Royston

Remember the earth is revolving at the same rate, so you would still see the same point...my analogy was just trying to make a distinction, and then introduce what was actually the case. Obviously the earth is not in a fixed position, where (going back to the ball and stick description) your body would be. The reason it gets confusing is due to trying to visualize it from the frame of reference of the earth or moon, you need a further frame of reference. Sorry, I should of veered away from the ball and stick analogy, because it confused matters.

No, it's just illustrating the distinction between a roatating body, and a revolving body. I just used the 'attached to a stick' just make it clear the tennis ball was in a fixed position in relation to the stick. The moon is both revolving and rotating. So if you held the stick and spun round, and focused on a point on the tennis ball, that point wouldn't change. However, if the tennis ball was rotating as well (say the stick had a small motor on the end, rotating the ball) then that point would clearly dissapear from your line of sight...so that would be more analogous to the motion of the moon round the earth, but an analogy only, and hardly an accurate description. Anyway, hope that helps.

Well, stick a tennis ball on a stick and spin it round your head, the tennis ball is not rotating on it's axis, but it's clearly revolving round your body. Now take the tennis ball off, stick it on the floor and spin it...the tennis ball is now rotating, but it's not revolving around anything. Sorry, if that came across as patronizing, but it's really that simple.

As a side thought, that would be very unusual if the universe really 'was' like that. Thankfully expansion, and the (AFAIK) irregular topology would prevent this from ever happening. Sorry for going off topic.

A friend sent me this video, not sure if anybody has already seen it, but a warning... it 'is' very harrowing, and illustrates (very graphically) the inhumane treatment of dolphins in Japan. It's clear to see the distress of these mammals, with or without the narration. http://www.glumbert.com/media/dolphin There's also a petition, if anybody is interested in signing. http://www.PetitionOnline.com/golfinho/ Now, as much as I respect other cultures, and in some cases that entails the food they eat...but I can't see that this treatment is justified at all, I'm actually baffled that this is still allowed, especially to 'clearly' intelligent mammals.

Well no, but you have to justify the experiment. Where's the necesity in this particular experiment, and does it acquire beneficial results that could outweigh the suffering of a few chimps, to benefit (for example) many chimps. Yes, I know there are plenty of experiments on animals, that are clearly not justified in their benefits e.g cosmetics et.c to which I don't agree with. The suffering would be the hybrid 'knowing' it was a 'first of it's kind' experiment, it would be utterly unique. I was assuming we we're talking about the experiment the OP was considering i.e a one off. But, with your above example, again, where's the necessity. I agree that if they were a group, and also considering the results were an absolute success (they were all born healthy, with no abnormalities et.c), and you could somehow determine they would function socially, and there was some beneficial gain in all of this, well then I couldn't see a problem with it.

Well the more sentient, the more suffering i.e a chimp / human hybrid would 'probably' be all to aware they're a one off, or an experiment. I don't think you could say (for example) the same about a llama / camel cross, annoyingly called a karma. It also boils down to the salient point...why. Now you could say the same for a llama, camel cross, (what really is the point) but the suffering of that alienated individual is nothing to a sentient or self-aware alienated individual. There is no scientific gain from the venture, and if there was, then it would have to be highly justified. So as you can't apply moral importance to species membership, you can still gauge the amount of suffering in this instance, and, whether that suffering is justified for scientific progress. It's pretty clear, it can't be justified (for now), and there is no rhyme or reason such an experiment is needed.

I never said they were

You only need to use equations concerning GR, where there's the speed of light to worry about e.g GPS, so calculating orbits of objects, Newtons Laws suffice, that doesn't mean it's the 'last word' in gravity, it's just an approximation.

But that's just a change in refractive index, how can you apply the same principle to, for example, gamma ray bursts ? Also, I don't understand your point with Issac Newton was a genius... it's contempary physics you should be concerned with, Newtons laws of gravitation do not account for gravitational lensing.

Well, I guess the only way you could do it, is get a mastering package or application (see earlier link) that can deal with extracting vocals. I'm not really an expert in this area, I've never needed to do it. That seems a bit costly for a one-off. There are sites (ahem) that you may be able to download the accapella version, I've found accapella's where it's clearly a homestudio effort, but they'll be more than adequate for your needs, however you'd need the backing music as well, so that's only half the problem rectified, but you could always have a browse for that too. Other than that, I'm not really sure, you could use a package like Ableton, and mix the tracks together (you can get really good results with Ableton) where you can add plug-ins et.c, but again that will be more expense.

A sound engineering friend visited briefly at the weekend, and he said the best type of filter to use for isolating the frequencies is a 'comb' filter. You could probably get one as a VST (or similar) plug-in.

found this....http://www.musicmorpher.com/free-tutorials-project12.htm So yeah, almost exactly the same process as I described above <self gratifying grin>

Was there a particular track you had in mind, there are places you could probably download the acapella version. You'd certainly need something better than a media player if you want proper results, cooledit or some similar mastering suite. I use wavelab, which is ok, but I think it's quite tricky, obviously you need to isolate the frequencies of the vocals. So I guess you'll need a spectrum analyser so you can view the signal, look up the vocal range (I think it can be anywhere between 80 Hz to 1.1 Khz) apply filters and EQ, to get the signal roughly in that range, and most probably a noise gate and compression to clean the signal up. There's probably a better way of achieving it...have a browse on a good sound engineering forum. Never tried it, but IIRC there are some mastering suites that may have this as a preset, not sure how good the results are.

Don't smatter dear boy, those roughians...cricket, the very idea. Err, yes, they do... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cricket_team

Ok... So, what's the problem, the horse was, and was no worse for it. But what's the argument to say it's negative, the horse enjoyed the experience, if you had other examples, then I may agree with you. It's harmless entertainment (if that rocks your boat) sperm samples are taken all the time, the animal doesn't show the least bit resistance, so using this example doesn't cut it I'm afraid. Depends where you're from, and masturbation of another animal doesn't actually class as beastiality in some instances, this not being one of them, I don't think I need to spell it out. And...your point ? Why do you assume, that nature is 'supposed' to do anything ? If you had any grasp of natural selection, which is a comment you brought up earlier, then where's the purpose ? Again, if the animal wasn't subjected to any harm, there is no problem. The horse enjoyed the experience, probably had a sugar cube, and went on it's merry way. EDIT: I understand where you're coming from, but it's very faulty reasoning. You can't attack a media strategy that exploits animals when there is no harm caused to them, as much as you can't attack a media strategy that exploits humans with no repercussions or humiliation. The effect on the animal is actually a positive, and using the 'well it's just not natural' argument is very faulty logic.

Oooh, I like these kinda questions...if I were a real survival specialist, a hunting knife and my bare wit, but I'm not. Well. in our house we have...water purification tablets (rather old), first aid kit, tarpoling (6m square should be enough), hand saw, lighters, small mirror, compass, light waterproof jackets, string, hiking boots and the clothes we have on (so those won't add to the weight)...a couple of bags of rice if we don't find food immediately...sleeping bags, and a swiss army knife, a couple of saucepans. That 'should' be under 25 kilos, oh bar of soap, toothpaste and toothbrush...though that won't last too long, baking soda perhaps. Of course you can get away with not having half of that, I guess it depends on the amount of devastation we've encountered, and how good you are at manipulating your environment. I'm sure someone will come up with a much better, or more imaginative list.

Well, lets put this in perspective... So the horse is so distressed by this experience it ejaculates...it's not really suffering. Remember the horse isn't aware of being exploited, and by the very act of drinking it's semen, the guy is actually exploiting himself...as a jack ass, but that's ok I presume. There are many levels of exploitation, providing the animal isn't aware, and is not experiencing any suffering, I fail to see the problem. If you're watching a nature programme, and a peguin slips on the ice, and there's a comical oboe sound, is the animal being exploited for entertainment ? Well yes...does it care, of course not. Ok, so the snake is fooled into thinking the sock puppet is a mouse, and bites...again where's the suffering, and how does the snake realize it's being exploited. As before, there are many levels of exploitation, if a bear is kept in captivity, and is raised solely for the purpose of entertaining, then that clearly has more moral repurcussions, than finding mild amusement that a bear has dropped a fish for example (I know that's not particularly amusing...just an example.) You're still finding entertainment from the bear, so in that sense it's exploited. Write a letter, which you'll probably get a response such as...the animal was not put in any distress, and was rewarded accordingly after participating in the scene, et.c and so forth. Same here, but the examples above are a far cry from a bear forced to dance on hot plates. You seem to have a rather black and white view of exploitation, try and think if any sufferring is caused to the animal, and if (but highly unlikely) it's aware of being exploited. Humans are exploited all the time, in the name of entertainment, but like I said this covers an entire spectrum from mild, to sickening.

Gravity is a force by definition... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force

Do we really need a Planet of the Apes with cameo roles ?

Well, I know a few trades such as carpentry et.c and limited science knowledge which could come in useful, trying to think of a scenario where my knowledge would come in handy...well lets skip that part for now. Plus (so long as my studio survived) people will always need entertainment, so I can provide music for the nights we're swigging IA's home brew. Been in quite a few near death and rather tricky situations, up mountains, lost in jungles et.c so I'd be good at getting people out of trouble if it arose. However, I think a pirate ship is a must in this situation.

Well, hypothetically if you did have such strong bonds to avoid spaghettification (which is impossible) then you could possibly spew out into a universe that had completely different physical constants to the universe in which we reside. So it's not really comprehensible, because you yourself, wouldn't fit the system, if that makes sense. Singularities are just a mathematical hindrance, so are not really applicable i.e you can't have infinite mass. There are a few theories that deal with black holes, and what happens 'on the other side', but to date it has to be treated with speculation, because clearly how can you probe a black hole, and get information back...in fact you'd just increase the entropy of that system. Maybe look up fecund universe's, but don't confuse that with Everetts' many worlds hypothesis. I'm fascinated with black holes, but we're talking serious physics, so it's anybodies guess (especially mine) what happens beyond the event horizon. Contrary to Capn's comment, I believe that you will stumble upon a prairie dog colony, but these prairie dogs will be huge, space sucking giants...who won't take no for an answer, so I'd stay put if I were you

It 'was' a genuine question, and I'd rather you didn't refer to me as not having a genuine bone in my body, I'm working frigging hard towards my degree (which I have to do part time.) So stfu. Waste your time !?!? The amount of input for this BS you've posted, is more than you deserve, I've already responded to why objects gain potential energy et.c, like Edtharan said, this is basic elementary physics. I've pointed out curvature, which you came back with 'there is no curvature' because you can't understand an article. You seem to be making it up as you go along, and FYI, I very rarely insult anyone on here...but you will refuse to listen to reason, and hard science. Unfortunately there's nothing else but to insult you, in the hope you'll go away...which, I really wish you would, but that's clearly not my decision. You won't get anywhere with this nonsense, so atleast I can rest easy with that fact. You sir, are a bafoon !

The object had to of come from somewhere e.g ejected from another body (which funnily enough, requires energy), and how can it possibly stay static until the earth hits it ? <groan> Again, there is no need for a change in C. See previous responses. Over 100 posts, and that's the only decent comment you've made. This is a genuine question, are you just doing this to wind people up...or is this a joke ?

AFAICS, there are no additions to the UK edition e.g preface. So I guess the UK edition has been edited due to larger text perhaps, it's hard to tell without having the U.S edition to compare to. I managed to read the first few pages on the way back from work...Smolin uses the word 'failed' with regards to his generation of physicists, and the progress they've made. Failed is a strong word, but anyway, I'm jumping the gun...so I'll wait till I've finished the book, before commenting further.