darthvaron

That's your fail. You're completely wrong The fact of cutting out an ear is not going to create a cow-without-ear spiece. A genetical change is needed for getting that. In any case, in a long term the cows that mute (by arbitrary genetic mutation, not caused by you) without a ear will suffer less because you won't cut them anything and will have more chance to survive your "torture" You're messing up the terms of "selection" and "creation" (mostly like Christians in fact). Selection means that you start with many cows, some born(*) with an ear and some with two. You only let reproduce cows with one ear so its genetic code will have offspring. After some generations of one-ear-cows, their genetic code will be "clean" of two-eared-cow code. So no two-ear-cows will born unless the mute again. born(*): It doesn't mean that are ALL caused by genetics, but some may be, so finally (by selection) you will only have the genetic ones.. And of course virginity have nothing to do with biology, and still less have to do with genetics. First I though you were talking about how sex appeared, that is an interesting topic. (is the most effective way of selection, if you think about it)

In any case.Even if somehow you can get profit of that. You're taking energy from the earths magnetic field so it isn't a perpetual motion. You may tray to get energy from sources unexploded, instead of creating it from nothing. And try to "get it all" for use. That's how the alternative energy works.

just something about the Schr?dinger Cat I've been thinking about. Tell me where I'm wrong. Because somewhere my argument may fail.This paradox assumes that we know nothing about the inside of the box. But by tunneling "some" information may get outside of the box except if the walls have an "infinity" potential. But a real infinity potential means that somehow the box is not connected to our universe so it's not a physical problem because there is noway to interact with the inside of the box.So, if the box have finit potential walls the "Dead and Alive" state will not really exist for the cat because it wouldn't be a quantic problem (you can nearly commute every magnitude about the cat). But if the box have infinit walls the state wouldn't exist also because it wouldn't be even a physic problem and there will be no chance to know what have happened with the cat.And of course that mean that this paradox is nothing more than an "approximation" to a real phenomenon

Is Lady Di alive just because you see her photo in the papers?Are you sure it can't be explained howelse? You can't renounce the rational arguments just because we don't have the necessary knowledge yet. If you want you can't saythat world is how it is just because the Flying Spagetti Monster or any other God touched it with his nodel appendix. But don't call it logic, please. As you said, there is more out there than we know, but that doesn't mean that is "unexplainable", It just mean that we must find how to explain it, little by little by the path of logic and reason. Give a computer to a XIX century atheist and he will think that is a give from God, from devil or a magical instrument at least. Think about this the next time you hear or see a ghost. Note how far the science have gone, and how ridiculous is to think that certain things are out of its range.

Oh!! I will have to denounce God for author's rights!! Does he stop recording when we're at the cinema? If not the copyright's lawyers will get him someday... You must be mocking. First of all, have you even heard about supernovas? and of course żHave you ever seen Inteligent Life? Couse I didn't XD Ok. I will tel you. Think about your hole life. And now think that in every second of your life thousand's of beings are created, reproduced and dessapeared. And now think that they change a little in every 100 generations and some lives and others doesn't. And, of course the ones that can interact with the envoirement have more chances. And so on you get to a "nearly" intelligence life like humans are. Creationism is as stupid as any other try of the church to stay alive and gain minions. Don't try to defend it because it have no chance to get anywhere. It will die in a couple of years or so. That's the point. And if you think about it, you'll see that is even nicer than the regilious afterlife. I've seen that when you build a philosophy around science you're closer to what religions call "spiritual peace". The problem is that isn't as easy to tell to the others as: "God descended from the sky and said X". And more difficult to understand because you need education and knowledge to get it. And there's my questions to all the afterlife believers: ż"What" is before life? żWhy you think you're a different conscience than you're neighbor one? and żWhy you think time matters beyond your accumulation of memories?

First of all I think that every discuss about life have to delimit what we're talking about when we say "life". Just as Glockmeister said. In my point of view, these six are the items people use to confuse when talking about live. And justbiology -> Have been already said. It's a scientific definition so it's nothing else to talk about, because need no more explanation than the facts. soul -> completely fake. Useless to talk about it. (but give happiness to fools). This discuss may end in "my God say that" spirit -> completely fake. Useless to talk about it (but give happiness to artists). Idem will -> interesting to discuss about (I don't believe in it, but is nice to think about it) conscience -> Is de cartesian Rex Cogitans. And maybe the point where every kind of philosophy must begun mind -> If someone believe in it as something outside the physical world. (psychic believes or virtual existence) I may forget about some other item. And among all this stuff I just believe in biology and in an only universal conscience. I will write soon about this here, in this hostsite. But I advise that it's nothing more than a demonstration by reduction ad absurdum to everyone of the other points, and finally, the same thing to the individual. And of course I can be wrong. So for me life is what I once called in a metaphysic tale: "the eyes of the universe watching himself"

You got it there. But not at all. I'm not doubting that somehow we're affecting the climate change -just affecting because climate have been cahnging forever- but we're not the masters of the universe. Our contribution can be really small compared to the solar activity, for example. Or even compared to a huge volcanic eruption as happened with the Krakatoa. And as The.Truth said is so arrogant to think that every single thing that happens in the earth is consequence of our manipulation of the world. And much more to think that we're able to fix it without troubling anything else. But is not there where the problem is hiding. The real problem is here: I'm sorry for using you both, but you posted the perfect example to that point.Of course youll have read a lot about the global warming. But are you sure that your fonts where totally reliable? Be aware that all the media is putting its hands on it. Nowadays Global Warming is not a scientific item, but mediatic. As a result everybody knows more on climate change than the real scientists... And in the end they don't know nothing more than all the Al Gore staff (full of half-a-trues), those bad-interpreted temperature graphics, and the funny drawing of the solar rays bouncing inside the atmosphere. And it's completely accepted that every survey related to Global Warming must be presented to the media and the social trial before the needed filtering which is submitted every scientific publication, based on the rules of logic and skeptic reason. I can tell you who it works. For example (I don't reaaly know this one but must be something like that) - Some scientist publish after months of hard work a scientific article that concludes that: "If the conditions I presume are going to accomplish, in 100 years the sea level will probably rise 24 cm." - A reporter read the article and decide to write in a magacine: "The see level is going to increase 30 cm in 100 years" - People in street get alarmed: "how much?""1 meter!, and I heard that some other survey said it will be in 50 years" - And finally Al Gore make a movie just trying to convince the people to be good with the environment and decide to inlfate the number and say: "the sea level will rise 3 meters in 50 years and New York will be flooded. It's a scientific fact". Nothing else further reality. And is so, that the Global Warming have abandoned the scientific way, and is becoming dangerously little by little in a pseudo-science. And its a real pity, because there're really good scientists working on it, and it's work is becoming manipulated to make sensationalism. And there's a lot to learn about and maybe we won. Because we will lose forever the way of the scientific method, the only one that can help us in this climate problem. I hope I'm wrong about what I'm going to say, and it's just the media who's playing with Global Warming to get audience. But I smell some kind of interest in this manipulation, and makes me wonder about really nasty things: Think about this. Which number is more talked about nowadays, the Kioto's 1% or the UN development compromise of 0,7%? Don't you think that somehow "someone" is trying to make us forget about the 3rth World? Do you know that some countries, like Spain, are diverting this 0,7% to cover the Kioto's 1%? To conclude I must say that the Global Warming have become the enemy like nazis where in 40', commies in 60' and Bin Laden today. And Bin Laden is a bad guy but not for that he is the cause of every problem in our society. PS: Everyone who says that it's true or lie is wrong. Global Warming is a really complex problem about which the scientists knows a little.

In fact you're talking about half an equation. The full one is: E? = p?c? + m?(c^4). Where "m" is the mass in rest and "p" the momentum. If you're not in a relativistic speed problem the term p?c is more much smaller than m?(c4) and then you can reduce the expression to the classical E=mc?. What's nice of this expression is where I'm going to."E" is no more than a kind of "full" kinetic energy in Minkowski space. The term mc? can be understood as the time component of the kinetic energy. Or if you prefere, is the inertia of a body by traveling in time. And as you say when there's a loss of mass, the amount of energy lost become radiation. For every single reaction apear a photon with E=ħw (where ħ is the reduced Planck constant and w the frequency in (rad/s)) that is equal to the loss of energy. PS: Sorry about my English. I'm not used to talk about physics with it. Don't doubt on ask me if something is not clear enough