Cadmus

Interesting. This is one of the things that I dislike most about him. He is quite willing to use his influence to force his bizarre set of poorly thought out moral "values" down our throats. In his state of the uniion address, he talked about spreading freedom around the world, all the while doing his best to reduce freedoms here.

I realize that you are one for calling a spade a spade, but I do disagree with your wording in this case. You talk about whether or not it is right to kill her. I consider this only partially valid. She is already dead. All that remains is a shell around a dead person. If she were not already dead, in the minds of many people, then this entire fight would take a different shift. I don't really think that she has a life to prolong, at least in the sense that life is defined legally or in my mind.

Yes, we are smarter. Our species is evolving, slowly, and this evolution improves smarts. 2,000 years is pproximately 50 generations. That is not a lot of evolution in the context of the totality of our species, but it is not zero either. However, for a valid response, it wouldn't hurt to explain what you mean by smarter.

Your suggestion that language contains useless words of any sort is not well thought our. The word the is useful. It does not appear in all langauges, such as Russian. The word the indicates to the reader/listener that he is familar with the noun in question. For example, give me an apple and give me the apple. Give me an apple is non-specific, and the listener can expect that the speaker does not necessarily have a specific one in mind. Give me the apple makes it clear that a specific apple is desired, and the listener is expected to know which one it is. Such a concept is obviously not useless. It is not mandatory in language, and many langauges do not use definite articles. Indo-European languages do, however.

The purpose of school is to teach the wisdom of others. Without repeating their research, how can we but parrot what they say? We should not take what we learn at school as fact, but we should still try to use it without full acceptance.

Let me give some advice. I recommend that you never, ever accept anything in science as absolute fact. Now, wasn't that easy? Science is not about fact, and it is always open to analysis and revsion. While you do not accept it as absolute fact, which is a good thing, surely you must be aware that there is no chance that relativity could ever answer all questions, and for you to understand all of the questions that it attemps to answer is also not realsitc. Are you suggesting that you will ignore the theory unless and until you find it to be perfect?

Yes, but time is not what a clock measures. I disagree. Clocks measure their own passgage through time. They do not demonstrate any relationship to how other objects pass through time, except in an objective sense, which is the least useful sense from the perspective of relativity.

I think that it must be you who is using a non-standard use of relativity. Time is the same nowhere, certainly not everywhere on earth. You must be speaking in terms of measuring time using an objective, third-party device, rather than in terms of the objects whose time is being considered.

I think that you are being somewhat limiting in the way that you frame this. In the sense of relativity, clock time is irrelevant to how fast time passes. When one year of clock time passes, that does not mean that the exact same amount of time has passed for every person on earth, except in a non-relativistic, objective manner of thinking.

Is that all you can see in my example? Perhaps you were ripped off at school. Here is your chance to rectify that. Don't waste it.

How can you say that? It has everything to do with physics.

This "all" has tremendous implications. When you age, is it not physiological? There are always a physiological component to the aging of organisms. OK. I recommend that you now reconsider your belief in a new light.

You are welcome. I find it odd that you are attempting to be so picky here, yet you appreciate and attempt to justify the sloppy grammar in question that lead to the requirement to guess at the meaing involved.

The object is question is always in your time. The difference is its rate of motion through its time. Have you ever watched a friend age quickly after a negative traumatic experience? You and your friend were in the same time, but your rate of motion through time was not the same.