences until you can call something a new species. I hope that cleared up any issues you have with my previous post.

Are teachers expected to remember mathematical methods that they will never have to teach in high school? I remember proving a few of these things in a second year university course (Vector Calculus); if you never have to use certain methods of integration, you will eventually forget how to use the methods. Some maths teachers might not have degrees in math; they might have taken a first year course which covers everything to teach maths at a proficient level. You should cut teachers some slack; at least they are trying to help you.

Quantum mechanics says there is an extremely small probability that all the particles in our body are situated on Mars rather then on Earth so why hasn't anyone quantum tunnelled to Mars yet? Also youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re assuming that there is a code which tells the body where to place our eyes and that it's easily alterable. Natural Selection isn't random; it has a direction (either to 0 or 100% prevalence) called genetic drift. Try finding two fossils that are exactly the same if you think that we are not random. I can't go into the exact details into why it doesn't change (I'm not a biologist) but I would presume it would have something to do with how our ancestors looked like (they had eyes on their heads, positioned towards the front). There is a rare birth disorder called cyclopia where people are born with one eye (caused by the brain failing to divide) which is caused by something relatively simple and near the face. In order for the body to have a chain of bad thing happening and the end result is having a functioning eye on my foot is similar to me spontaneously appearing on Mars due to quantum tunnelling.

the big bang is not impossible untill its proven impossible. So far scientists have "fossil" evidence and evidence of all sorts proving the big bang to be real, its just not 100% certain. Wikipedia for more. The Big Bang Theory- Single point infinitely small and infinitely massive. Since it is impossible for anything in our universe to be 1-dimensional the Big Bang Theory is false. Also if you have studied quantum mechanics you would know that a lot of things can happen which contradict classical laws (such as something coming from nothing). Electrons and black hole singularities are 0-D (You mean 0-dimensional, 1-D is a line and as you know lots of lines exist.).

Mohamed Anwar al-Sadat an Egyptian dictator, even won the nobel peace prize in 1978. What the hell does dictatorship have to do with a lack of religion? You can be religious and still be a dictator, why not claim your actions are based on what God is telling you to do? Dictators acted on their egos rather then their absence of faith, stop trying to get an emotional response out of people.

My mother, father, uncle and aunt are in the same situation. Mother and aunt are the same blood, father and uncle are the same blood; to be honest the thought that they share the same blood never comes to mind. It's only an issue because you are making it one, why should it make it uncomfortable; it's not like your sharing the same girl. Why would this be any different if your brother had different girlfriend, your mother would still want you to ferry him around. If you donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t want to take him then donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t, itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s not your responsibility. If your mother canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t understand why you want to be alone, then she is [developmentally delayed]ed; try telling her your feelings instead of covering them up. Also you're 18 and you get grounded? :lol:

The website is using it as an example of how vast 10 dimensions are. It's not a serious attempt of explaining everything; the website would be proposing pseudo-science if it were serious. Good luck with the 4 unit maths, youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ll need it.

The sun produces about 100-500 watts of energy per square meter. LetÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s pretend that solar panels can convert that at 100% (they are closer to 7%) and that we are in a very sunny part of the world, so we get 500 watts of power per square meter of panel. A Volkswagen New Beetle (a compact car) has a max power of 85000 Watts (85 kW), so for it to run at its best it requires 170 square meters of 100% efficient panels in some of the brightest parts of the world. Solar powered transport is never going to happen because the sun doesn't supply us enough energy to run things like cars, buses and trains.

If you can't talk to a girl face to face like any other person, then there is no chance of you having a relationship with her. You need to get over the worry that you will fail and just enjoy talking and having fun with her.

Uggh, Always get screwed like this; it's apart of the Science Student Experience. I love how the math department always puts its classes in the 8:00/9:00 allocation.

Wouldn't you want to know that you looked as good or better after going through something like that? It sounds more like encouragement for getting better rather then complimenting on your weight. But then again knowing that around ~60% of adults and ~35% of children in America are overweight or obese, there is a good chance that you should have lost the weight for health reasons.

In terms of "potential" an aborted foetus could become a person much like a coma patient could become a person, they both have the same ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅpotentialÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

You do know not all pregnancies come to full term. Statistics on the number of miscarriages is hard to get however there have been a few to show that there is around ~25% chance of miscarriage in the first 6 weeks, which increases to very high levels (~50%) as you get older. Note that the study was only based on the first 6 weeks, as you know many more miscarriages can occur after that time. Fertilisation and implantation will certainly not 'almost' guarantee coming to full term.

That is the reason why it isn't called a baby or child but a foetus. Even if you were to concede that it were a person, would it be wrong to kill something that isn't even aware of its own existence? After all we remove people from life support all the time; they are not self-aware and are taking up resources that more promising patients can use. Maybe the next day the patient will make a miraculous recovery; to bad you pulled the plug yesterday. From any of these topics that pop-up I have never seen any medical evidence to show that a foetus is self-aware from the beginning or near the beginning. Hence there should be a period of time to allow abortion to occur, medical consensus at the moment is the third trimester; whether that changes or not will depend on new insight to a foetusÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s self awareness. In that case not bringing all unfertilised ova to full term is an abortion. What's the difference between a fertilised egg and an unfertilised one? They both have the same potential; they can both turn into people given the right conditions. Of course sex is for procreation, but that doesn't describe why dolphins like having sex for reasons other then procreation. People take pleasure from having sex as an incentive to have children. I can't see what is wrong from preventing the children part while maintaining the pleasure part. Not everything has a creator, dEdt>=hbar/2 has you wrong but what does this have to do with abortion? A foetus requires life support from its mother, a person doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t. So I guess you donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t agree with pulling life support from patients with next to no chance of survival? It is impossible to have someone in the exact same circumstances. Sure there are many young, poor university students put in the same situation, however some may feel more inclined to have an abortion, adoption or to leave university and take up a full time role supporting a child.

People that have children are obviously being selfish. "I want to have a baby in my life, it is my choice." "my parents will be pleased with me" "The time is right for me to have a child" "I don't want to adopt I want my own child." It's just as selfish to have a child, then to abort one. Much in the way you buy a pet, because you want to have something to play with; you have a child to have something to play with. You might not play with a dog and a baby in exactly the same way, but the reasoning behind having a child/pet is the same. What by not leaving the house? It wouldn't be called rape if it could be preventable. What did you expect from a forum primarily populated by young male teens? People commonly neglect to think of the mental implications, with regards to carrying through with having a child for the sole purpose of immediate adoption. Mental health is neglected far too much in the modern world. Even where I live, a place with free socialised medicine (a really good one at that); mental health services is not free. People donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t consider mental health problems as a true illness (and as such isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t covered by the health system), yet its effects on people can be more of a problem then many other physical problems.

It's pretty much junk science from a physicistÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s point of view. Basically they show a crazy sounding flash presentation to help boost their sales. You shouldn't go into that flash thinking it will explain anything more then 10 dimensions provides a lot of freedom to move about. I can't begin to image how you move between different orthogonal planes in 10 dimensions. From their site: The "theory of reality" that I advance on this website and in the book "Imagining the Tenth Dimension" is not the one that is commonly accepted by today's physicists. Anyone wanting to know more about the currently established thinking behind string theory and the tenth or eleventh dimension should refer to such excellent books as "Parallel Worlds" by Michio Kaku, "The Fabric of the Cosmos" by Brian Greene, or "Warped Passages" by Lisa Randall.

The literary and mathematical meanings of chaos are a lot different in meaning. The literary version means a ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Ålack of order/form/arrangementÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

"Clarke's three laws 1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong. 2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible. 3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -Arthur C. Clarke, "Profiles of The Future", 1962 English physicist & science fiction author (1917 - ) Its all to do with semantics really...

Gah, had a few reply tabs open. Internet forums, serious business. Edited for content: E3 was a waste of time and money for developers. Imaging having to split your team up to create a build usable for E3 (taking about a month away from development time) and then having to hire people to promote it. Apart from that the trade only status was a joke, anyone working at EB could get in; trying to do business/press work was impossible.

I was going to say, you can double major in engineering? Engineering courses tend to be overly condensed (Maths and Physics programs for Engineers instead of normal courses); adding another non-engineering related major would make it very difficult to handle. What do you want to do when you get out? Aerospace engineering and computer science are designed to have quite different job streams. If you want to do a bit of programming for engineering related problems (rather then programming in general) why donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t you take up some computational science courses. These courses teach you how to solve mathematical and physical problems in scientific programming languages (Matlab, Mathematica, Maple etc.) and sometimes real programming languages (like C). So not only do you get to do some programming, you also get a feel for solving problems that you may encounter in your career as an engineer.

So how did they get the probe into space and land on the moon and then have the mirrors placed correctly on the ground; Invisible, noiseless rockets? I know it would be possible at the time with technology but I wonder how feasible it would be to land a probe full of delicate mirrors and somehow place them in the required position. Even if it was possible you would still need to answer how they got a rocket with the probe up in space (around the same time as the Apollo mission) and not be spotted by anyone.

Haha, what about the array's of corner mirrors on the moon that scientists use for calculating the speed of light/distance to the moon; they just didn't appear their on their own. Basically there are a set of mirrors on the moon where we reflect big beams of light off to accurately calculate the distance to the moon, therefore someone (or something) must have put them there.