"science could not disprove that God created the world in six days."
If a day is the time it takes for the Earth to spin on its axis, then who's to say it wasn't spinning a lot more slowly initially. Six days could have been a very long time indeed.
How could he create the Earth when it was already there, spinning?
Well we expect that gravity created the Earth slowly by bring rocks together by random collision events. Since it is unlikely that they were spinning in any coherent fashion until much later, you could argue that this took place on day 1.
Without going all creationist, have any models actually shown planets forming from dustclouds based on gravity and/or electromagnetic forces? I'd have thought that the attraction between relatively tiny particles would be far too small to overcome the kinetic energy of the collisions? After all, the asteroid belt has failed to produce a planet, despite some pretty chunkily sized rocks.
Cheers. I'll read it when I have time to digest the info. I'd still have thought that the gravitational attraction of bits of dust would be the square root of sod all but I'll give it a go.
The thing I find hard to get my head around is why the globule of gas and dust starts to spin as it contracts.
As for gravitational attraction; we are talking very small forces over relatively longer periods of time. And once you've had a few coalesce, it'll get faster.
"science could not disprove that God created the world in six days."
If a day is the time it takes for the Earth to spin on its axis, then who's to say it wasn't spinning a lot more slowly initially. Six days could have been a very long time indeed.
How could he create the Earth when it was already there, spinning?
Well we expect that gravity created the Earth slowly by bring rocks together by random collision events. Since it is unlikely that they were spinning in any coherent fashion until much later, you could argue that this took place on day 1.
Without going all creationist, have any models actually shown planets forming from dustclouds based on gravity and/or electromagnetic forces? I'd have thought that the attraction between relatively tiny particles would be far too small to overcome the kinetic energy of the collisions? After all, the asteroid belt has failed to produce a planet, despite some pretty chunkily sized rocks.
CONCERN has been raised over a new religious pressure group which is being proposed by MSPs with the backing of an exclusively Christian organisation that aims to "heal wounds inflicted by atheism".
Cannabis politics will play an important part of the next election for POTUS.This largely has played out at state level but activists now have an opportunity to influence policy at national level.Cannabis is now a $billion dollar legal industry,which is growing faster than any other sector.The taxpayer is feeling the benefits in Colorado and soon other states. Rubio scores badly on the weedblog's tests,Rand Paul tests best,but all the other GOP candidates score badly in comparison to the Democrat front-runners. For this reason,and others,I suggest a Democrat victory at 4-5 with Shadsy's mob is a bet.
"science could not disprove that God created the world in six days."
If a day is the time it takes for the Earth to spin on its axis, then who's to say it wasn't spinning a lot more slowly initially. Six days could have been a very long time indeed.
How could he create the Earth when it was already there, spinning?
Well we expect that gravity created the Earth slowly by bring rocks together by random collision events. Since it is unlikely that they were spinning in any coherent fashion until much later, you could argue that this took place on day 1.
Without going all creationist, have any models actually shown planets forming from dustclouds based on gravity and/or electromagnetic forces? I'd have thought that the attraction between relatively tiny particles would be far too small to overcome the kinetic energy of the collisions? After all, the asteroid belt has failed to produce a planet, despite some pretty chunkily sized rocks.
The asteriod belt is actually very, very sparse and it is swept clean by a series of orbital resonance with Jupiter.
There is plenty of evidence of collapsing gas clouds forming stars and planets. Hubble and other telescopes have taken loads of pictures of it and we have indirectly observed debris fields about other stars which fit our dynamical models of solar system formation.
The sphere of comets that orbit around the solar system is vast however. It contains a huge huge number of objects. The far side of the moon is totally different to the near side. (this is a FWIW since I have no idea what the point of this interesting discussion is)
I'll be wearing mine all over Manchester. Definitely going to get the morning suit out now.
@politicshome: Tory members warned not to wear their passes outside the secure zone during a planned anti-austerity march. http://t.co/RrfFMnzXCh #cpc15
Cannabis politics will play an important part of the next election for POTUS.This largely has played out at state level but activists now have an opportunity to influence policy at national level.Cannabis is now a $billion dollar legal industry,which is growing faster than any other sector.The taxpayer is feeling the benefits in Colorado and soon other states. Rubio scores badly on the weedblog's tests,Rand Paul tests best,but all the other GOP candidates score badly in comparison to the Democrat front-runners. For this reason,and others,I suggest a Democrat victory at 4-5 with Shadsy's mob is a bet.
When it comes to voting for the president weed will be way down the agenda. It will be jobs, defence and foreign policy, health and education which dominate the agenda. Weed might get a look in for a few states but not a big one. If anything the legalisation of weed will happen on state level legislature.
Can we keep all of the religious nutjobs out of politics..it is bad enough without them and their ridiculous claims..not one has ever been proved..
That would reduce the available pool of political talent quite substantially.
That is absolutely fine with me.
We can get rid of the Bishops (and similar) from the Lords at the same time.
Hear hear.
The Pope told some child sex abuse victims last week that God "feels their pain", well he didn't feel it as much as those poor children did he, and if he did why didn't he stop it.
And the Pope yesterday praised Kim Davis for her refusal to obey the law of the land - such a great leader.
Dair Why is a very important and successful part of the nations defense force seen to be a waste of time..like insurance .. you don't need it until you need it..do try and grow up..
@politicshome: Tory members warned not to wear their passes outside the secure zone during a planned anti-austerity march. http://t.co/RrfFMnzXCh #cpc15
Must be the new, kinder, gentler, politics that Crazy Comrade Corbyn's been banging on about.
That's interesting, thanks. I would have thought in India's (and countries to the east) case, the Middle East is to the WEST, so the term "Middle East" wouldn't make any geographic sense.
Seems that Labour's constant whining about Michelle Thomson before any investigation has even taken place might be an attempt to keep one of their many black sheep's recent rebuke from public sight.
Cannabis politics will play an important part of the next election for POTUS.This largely has played out at state level but activists now have an opportunity to influence policy at national level.Cannabis is now a $billion dollar legal industry,which is growing faster than any other sector.The taxpayer is feeling the benefits in Colorado and soon other states. Rubio scores badly on the weedblog's tests,Rand Paul tests best,but all the other GOP candidates score badly in comparison to the Democrat front-runners. For this reason,and others,I suggest a Democrat victory at 4-5 with Shadsy's mob is a bet.
When it comes to voting for the president weed will be way down the agenda. It will be jobs, defence and foreign policy, health and education which dominate the agenda. Weed might get a look in for a few states but not a big one. If anything the legalisation of weed will happen on state level legislature.
Absolutely agree, Max. So far, the weed activists seem pretty happy to me with how the state by state thing is progressing. That may change if the GOP win the presidential election in 2016 and we get an Attorney General he seeks more aggressively to assert federal law on this issue over state law - but that can only happen after this election.
That's interesting, thanks. I would have thought in India's (and countries to the east) case, the Middle East is to the WEST, so the term wouldn't make any geographic sense.
It's in the Middle of the Eastern group of continents though.
This may be well known, so apologies if that is so, but apparently Donald Trump sells the rights to use his name in all sorts of ways, and its suggested that his run for President is all a publicity campaign to boost his name recognition and thus its value and his wealth. Then again this may just be hokum, but punters ought to find out for sure... shouldn't they?
That may change if the GOP win the presidential election in 2016 and we get an Attorney General he seeks more aggressively to assert federal law on this issue over state law - but that can only happen after this election.
I thought the GOP were massively in favour of States having as much autonomy as possible, or is that more one particular wing ?
Jeremy Corbyn either has to accept his party’s policy on nuclear deterrence, he has to change that policy, or he has to stand down as leader of the Labour Party. The position he has adopted and the current position of the party leads are incompatible. They are mutually exclusive. He says nuclear weapons are a fundamental threat to the security of Britain. His party, his MPs and and his shadow cabinet colleagues say nuclear weapons are a fundamental part of the defence of Britain. This is not the “new politics”. It is the politics of the madhouse.
Seems that Labour's constant whining about Michelle Thomson before any investigation has even taken place might be an attempt to keep one of their many black sheep's recent rebuke from public sight.
I'll be wearing mine all over Manchester. Definitely going to get the morning suit out now.
@politicshome: Tory members warned not to wear their passes outside the secure zone during a planned anti-austerity march. http://t.co/RrfFMnzXCh #cpc15
Northerners who vote Tory are the Kim Philby's of the Northern Citizenry!
Millionaire unelected (ever) Aaron Banks releases whining statement complaining that Lord Lawson should quit campaigning for leaving the EU and "let the people support a peoples campaign and not an SW1 bubble brigade".
"science could not disprove that God created the world in six days."
If a day is the time it takes for the Earth to spin on its axis, then who's to say it wasn't spinning a lot more slowly initially. Six days could have been a very long time indeed.
How could he create the Earth when it was already there, spinning?
Well we expect that gravity created the Earth slowly by bring rocks together by random collision events. Since it is unlikely that they were spinning in any coherent fashion until much later, you could argue that this took place on day 1.
Without going all creationist, have any models actually shown planets forming from dustclouds based on gravity and/or electromagnetic forces? I'd have thought that the attraction between relatively tiny particles would be far too small to overcome the kinetic energy of the collisions? After all, the asteroid belt has failed to produce a planet, despite some pretty chunkily sized rocks.
The asteriod belt is actually very, very sparse and it is swept clean by a series of orbital resonance with Jupiter.
There is plenty of evidence of collapsing gas clouds forming stars and planets. Hubble and other telescopes have taken loads of pictures of it and we have indirectly observed debris fields about other stars which fit our dynamical models of solar system formation.
The sphere of comets that orbit around the solar system is vast however. It contains a huge huge number of objects. The far side of the moon is totally different to the near side. (this is a FWIW since I have no idea what the point of this interesting discussion is)
The diffierence between the far side of the moon and the nearside is generally understood to be caused by the tidal locking caused by the Earth. The moon is slightly egg-shaped rather than spherical when the pointy end facing the Earth. It is theorised that this occured when the moon was molten in its early formation and that cracks in the thin crust caused by the attraction of the Earth allowed basaltic lava to penetrate and settle in the deeper basins.
On a slight aside, it is known that the moon causes the twice daily rise and fall of the tides. What is less appreciated is the twice daily rise and fall of the land as the moon distorts the Earth's crust by around 30cm twice a day.
"science could not disprove that God created the world in six days."
If a day is the time it takes for the Earth to spin on its axis, then who's to say it wasn't spinning a lot more slowly initially. Six days could have been a very long time indeed.
How could he create the Earth when it was already there, spinning?
Well we expect that gravity created the Earth slowly by bring rocks together by random collision events. Since it is unlikely that they were spinning in any coherent fashion until much later, you could argue that this took place on day 1.
Without going all creationist, have any models actually shown planets forming from dustclouds based on gravity and/or electromagnetic forces? I'd have thought that the attraction between relatively tiny particles would be far too small to overcome the kinetic energy of the collisions? After all, the asteroid belt has failed to produce a planet, despite some pretty chunkily sized rocks.
The asteriod belt is actually very, very sparse and it is swept clean by a series of orbital resonance with Jupiter.
There is plenty of evidence of collapsing gas clouds forming stars and planets. Hubble and other telescopes have taken loads of pictures of it and we have indirectly observed debris fields about other stars which fit our dynamical models of solar system formation.
The sphere of comets that orbit around the solar system is vast however. It contains a huge huge number of objects. The far side of the moon is totally different to the near side. (this is a FWIW since I have no idea what the point of this interesting discussion is)
In fairness, even respectable theories of planetary and solar system formation are having to be recast in the face of new evidence. There are a lot of 'Hot Jupiters' out there.
That's interesting, thanks. I would have thought in India's (and countries to the east) case, the Middle East is to the WEST, so the term "Middle East" wouldn't make any geographic sense.
It's only natural for each nation that grew up before world maps were commonplace to consider itself the centre of the universe and to name other regions accordingly. And even in the UN context, the Arabian peninsula clearly is the south western part of the Asian continent.
Interestingly, my (American) wife and daughter refuse to accept that India is part of Asia. Indeed, they insist the whole subcontinent is not Asia. They've yet to tell me which continent it is a part of though!
Millionaire unelected (ever) Aaron Banks releases whining statement complaining that Lord Lawson should quit campaigning for leaving the EU and "let the people support a peoples campaign and not an SW1 bubble brigade".
Ferrets in a sack. If leave wins it will be in spite of Arron Banks.
Millionaire unelected (ever) Aaron Banks releases whining statement complaining that Lord Lawson should quit campaigning for leaving the EU and "let the people support a peoples campaign and not an SW1 bubble brigade".
Ferrets in a sack. If leave wins it will be in spite of Arron Banks.
Does science ever disprove anything? Logic can, but that is based upon the starting assumptions made.
Science is based on observations confirming a thesis. I can have a theory that the earth revolves around the sun and the moon around the earth and 'prove' that to my own satisfaction with thousands of years of humanity's direct observations and even longer indirect evidence. But I still cannot disprove that tomorrow all that will stop.
I thought you had a science background. Does science ever disprove anything? An observation inconsistent with a theory disproves it. Science is based on observations confirming a thesis. Science is based on observations attempting to disprove a thesis.
"science could not disprove that God created the world in six days."
If a day is the time it takes for the Earth to spin on its axis, then who's to say it wasn't spinning a lot more slowly initially. Six days could have been a very long time indeed.
How could he create the Earth when it was already there, spinning?
Well we expect that gravity created the Earth slowly by bring rocks together by random collision events. Since it is unlikely that they were spinning in any coherent fashion until much later, you could argue that this took place on day 1.
Without going all creationist, have any models actually shown planets forming from dustclouds based on gravity and/or electromagnetic forces? I'd have thought that the attraction between relatively tiny particles would be far too small to overcome the kinetic energy of the collisions? After all, the asteroid belt has failed to produce a planet, despite some pretty chunkily sized rocks.
Cheers. I'll read it when I have time to digest the info. I'd still have thought that the gravitational attraction of bits of dust would be the square root of sod all but I'll give it a go.
The thing I find hard to get my head around is why the globule of gas and dust starts to spin as it contracts.
As for gravitational attraction; we are talking very small forces over relatively longer periods of time. And once you've had a few coalesce, it'll get faster.
But the comment about "very small forces" is precisely the point: the amount of kinetic energy required in a collision to disrupt the ball of dust is tiny. A marble-sized pebble travelling at a metre per second would annihilate something many times its size and weight, even allowing for electrostatic forces - so what chance even smaller starting points?
But I appreciate I'm talking from the point of interested ignorance.
That's interesting, thanks. I would have thought in India's (and countries to the east) case, the Middle East is to the WEST, so the term "Middle East" wouldn't make any geographic sense.
It's only natural for each nation that grew up before world maps were commonplace to consider itself the centre of the universe and to name other regions accordingly. And even in the UN context, the Arabian peninsula clearly is the south western part of the Asian continent.
Interestingly, my (American) wife and daughter refuse to accept that India is part of Asia. Indeed, they insist the whole subcontinent is not Asia. They've yet to tell me which continent it is a part of though!
Same could be said of Europe. It is directly connected to Asia via hundreds of miles of Russia - but for centuries has been considered a separate continent!
Does science ever disprove anything? Logic can, but that is based upon the starting assumptions made.
Science is based on observations confirming a thesis. I can have a theory that the earth revolves around the sun and the moon around the earth and 'prove' that to my own satisfaction with thousands of years of humanity's direct observations and even longer indirect evidence. But I still cannot disprove that tomorrow all that will stop.
I thought you had a science background. Does science ever disprove anything? An observation inconsistent with a theory disproves it. Science is based on observations confirming a thesis. Science is based on observations attempting to disprove a thesis.
"Science is organized common sense, where many a beautiful theory was killed by an ugly fact."
All modern systems are eensive to procure... Just look at the cost of the aircraft carriers and the planes to fly off them.
Justifying one complete waste of money by pointing out the horrific cost of another complete waste of money does little to help your argument.
The day you talk sense I'll put the flag out. The union flag of course. Repeat... all modern military systems are expensive to procure. The nuclear deterrent is relatively cheap. But then again you are one of the ones trying to pretend that it's going to cost 100bn to replace.
That may change if the GOP win the presidential election in 2016 and we get an Attorney General he seeks more aggressively to assert federal law on this issue over state law - but that can only happen after this election.
I thought the GOP were massively in favour of States having as much autonomy as possible, or is that more one particular wing ?
There are many ways to carve up the GOP into ideological groupings. I like Nate Silver's in which there are essentially five wings to the GOP, of which the libertarians and the Tea Party are the strongest on States' rights. The others (Moderates, Establishment, Social/Christian Conservatives) will tend to trot out small government constitutionalism when it suits their agenda, then seek to impose federalism when that suits - the moderates and Establishment mostly in relation to corporatism, the conservatives in relation to telling everyone how to live their life. (Guess where I stand )
Millionaire unelected (ever) Aaron Banks releases whining statement complaining that Lord Lawson should quit campaigning for leaving the EU and "let the people support a peoples campaign and not an SW1 bubble brigade".
I'm intrigued by the choice of the campaign group name as "Conservatives for Britain".
I'm tangentially involved in "Business for Britain" which is studiously cross party.
But it's an interesting chance which doesn't strike me as a concidence. Could you see other groups with a similar name speaking to specific interest areas (perhaps even "Kippers for Britain") coming together under a "For Britain" banner group?
("Leave, for Britain's sake" doesn't quite work as a slogan for me, but it feels like there is something you could do with the concept)
Dair Why is a very important and successful part of the nations defense force seen to be a waste of time..like insurance .. you don't need it until you need it..do try and grow up..
The UK has been without an Aircraft Carrier (an actual AC not a LCV) since 1979 (arguably since the mid-60s as the Audacious class was obsolete after the first Super Carriers deployed). The UK successfully deployed to the Falklands despite having no AC and have carried out all military deployments since then with no AC.
QE and PC are complete wastes of money, pork barrel politics of the worst kind at the behest of the former member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath.
Millionaire unelected (ever) Aaron Banks releases whining statement complaining that Lord Lawson should quit campaigning for leaving the EU and "let the people support a peoples campaign and not an SW1 bubble brigade".
The more irrelevant the Kippers become, the more desperate their bleatings are. Much like loyalists in Scotland.
"science could not disprove that God created the world in six days."
If a day is the time it takes for the Earth to spin on its axis, then who's to say it wasn't spinning a lot more slowly initially. Six days could have been a very long time indeed.
How could he create the Earth when it was already there, spinning?
Well we expect that gravity created the Earth slowly by bring rocks together by random collision events. Since it is unlikely that they were spinning in any coherent fashion until much later, you could argue that this took place on day 1.
Without going all creationist, have any models actually shown planets forming from dustclouds based on gravity and/or electromagnetic forces? I'd have thought that the attraction between relatively tiny particles would be far too small to overcome the kinetic energy of the collisions? After all, the asteroid belt has failed to produce a planet, despite some pretty chunkily sized rocks.
The asteriod belt is actually very, very sparse and it is swept clean by a series of orbital resonance with Jupiter.
There is plenty of evidence of collapsing gas clouds forming stars and planets. Hubble and other telescopes have taken loads of pictures of it and we have indirectly observed debris fields about other stars which fit our dynamical models of solar system formation.
The sphere of comets that orbit around the solar system is vast however. It contains a huge huge number of objects. The far side of the moon is totally different to the near side. (this is a FWIW since I have no idea what the point of this interesting discussion is)
The diffierence between the far side of the moon and the nearside is generally understood to be caused by the tidal locking caused by the Earth. The moon is slightly egg-shaped rather than spherical when the pointy end facing the Earth. It is theorised that this occured when the moon was molten in its early formation and that cracks in the thin crust caused by the attraction of the Earth allowed basaltic lava to penetrate and settle in the deeper basins.
On a slight aside, it is known that the moon causes the twice daily rise and fall of the tides. What is less appreciated is the twice daily rise and fall of the land as the moon distorts the Earth's crust by around 30cm twice a day.
Ooo-err!
Not just that, but if we had no moon, the sun's gravitational effect would cause significant tides.
Dair Why is a very important and successful part of the nations defense force seen to be a waste of time..like insurance .. you don't need it until you need it..do try and grow up..
The UK has been without an Aircraft Carrier (an actual AC not a LCV) since 1979 (arguably since the mid-60s as the Audacious class was obsolete after the first Super Carriers deployed). The UK successfully deployed to the Falklands despite having no AC and have carried out all military deployments since then with no AC.
QE and PC are complete wastes of money, pork barrel politics of the worst kind at the behest of the former member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath.
No, we badly needed a proper aircraft carrier in the Falklands. Lives were lost as a result. The two being built are a poor substitute despite their size and cost. They should be nuclear powered and have catapults. The cost of the T45s to defend them over their lifetime will be about 40bn. The T45s however do have some capability to defend us from ICBMs, but that is another film...
But the comment about "very small forces" is precisely the point: the amount of kinetic energy required in a collision to disrupt the ball of dust is tiny. A marble-sized pebble travelling at a metre per second would annihilate something many times its size and weight, even allowing for electrostatic forces - so what chance even smaller starting points?
But I appreciate I'm talking from the point of interested ignorance.
I too am speaking from interested ignorance. I think where you might be going wrong is in not considering the frequency of collisions: so many happen so frequently over a vast period of time in the early solar system that you will have many where the differential velocities are such that one or both will not be destroyed, but instead coalesce and stick via electrostatic forces.
Gaseous materials might also be a very different matter and easier to acrete.
But the comment about "very small forces" is precisely the point: the amount of kinetic energy required in a collision to disrupt the ball of dust is tiny. A marble-sized pebble travelling at a metre per second would annihilate something many times its size and weight, even allowing for electrostatic forces - so what chance even smaller starting points?
But I appreciate I'm talking from the point of interested ignorance.
Don't forget that the two particles are not the only components in the system - the greater forces relate to the whole spinning around the centre (which will become the system's sun) and a disc of spinning material forming. At that point, all the materials in the disc are spinning in the same direction around the sun, and so collisions have less impact. Think two cars traveling at 30 mph and 31 mph. If they collide while travelling in the same direction the impact is way less than if colliding head on.
But the comment about "very small forces" is precisely the point: the amount of kinetic energy required in a collision to disrupt the ball of dust is tiny. A marble-sized pebble travelling at a metre per second would annihilate something many times its size and weight, even allowing for electrostatic forces - so what chance even smaller starting points?
But I appreciate I'm talking from the point of interested ignorance.
Don't forget that the two particles are not the only components in the system - the greater forces relate to the whole spinning around the centre (which will become the system's sun) and a disc of spinning material forming. At that point, all the materials in the disc are spinning in the same direction around the sun, and so collisions have less impact. Think two cars traveling at 30 mph and 31 mph. If they collide while travelling in the same direction the impact is way less than if colliding head on.
But the comment about "very small forces" is precisely the point: the amount of kinetic energy required in a collision to disrupt the ball of dust is tiny. A marble-sized pebble travelling at a metre per second would annihilate something many times its size and weight, even allowing for electrostatic forces - so what chance even smaller starting points?
But I appreciate I'm talking from the point of interested ignorance.
Don't forget that the two particles are not the only components in the system - the greater forces relate to the whole spinning around the centre (which will become the system's sun) and a disc of spinning material forming. At that point, all the materials in the disc are spinning in the same direction around the sun, and so collisions have less impact. Think two cars traveling at 30 mph and 31 mph. If they collide while travelling in the same direction the impact is way less than if colliding head on.
But why does it start spinning?
Again, things do not start from a static basis. Spinning starts from moment. Think of ice dancers. If they bump each others' shoulders as they pass, they start to spin.
How the whole system starts spinning is beyond my mathematics or interest, but spin seems pretty elemental to all physics.
Dair Why is a very important and successful part of the nations defense force seen to be a waste of time..like insurance .. you don't need it until you need it..do try and grow up..
The UK has been without an Aircraft Carrier (an actual AC not a LCV) since 1979 (arguably since the mid-60s as the Audacious class was obsolete after the first Super Carriers deployed). The UK successfully deployed to the Falklands despite having no AC and have carried out all military deployments since then with no AC.
QE and PC are complete wastes of money, pork barrel politics of the worst kind at the behest of the former member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath.
Vote Corbyn and Lord Sugar will emigrate to the People's Republic of China. That should be worth a few thousand votes for JC.
millions I would have thought
Alas people seldom keep their word in these cases. There used to be an aggressive Scotch Nationalist poster, whose name escapes me, who vowed to settle in the Bavarian Alps should the No Vote prevail in the once-in-a-lifetime Scottish referendum but he reneged.
talking merde as ever Monica, you are an iveterate liar
I've been reading a very old novel called 'The Kings Own' (wouldn't bother), and one of the more interesting aspects of the novel is when the author just goes off into essays on other topics. One of these being that vast amounts more people die under the full moon. Like it saps more energy. I know the full moon has long had a bad reputation, and I wonder whether this is the reason? And I also wonder whether it's still true.
Comments
As for gravitational attraction; we are talking very small forces over relatively longer periods of time. And once you've had a few coalesce, it'll get faster.
Oh, and: http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/building-planets-in-plastic-bags/
Rubio scores badly on the weedblog's tests,Rand Paul tests best,but all the other GOP candidates score badly in comparison to the Democrat front-runners.
For this reason,and others,I suggest a Democrat victory at 4-5 with Shadsy's mob is a bet.
http://www.theweedblog.com/grading-the-presidential-candidates-on-marijuana-policy/
The far side of the moon is totally different to the near side.
(this is a FWIW since I have no idea what the point of this interesting discussion is)
http://www.escwa.un.org
I'll be wearing mine all over Manchester. Definitely going to get the morning suit out now.
@politicshome: Tory members warned not to wear their passes outside the secure zone during a planned anti-austerity march. http://t.co/RrfFMnzXCh
#cpc15
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendumnews/13797013.Labour_MSP_breached_code_of_conduct_by_telling_press_about_Salmond_complaint/
Interesting news on the day of his reselection being confirmed. Labour never learn.
Then again this may just be hokum, but punters ought to find out for sure... shouldn't they?
(only kidding!)
On a slight aside, it is known that the moon causes the twice daily rise and fall of the tides. What is less appreciated is the twice daily rise and fall of the land as the moon distorts the Earth's crust by around 30cm twice a day.
Ooo-err!
But its OK because these are tories. Its cool to beat sh8t out of them.
Interestingly, my (American) wife and daughter refuse to accept that India is part of Asia. Indeed, they insist the whole subcontinent is not Asia. They've yet to tell me which continent it is a part of though!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavad_Gita
Does science ever disprove anything? An observation inconsistent with a theory disproves it.
Science is based on observations confirming a thesis. Science is based on observations attempting to disprove a thesis.
But the comment about "very small forces" is precisely the point: the amount of kinetic energy required in a collision to disrupt the ball of dust is tiny. A marble-sized pebble travelling at a metre per second would annihilate something many times its size and weight, even allowing for electrostatic forces - so what chance even smaller starting points?
But I appreciate I'm talking from the point of interested ignorance.
I'll have lots of bars of soap to throw at lefties.
New Thread
Science is the leading killer of theories. Fact
Repeat... all modern military systems are expensive to procure.
The nuclear deterrent is relatively cheap. But then again you are one of the ones trying to pretend that it's going to cost 100bn to replace.
I'm tangentially involved in "Business for Britain" which is studiously cross party.
But it's an interesting chance which doesn't strike me as a concidence. Could you see other groups with a similar name speaking to specific interest areas (perhaps even "Kippers for Britain") coming together under a "For Britain" banner group?
("Leave, for Britain's sake" doesn't quite work as a slogan for me, but it feels like there is something you could do with the concept)
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/tide.html#stid
The two being built are a poor substitute despite their size and cost. They should be nuclear powered and have catapults.
The cost of the T45s to defend them over their lifetime will be about 40bn. The T45s however do have some capability to defend us from ICBMs, but that is another film...
Gaseous materials might also be a very different matter and easier to acrete.
I think.
How the whole system starts spinning is beyond my mathematics or interest, but spin seems pretty elemental to all physics.