Royston

Farsight, the equivalence principle would be applicable if the person free falling was in a box, but there are two frames of reference here...the accelerating frame, and earth. The two frames are distinguishable, so you can conclude the free falling body is accelerating.

Well they've already discovered they have non-zero mass (around 0.1 eV 'electron volts'), and they were first detected back in 1956. IIRC there was the possibilty of 4 neutrinos, but I'm sure I read a recent article that this has been proven to be false...I'll try and find a link. Here you go...http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/neutrino.html

Cool...nothing more to add.

1.Klaynos 2.Insane Alien 3.JohnB 4.Sisyphus 5.Insane Alien 6.Paranoia

This website may help as well, it has a number of simulations, and variables you can fiddle around with... http://www.hazelwood.k12.mo.us/~grichert/sciweb/waves.htm

Paranoia, can you change the quote to me, it's marked as Sisyphus. I guess it's a matter of opinion...but I certainly don't feel euphoric after smoking a cigarette, I just stop feeling agitated because I was craving a cigarette...that's the difference between addiction, and actually getting a high out of something e.g somebody doesn't skydive because they want relief from having their feet on the ground for so long...they do it for the thrill. If you're a regular smoker, there's no thrill or high in smoking, it's just fullfilling a need, a need that I personally would rather do without. So, this is why I have no problem with the smoking ban, it may be a subjective statement, but I'm sure there are people that will share this view.

How can you be accountable for what you did when you were 14 that is ridiculous, people change funnily enough, so you can't label people idiots for acts they did, which for me would be over 17 years ago now (when I started smoking), also overlooking the myriad of reasons why people do start smoking. However, (back on topic) I actually welcome the smoking ban (albeit I do smoke), although I disagree with SkepticLance that smokers are idiots, but I think people should be encouraged to give up, and if you need to dash out to have a cigarette outside, then it would make you think twice, as to whether you really need a cigarette. Smoking 'is' pointless, it merely satisfies a craving that you shouldn't have to begin with. As long as the ban doesn't extend to your own home, then I can't see the problem with it personally.

Gotcha, thanks for the correction Pangloss...sorry YT, my mistake. I think I've seen too many TV news articles where so called 'patriots' are marching in protest, spouting the principles and laws of their country without questioning the logic and ethics of their views. So they do come across as a little naive and stupid, doubly so, because those guys are nationalists, and they label themselves as patriots. Anyway, I've learnt something, so it's all good.

Well, let's take a hypothetical (that's loosely based on fact.) Country A sees Country B has changed it's political stance, and country A doesn't like this. Country B is clearly no threat to country A, it's tiny in comparison and has a small army. Woe betide anyone who doesn't agree with Country A, so instead of going to war, they fabricate a situation and make plans to assasinate Country B's leader and impose their political ideals on Country B, by forcing Country A's choice of leader on to Country B. Now the two countries are not at war, but country A has forced it's politics on to another country, it basically has country B by the short and curlies. It can then pretty much do what it likes, and there's nothing country B can do about it. Now a patriot, would have no quarms in backing the decision of country A, despite it being highly corrupt, that country B was no threat, and that country A has forced it's ideals and control over a country and has access to any commodities of country B et.c Now it's understandable for someone to emerge as a patriot in country B, but country A ? I promise not to use the word country in the next post

Neither would I, but patriotism isn't just applicable to times of war. It's perfectly understandable to back your country when it's in danger of being taking over, no say in what laws are imposed et.c That's clearly something to fight for, but true patriotism goes further than that. If the goals of Germany and Britain were switched, then would you say the same thing about our soldiers ?

I'd extend it to 'blind' loyalty to ones country. It's nonsensical, you're born in a certain location, and so you stand by any decisions and acts that have emerged from that country. In that sense it is destructive, because any patriot will back the decision of a government purely on the basis that it's 'their' government, and they represent 'their' country.

What's green and smells of pork ? Kermits fingers.

Please see the bbc article below... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6601221.stm

Providing there's a 'most intelligent mollusc' category, that seemed to be missing from last years awards...tsk tsk. I was actually wondering the same thing myself recently, would be nice to show some appreciation to people on here, beyond the normal 'thanks, that's really helped.' Just a reminder of last years winners... http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=19464 EDIT: Sorry I missed the response from Klaynos.

That's heavy water, not hard..there's plenty about heavy water on wiki... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_water Hard water is fine to drink, I actually live in a hard water area, it just produces limescale, the majority is filtered through chalk.

Here's another pic from the BBC... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6594821.stm ...perhaps we should run a caption competition.

velo, this is the most recent article I could find on the subject, though I don't think it's really what you're after...you may as well check wiki (link below) there are several candidates for dark matter, but AFAIK nothing has been settled as of yet... http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070419130004.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

lol ! Thanks Phi, though I can't seem to access the original 10 points (what the points were for)...no biggie, just interested.

Sweet, cheers YT !

Maybe I'm living up to my name and being a bit slow here...I've tried searching this as well, so sorry if I've missed something, but I noticed a little 'scales' icon next to the 'report post' icon. Apparently I have 10 reputation points...though I don't have the foggiest idea what that means ?

I was studying modelling population changes a while ago, and it's really not that big a deal when an approximation is clearly out, and it's just a case of gathering some data to make the model more accurate...why would that change. You have to gather data to find out why the model would be out, you don't just guess...so I don't understand your point here. This really, has nothing to do with the OP, AFAICS Bascule was just highlighting the possible implications of the findings.

True, but I think the issue is more with the authorities of different religions, rather than religion itself. If a certain sect has an interpretation that is directly contradicted by a scientific discovery, the authorities of that sect have the choice to cater for the discovery, or attack the discovery through fear that it will compromise the popularity of that sect. Now, this shouldn't be a problem...interpretations of religious text are changing all the time, even for a religious super power such as Catholicism (which has plenty to lose...religion holds a lot of political clout), the Pope catered for evolution. So really, it's just the authorities that should act responsibly with such discrepancies, if they choose to attack science, then A. they don't understand science or B. there is reputation or popularity at stake. From scientific theories come scientific facts...'a theory' and a 'scientific theory' are very different things.

But, all you seem to be doing is changing the mass and the distance, so why would that effect the constant G. Obviously F will change, but as that's reliant on the values of mass and distance, it stands to reason...and why would the mass of one body decrease, if the other increases, that doesn't make sense. EDIT: You seem to be confusing weight with mass...as you're using the analogy of a see-saw.

Are you saying, that if the results of the polarization experiment (this is...very basically a vibration that's measured perpendicular to the direction of a photon) mean nature really is as strange as QM dictates, then the only way this can be described is through a purely mathematical theory ? If so, then I don't really see why...to me it just means we have to probe a little deeper, and come up with something more radical to account for the fact indeterminism maybe here to stay. However, it still has to be testable through experiment and observation, so falsifiable. Otherwise, it just isn't a scientific theory. I don't find the results that surprising, but maybe I'm missing something. TBH, I quite welcome the news...realism's boring

I think a maths expert is needed...other than that, like the new layout, the colour scheme is fine. Oh, more people on IRC, especially on Friday evenings, because that's really the only time I have to sit and have a chat with you lot, albeit I'm usually already, or in the process of getting drunk...DO IT ! EDIT: Just realized that I was talking to Cap'n and Bascule last Friday about...ummmm, something...errrr, oh dear.