Nope. Our mining has only a miniscule effect on the rotational speed. It has been slowing down for billions of years as a result of tidal forces from the moon dragging around large amounts of water and causing large amounts of friction. Luckily, the moon is also getting farther from the earh, so the effects of friction will slow down over time. Eventually one face of the Earth will always face the same face of the moon and we will spin as a binary planet. The moon, which has less mass than the Earth, has ALREADY stopped spinning and the same face always faces us. Pluto and its moon also already are locked face to face, but Pluto is also much smaller than the Earth.
the time for a caesium atom to change energy levels remains constant.
Or so we hope. At any rate it is likely not to change at anywhere near the speed of the decelleration of the Earth, which is already pretty miniscule. Changes in the time to change energy levels are probably as world rocking as changes in the speed of light in a vaccuum, so I am sure any scientist reading this would immediately scoff at the possibility. I think one day we will find that things we hold constant are not so constant, just as F=MA doesn't hold true at speeds approaching that of light.
The discussion they are having has nothing to do with time zones but with how to keep defined time in sync with observed astronomical time.
Why is it important to keep them in synch? Why don't we just let people get on with life more or less forcing their clocks to mimic where they see the sun, while those who have to perform scientific analysis use a coordinated time that may start out in synch with observed time, but drifts off over time, and that no one ever adds or subtracts from.
Exactly why I think that we should make DST permanent. Except that the right way to go about it is to abolish DST and just change working hours from 8 to 4. But it;s too hard for me to get up on time to get to work at 8, so I'll just work 9 to 4.
People are cattle.
No, people are dumber than cattle. Cattle eat when they are hungry and sleep when they are tired. They don't eat when the clock says 6:00 and sleep when the clock says 10:00. Going to a universal time would not change the cows routine a bit, unless the farmer's chage in routine forces them to.
I don't think that the Sun rising on Mondy and setting on Tuesday will be a problem. In fact, the current ambiguity of what day it is will go away. It will no longer be tomorrow in another part of the world, it will be exactly the same time.
I can see confusion arising when using ambiguous terms such as "today" and "tomorrow", which could represent a fixed or a floating period. In other words, since today is Friday, tomorrow could be Saturday, but using a fixed time system tomorrow could be Saturday, or it could represent whatever day it is after I go to sleep and wake up next.
The Earth's rotation is slowing down. It probably was exactly 365 revolutions per solar year not too many thousand years ago, and around the time of the dinosaurs there may have been 400 or 500.
Your employer can fire you for what you do in your offtime. I don't see why a school would be any different. Besides, it prepares you for the real world, where the world is absolutely going to dictate to you what you can do or say or occasionally even think, be it on their dime or on yours.
So it's not illegal, if you privately sell your home, to refuse to sell it to black people, but it is illegal if you are "in the business" of selling or renting.
Of course 99% of people don't care who they sell a house to as long as they get their money, but in the case of a rental relationship, it is very important to be able to pick and choose who you rent to, so naturally they want to make it harder for you to do so.
For example, I would much rather rent my house to a little old lady than to a young man for whom this is his first time away from home. But the law says that I can not discriminate on the basis of age or sex, so if the boy has better credit, I have to pick him.
Now you can discriminate on basis of the little old lady having social security which is a guaranteed income (for the moment) whereas the boy works at Wal-mart and could be fired at any moment.
The fact that evangelicals try to convert people is not an indication that evangelicals get more reward for saving more people. It is an indication that evangelicals really do believe the tenets of their faith which says that there is a heaven and a hell, and that they care enough about you to want you to go to heaven instead of hell.
It spikes the CPU on mine, as well. Then, after many hours of it eating CPU and doing nothing, I kill the MS Anti-spyware process, but then I have to remember to kill the giantantispyware process as well, as that process starts grabbing several MB per second of memory until it burns up all the physical and virtual memory available.
I read another article, several actually, about another pirate attack on a cruise ship this weekend, also near Somalia, except in that attack, the cruise ship simply gunned the engines and outran the pirates.
I don't know about ID, but I would explain it as "before the invention of nylon, bacteria that were capable of digesting nylon did not eat nylon."
Unless we can prove that that same species of bacteria was not capable of digesting nylon previously, then there is nothing to note.
Even if it could be proven that the bacteria developed the ability to digest nylon, that is merely natural selection due to mutation of genes accidentally providing a benefit. We've seen that before.
What would really be interesting is if we observed the species of bacteria grow arms and legs, learn to talk and start weaving the nylon into clothing and wearing it.
So essentially what is the difference between practice and
theory?
"In theory there is no difference between practice and theory. In practice, there is." - Benchley
Hmm, I can't find anywhere in my Bible where it says the Earth is flat. I did find some websites that claim that the Bible says the Earth is flat, but the verses they quote don't say that the Earth is flat. The authors just conjecture that what the Bible is saying implies a flat earth. There is even a passage in the Bible that says the Earth is round, but Bible detractors say that this means that the Bible thinks the Earth is a flat circle. Of course, this is in contradiction to the Bible detractor's earlier theory that the Bible says the earth is a flat square.
Newtonian physics is good enough to explain physics at low speed, but in theoretical terms, Newtonian physics fails on any object moving at a speed greater than zero. It may be wrong by a decimal point, a whole crapload of zeros and then a one, but it is wrong all the same.
Doesn't mean we can't use it as a good, remarkably accurate approximation tool. It doesn't get noticeably wrong until you start moving at thousands of miles per second.
Why punish the car? It didn't do anything wrong.
In that vein, somebody in my neighborhood got TPed last week. Apparently someone also sparay painted on their car. I hope whoever did it gets caught and has to cough up $20,000 to replace their car, plus go to jail for awhile, and reimburse the county for the time they spend in prison.
From what I have seen in the aviation world, I would say that we could soon see real time traffic updated on your NAV system in probably the next several years.
The aviation world already has real time satellite broadcast weather and other updates.
As I study more and more, I have to question what is meant by death. The Bible speaks of death meaning different things, such as physical death and spiritual death. Humans being the only creatures with what we would call a soul, basically a spiritual life, lost their spiritual life after the original sin. They were then dead spiritually. They later died physically. Animals never were alive spiritually. If the Bible says there was no death before Adam and Eve sinned, could it have meant no spiritual death? No death among animals with a soul? I am not convinced that we properly understand what the words mean in the first two books of the Bible. I think it is important for Bible believers to understand the meaning of the Bible. This means studying the Bible, and studying science as well. Science is useful in that it studies the creation, which should be good news for people who believe in a creator. The only time science is bad is when it attempts to become a philosophy and tries to invent complex, unlikely scenarios to attempt to disprove belief systems.
Your argument supposes that Evolution exists apart from God, and that GP implies that God merely uses this tool to direct the creation. I would argue that God created the entire universe, including any natural processes, including the bits of evolutionary theory that are actually true, so without God, there would be no evolution.
The chances of a mutation being advantageous are far less than 1/3. Additionally, if it is useful, it needs to be a dominant trait in order to pass it on, or you have to run into someone else who had the same mutation.
I also believe much the same as you, in that science does not say one thing or another about the existence of God. Sure it says F=MA*, but it does not indicate why. Perhaps God or the Great Spaghetti Monster created the universe and decided that F would equal MA*. Why the physical laws exist is not something that science atempts to explain, nor should they.
Some people, however, are just inexplicably outraged at the idea that the universe could have been created, and try to misuse science to explain Why in addition to the How for which science is designed.
* Except when relativity comes into play**
** Except when special relativity comes into play***
*** Stay tuned
So how much money in scientific research grants is out there working to disprove evolution? I imagine it being a rather small number.
Personally, I think a big part of the problem is that parts of the theory of evolution are obvservably true, such as the theory of natural selection, while other parts make no sense genetically, such as the formation of new features in a species which did not have them before. Instead of putting all of this effort into trying to find the answer to how this could have happened, we should put as much effort into trying to determine if maybe it didn't happen and that there is some other non-supernatural explanation.
you would need to have evidence
Does science have to provide religious evidence to prove religion wrong?
No, of course not. Because science is right, and therefore the only evidence of any kind that can be used to refute anything, whether science or religion, must be scientific evidence.
Sure, it's a strawman, but that's pretty much the argument in a nutshell every time this comes up.
Frankly, I have no problem with science. I don't think that science will ever prove there is a God, since science has pretty much embraced the naturalism philosophy which requires one to attempt to explain everything as if there was no God. However, studying a creation does lead to an understanding of the creator, so I am all in favor of the advancement of science.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope. Our mining has only a miniscule effect on the rotational speed. It has been slowing down for billions of years as a result of tidal forces from the moon dragging around large amounts of water and causing large amounts of friction. Luckily, the moon is also getting farther from the earh, so the effects of friction will slow down over time. Eventually one face of the Earth will always face the same face of the moon and we will spin as a binary planet. The moon, which has less mass than the Earth, has ALREADY stopped spinning and the same face always faces us. Pluto and its moon also already are locked face to face, but Pluto is also much smaller than the Earth.
the time for a caesium atom to change energy levels remains constant.
Or so we hope. At any rate it is likely not to change at anywhere near the speed of the decelleration of the Earth, which is already pretty miniscule. Changes in the time to change energy levels are probably as world rocking as changes in the speed of light in a vaccuum, so I am sure any scientist reading this would immediately scoff at the possibility. I think one day we will find that things we hold constant are not so constant, just as F=MA doesn't hold true at speeds approaching that of light.
The discussion they are having has nothing to do with time zones but with how to keep defined time in sync with observed astronomical time.
Why is it important to keep them in synch? Why don't we just let people get on with life more or less forcing their clocks to mimic where they see the sun, while those who have to perform scientific analysis use a coordinated time that may start out in synch with observed time, but drifts off over time, and that no one ever adds or subtracts from.
Exactly why I think that we should make DST permanent. Except that the right way to go about it is to abolish DST and just change working hours from 8 to 4. But it;s too hard for me to get up on time to get to work at 8, so I'll just work 9 to 4.
People are cattle.
No, people are dumber than cattle. Cattle eat when they are hungry and sleep when they are tired. They don't eat when the clock says 6:00 and sleep when the clock says 10:00. Going to a universal time would not change the cows routine a bit, unless the farmer's chage in routine forces them to.
I don't think that the Sun rising on Mondy and setting on Tuesday will be a problem. In fact, the current ambiguity of what day it is will go away. It will no longer be tomorrow in another part of the world, it will be exactly the same time.
I can see confusion arising when using ambiguous terms such as "today" and "tomorrow", which could represent a fixed or a floating period. In other words, since today is Friday, tomorrow could be Saturday, but using a fixed time system tomorrow could be Saturday, or it could represent whatever day it is after I go to sleep and wake up next.
The Earth's rotation is slowing down. It probably was exactly 365 revolutions per solar year not too many thousand years ago, and around the time of the dinosaurs there may have been 400 or 500.
My method for solving the 4X4 was to get the inner square to be one color and the edge colors to be paired, and then solve as a 3X3.
Your employer can fire you for what you do in your offtime. I don't see why a school would be any different. Besides, it prepares you for the real world, where the world is absolutely going to dictate to you what you can do or say or occasionally even think, be it on their dime or on yours.
So it's not illegal, if you privately sell your home, to refuse to sell it to black people, but it is illegal if you are "in the business" of selling or renting.
Of course 99% of people don't care who they sell a house to as long as they get their money, but in the case of a rental relationship, it is very important to be able to pick and choose who you rent to, so naturally they want to make it harder for you to do so.
For example, I would much rather rent my house to a little old lady than to a young man for whom this is his first time away from home. But the law says that I can not discriminate on the basis of age or sex, so if the boy has better credit, I have to pick him.
Now you can discriminate on basis of the little old lady having social security which is a guaranteed income (for the moment) whereas the boy works at Wal-mart and could be fired at any moment.
The fact that evangelicals try to convert people is not an indication that evangelicals get more reward for saving more people. It is an indication that evangelicals really do believe the tenets of their faith which says that there is a heaven and a hell, and that they care enough about you to want you to go to heaven instead of hell.
It spikes the CPU on mine, as well. Then, after many hours of it eating CPU and doing nothing, I kill the MS Anti-spyware process, but then I have to remember to kill the giantantispyware process as well, as that process starts grabbing several MB per second of memory until it burns up all the physical and virtual memory available.
I read another article, several actually, about another pirate attack on a cruise ship this weekend, also near Somalia, except in that attack, the cruise ship simply gunned the engines and outran the pirates.
I don't know about ID, but I would explain it as "before the invention of nylon, bacteria that were capable of digesting nylon did not eat nylon."
Unless we can prove that that same species of bacteria was not capable of digesting nylon previously, then there is nothing to note.
Even if it could be proven that the bacteria developed the ability to digest nylon, that is merely natural selection due to mutation of genes accidentally providing a benefit. We've seen that before.
What would really be interesting is if we observed the species of bacteria grow arms and legs, learn to talk and start weaving the nylon into clothing and wearing it.
So essentially what is the difference between practice and theory?
"In theory there is no difference between practice and theory. In practice, there is." - Benchley
Hmm, I can't find anywhere in my Bible where it says the Earth is flat. I did find some websites that claim that the Bible says the Earth is flat, but the verses they quote don't say that the Earth is flat. The authors just conjecture that what the Bible is saying implies a flat earth. There is even a passage in the Bible that says the Earth is round, but Bible detractors say that this means that the Bible thinks the Earth is a flat circle. Of course, this is in contradiction to the Bible detractor's earlier theory that the Bible says the earth is a flat square.
Newtonian physics is good enough to explain physics at low speed, but in theoretical terms, Newtonian physics fails on any object moving at a speed greater than zero. It may be wrong by a decimal point, a whole crapload of zeros and then a one, but it is wrong all the same.
Doesn't mean we can't use it as a good, remarkably accurate approximation tool. It doesn't get noticeably wrong until you start moving at thousands of miles per second.
Why punish the car? It didn't do anything wrong.
In that vein, somebody in my neighborhood got TPed last week. Apparently someone also sparay painted on their car. I hope whoever did it gets caught and has to cough up $20,000 to replace their car, plus go to jail for awhile, and reimburse the county for the time they spend in prison.
I don't care if they know how fast my cell phone is going unless they also know whose car my cell phone is in and who is driving at the time.
From what I have seen in the aviation world, I would say that we could soon see real time traffic updated on your NAV system in probably the next several years.
The aviation world already has real time satellite broadcast weather and other updates.
As I study more and more, I have to question what is meant by death. The Bible speaks of death meaning different things, such as physical death and spiritual death. Humans being the only creatures with what we would call a soul, basically a spiritual life, lost their spiritual life after the original sin. They were then dead spiritually. They later died physically. Animals never were alive spiritually. If the Bible says there was no death before Adam and Eve sinned, could it have meant no spiritual death? No death among animals with a soul? I am not convinced that we properly understand what the words mean in the first two books of the Bible. I think it is important for Bible believers to understand the meaning of the Bible. This means studying the Bible, and studying science as well. Science is useful in that it studies the creation, which should be good news for people who believe in a creator. The only time science is bad is when it attempts to become a philosophy and tries to invent complex, unlikely scenarios to attempt to disprove belief systems.
Your argument supposes that Evolution exists apart from God, and that GP implies that God merely uses this tool to direct the creation. I would argue that God created the entire universe, including any natural processes, including the bits of evolutionary theory that are actually true, so without God, there would be no evolution.
The chances of a mutation being advantageous are far less than 1/3. Additionally, if it is useful, it needs to be a dominant trait in order to pass it on, or you have to run into someone else who had the same mutation.
I also believe much the same as you, in that science does not say one thing or another about the existence of God. Sure it says F=MA*, but it does not indicate why. Perhaps God or the Great Spaghetti Monster created the universe and decided that F would equal MA*. Why the physical laws exist is not something that science atempts to explain, nor should they.
Some people, however, are just inexplicably outraged at the idea that the universe could have been created, and try to misuse science to explain Why in addition to the How for which science is designed.
* Except when relativity comes into play**
** Except when special relativity comes into play***
*** Stay tuned
So how much money in scientific research grants is out there working to disprove evolution? I imagine it being a rather small number.
Personally, I think a big part of the problem is that parts of the theory of evolution are obvservably true, such as the theory of natural selection, while other parts make no sense genetically, such as the formation of new features in a species which did not have them before. Instead of putting all of this effort into trying to find the answer to how this could have happened, we should put as much effort into trying to determine if maybe it didn't happen and that there is some other non-supernatural explanation.
you would need to have evidence
Does science have to provide religious evidence to prove religion wrong?
No, of course not. Because science is right, and therefore the only evidence of any kind that can be used to refute anything, whether science or religion, must be scientific evidence.
Sure, it's a strawman, but that's pretty much the argument in a nutshell every time this comes up.
Frankly, I have no problem with science. I don't think that science will ever prove there is a God, since science has pretty much embraced the naturalism philosophy which requires one to attempt to explain everything as if there was no God. However, studying a creation does lead to an understanding of the creator, so I am all in favor of the advancement of science.