A Tripolation

I was under the impression that light didn't escape a black hole because of the fact that it was redshifted out of existence. Is this incorrect? Ah, nevermind. That's just the way that it appears to any observer beyond the event horizon. My mistake.

Why? There are many examples of systems that aren't in equilibrium.

The universe has increasing entropy because all systems, of which the universe can be viewed as one, tend to keep their entropy the same or increase it. I don't understand what your question is supposed to mean. Do you know what an "irreversible process" is? Or what entropy measures? Why it has the units it does?

I applaud your efforts. Learning is always amazing. But you might want to take the advice of other posters here. You have chosen to tackle a problem that many theoretical physicists, with decades of experience, couldn't solve. Read Dr.Rocket's post above. And also read up on Lorentzian Transformations. What Dr.Rocket was saying is that once you start to plug in superluminal (faster than light) speeds into some of the transformation equations present in Special Relativity, you get weird things like imaginary mass, or even violations of causality. Both of these events are bad from a mathematical perspective. They cannot be solved by an equation like the one you have shown. But it is good that you are even thinking about the neutrino experiment. I don't really think there are basic laws of physics, per se. Einstein's equations reduce to newtonian mechanics when [math]v<<c[/math]. If superluminal information transfer is possible (a highly unlikely if), then we would need to work out a new set of laws that could handle these type of speeds and that would also work in EVERY instance that Einstein's relativity works in. Make sense?

I use my Blu-ray to watch HD movies and I use my 360 to stream Netflix. I don't understand what you mean by "wtf is going on with Blu-ray". Am I missing something?

...how does the mark of the beast, which is one of the MOST unambiguous concepts in Revelation, have anything to do with current economics?

That awkward moment when you're in class and burst out into laughter halfway into a lecture on Laplace transforms.

Why? What compels you to believe in these particles?

I can post wherever I damn well please. How am I supposed to talk about a topic that is intrinsically flawed? You need to learn how to properly phrase your posts so that it's actually a discussion, and not just you bitching about whatever trivial "proof" you have now constructed that generations of philosophers and theologians have somehow missed. Name my fallacies. Do it. You said I used fallacies. Name them or retract that statement.

Name them. I simply pointed out that your premise only works if God isn't real and we define this imaginary God according to your terms. That's wholly irrational.

This is only true if you abide by your narrow, strict, and wholly unorthodox view of what a God-like entity would be. You are using circular reasoning to support your own beliefs. This is a fallacy. This logic only works if we all agree that God is an imaginary concept. If there is some higher deity that transcends humanity's understanding, then it would be perfectly capable of existing without us. I challenge you to refute that statement. Again. An assertion that you can't prove is true.

I don't know about that... What I do know is how pretty you are, Mooey!

Why the harsh undertones? iNow simply answered your post with a likely suggestion of bias. He then proceeded to tell you how to confirm if a sex bias REALLY DID exist. He covered both bases while being polite and cordial.

...this thread makes me happy.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, CaptainPanic. But isn't it this kind of thinking that make women's rights groups upset? Saying that men are stronger and more capable? That women can't do things that men can do? To me, a draft seems like a step forward in true equality. Is it practical? I don't think so. Is it equal? Yes.

QFT

I believe in God. I think you're full of crap. I doubt the infinite, omnipotent, omniscient creator of the universe would allow himself to be offended by a lowly human. The God I know wants EVERYONE to know him and love him. This is how it is with most monotheistic Gods. I think spreading the proof of his existence would only serve him. Which makes it all the more suspicious that you would even DARE say anything about even being able to prove he exists. Aren't you afraid of some divine wrath? You shouldn't have brought it up on the first place, then. You mean like heart conditions, genetic disorders, people born with handicaps and such? You're right. It's so amazing none of that exists. We are clearly the product of a PERFECT design. Nothing ever goes wrong with us! Try harder.

What you say makes sense. But how does that support Greatest I Am's original premise? He says that God have up the right to punish along with dominion (we'll use your definition of dominion in this context). Can the General not discipline an individual soldier if he sees the need to?

Apparently neither can you. If something dropped by 3% every day, the cumulative drop would not be 21%. The first drop would be 3% of the initial total. The second drop would be 3% of the previous total (the total that was already subtracted by 3% of its initial value). It worries me you neglected such elementary mathematics, yet preach about complex market analysis.

It's of the theory. GR is not refined enough to handle the appearance of a singularity. As DrRocket said, the theory falls apart.

I think that Phi for All meant that we shouldn't, as a society, encourage groups to STFU if they believe they have a worthy cause, and are proceeding in a legal and peaceful manner. Yes, they need to focus on clarity, but they shouldn't be discouraged just because they are poorly organized at this point.

Go crazy.

No need to refute it. I have shown that it is broken. If A has dominion over X, and B has dominion over A, then B has dominion over X as well. It is not my fault if you cannot follow such elementary logic.

The store manager at the company I work for has dominion over the entire store and all of its employees. But the district manager has dominion over him, and in turn, over all the things the store manager has dominion of. Your premise is broken. The rest of your post is irrelevant. Try again.

I'm also thinking along the lines of supersaturation. I think that fits.