StringJunky

Why is it not 90% the SOL from either frame because I thought the SOL was same for all inertial observers? Obviously I'm missing something. Edit. Just realised that they are NOT travelling at the SOL. Duh!

You got it the wrong way round, it's convex because the mercury is not preferentially attracted to other surfaces. The meniscus doesn't 'climb up' a container. If it it did the mercury would 'wet' your fingers.

Evolution is change in allele frequency, so it seems logical that the factor that causes the change is the driving force i.e. mutation.

My Profile > Edit My Profile (Top right) > Profile Settings (Left) > Scroll down to Profile Information > Edit My About Me Page

In this Wiki about the present Archbishop, Rowan Williams, evolution has apparently been seen as compatible with the Church of England since Frederick Temple who was Archbishop 1896-1902. So it only took about 30 years for the C. of E. to accept the idea of evolution since the publication of Darwin's book. Quite adaptable and pragmatic really.

Best of luck to you both seeing as there seems to be a strong element of it.

Are the choir the best people to ask?

Yes, probably the adolescent demographic that have had no assertive external religious influences from very young.

The compound was mercury nitrate. The wearers were at risk as well, particularly if they habitually wore them.

Try Downloading FF again > uninstalling the old FF > Reboot > Install new FF. A lot of the time, reinstalling a new version is quicker than trying to fix the problem. I installed FF to check for you (I use Opera), your picture is there and that is on default settings so I think there is a quirk somewhere in your current version.

Elemental mercury doesn't stick to your skin and stays as a single deformable bead as it rolls around in your hand. I punctured one of my mercury hearing batteries with a nail as a kid and got a bit out; maybe 2mm in diameter. As far as I understand it's the mercury compounds that are really hazardous because they are more easily absorbed although elemental mercury is toxic if it gets in your body ...it's natural repellent nature doesn't facilitate absorption through the skin though. I definitely wouldn't handle it directly as matter of habit though because it is a serious cumulative toxin if it gets inside you and there's no point in inviting risk.

I think the reason more people in the US are killed by policeman versus European countries is because there is no public right to bear arms in the countries mentioned therefore, it seems to me, the police don't have to default to a lethal stance so quickly as they do in the US.

Seizures triggered by blinking in a non-photosensitive epileptic Abstract An epileptic girl with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome had seizures triggered specifically by blinking, but not by other eye movements or by photic stimulation. Electrographic and clinical seizures were most reliably precipitated by repetitive blinking produced voluntarily on command, by reflex blinking on corneal stimulation, or by psychogenic triggers of blinking such as social stress or cognitive effort. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1028775/

By your logic then: a brick and a feather free-falling in a vacuum would fall at different rates because the Earth is pulling more on the brick than the feather, which is not correct. The gases with a higher molecular weight than helium push the helium atoms out of the way and assume a lower position.

Das mechanical keyboards. Not cheap though. http://www.daskeyboard.com/products/index.php?filter=.keyboard

I think she's confused about you using length and distance apparently as two different things.

We had this discussion a few years ago and the consensus was to keep it.

It might not* cause it to tick but it does determine the rate at which the clock ticks either via gravitational field strength or relative velocity.or both together. *On the other hand if there was no time there would be no 'tick'.

I can attest your grace in defeat.

Naegleria fowleri /nəˈɡlɪəriə/ (also known as the "brain-eating amoeba") is a free-living, thermophilic excavate form of protist typically found in warm bodies of fresh water, such as ponds, lakes, rivers, and hot springs. It is also found in soil, near warm-water discharges of industrial plants, and in poorly chlorinated, or unchlorinated swimming pools, in an amoeboid or temporary flagellate stage. There is no evidence of this organism living in salt water. It is an amoeba belonging to the phylum Percolozoa. N. fowleri can invade and attack the human nervous system and brain, causing primary amoebic meningoencephalitis (PAM). Although this occurs rarely,[1] such an infection nearly always results in the death of the victim.[2] The case fatality rate is greater than 95%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naegleria_fowleri

Yes, we need something that changes regularly to measure time but it doesn't define time because it doesn't encompass all possible states like when a subject is doing nothing. Time is still passing for the subject even though it's apparently inactive, so you see, something changing is not sufficient. The real problem is trying to analyse and thus over-complicate something that is nothing more than a simple parameter.

To expand on what John said: I think truths are axioms that can be defined as consensually-agreed assumptions. These are the roots of any train of logic but are by their nature unprovable because they so fundamental. Because axioms are only assumptions the ‘truth’can only ever really be arbitrary i.e. we decide and agree what are the foundational pillars of our collective world.view. We use those truths until they go wrong and adjust them accordingly. In science and other logical endeavours I think 'truths' are evolving logical anchor-points that we use in our pursuit towards an accurate description of the world around us.

I've half a mind to start a thread on the ontology of length.

Change shows that time has passed but it is not time itself; time passes in the absence of change. We need a clock to measure it - which is something that changes - but it is not a necessary condition that the thing under observation also needs to change for time to be occurring. Time is happening everywhere where there is space because time - as per Relativity - is inextricably bound with it.

It's too strong for the scenario given.