Kyrisch

[math] A = !A[/math] is a pretty standard logical paradox (A equals not-A).

In order to harness the energy of expansion, you would have to exert some pressure on it (for it to work against, in a way) -- in fact, just enough so that the freezing point depresses below the temperature you are using. If you try to put even more pressure on it, the temperature will increase (due to PV=nRT) thereby further preventing it from ever reaching that freezing point.

To write about these lovely poems, the Haiku, is very good and well But to write about a haiku within the bounds of another, gah! That way madness lies! And to write about writing A haiku within The bounds thereof! -- I must stop before it's too late -- Infinite regress!

I understand that you are attempting to solve the problem in a way that does not invoke a God, etcetera, but while your OP argues for a scientific perspective, you continue to address the fact that our universe has the "exact constants for life to arise" as "bizaar [sic]"; my argument is that life is not special in any truly quantifiable way besides complexity, and should demand no special attention. The first self-replicating molecule was not nearly as complex as the spiral galaxies of the universe, and imperfect replication is an extremely efficient way to create complexity, so what we're really arguing is the ability for abiogenesis to occur in the first place, and for that simple molecule to survive long enough to replicate once or twice. If we look at the complexity of a spiral galaxy versus the complexity of a lipid bubble, I'd think that the galaxy would garner more attention.

I still don't see the need to posit anything at all. You're working under three assumptions that I don't think hold any water at all: 1) that life as we know it is somehow special and its existence in our universe is something that needs to be explained more than the existence of anything else, 2) that life as we know it could not have come about under any other constants, and 3) that life as we do not know it cannot come about under any other constants or is somehow intrinsically less important. If you drop those assumptions, then the whole "universal constants seem perfect for our kind of life to arise" argument seems both pointless and silly. The constants are also perfect for galaxies to from spiral shapes, but no one really looks at that twice because they just deem it an emergent property of the force of gravity. Why can't we view our life in those simple terms, as well? And who knows what would happen if the constants were different; to imagine something is definitely beyond us and beyond our computing power right now, so to claim anything of that is similarly ludicrous.

Yes, but what you are trying to offer is unnecessary because the Anthropic Principle already addresses the problem. It's the same problem with trying to stick a supernatural God into processes such as evolution; it simply is unneeded and works consistently and coherently without such an injection, so, due to the principle of parsimony, should not be included.

That's the force necessary to cause an object to accelerate at a given rate. 'The energy required to accelerate something' is also misleading. The energy required to accelerate something up to a given velocity [math]v[/math] is [math]\frac{1}{2}mv^2[/math], or the energy required to move an object a distance [math]d[/math] while accelerating at a rate [math]a[/math] is [math]ma\cdot d[/math].

He's mostly referring to undiscovered species, and species which we do not keep active tabs on. As such, your challenge to 'name ten' isn't really relevant, because just because we don't intimately recognise each and every extinction, estimates of biodiversity on the planet yield that high of an extinction rate.

Au contraire, monsieur, time dilation has been extensively documented. In fact, the sheer amount of muons (particles with extremely short half-lives) that reach the Earth's surface that would have otherwise decayed in transit is testament to that very principle. ~EDIT~ Bleh... Cross-posted. I was responding to this, for the record. Klaynos did a much better job, anyway, though. xP

On second glance, I guess it can indeed be taken either way. Part of it just sounded like the government's response to terrorist attacks, which really pisses me off, and I guess it's making fun of that in and of itself.

That doesn't make much sense... If it's moving at a constant speed (0.25 m/sec) there would be no net force acting on it at all. If you meant 0.25 m/sec^2, the question still doesn't make sense phrased as it was. 2 Newtons of force, however, is required to accelerate an 8 kg object at 0.25 m/sec^2 (F = ma).

BA, that sounds like a badly veiled attack on liberalism, and on this forum politics is not something you want to bring up unless you're ready for the repercussions...

y = arcsine x Arcsine has a restricted domain, however, as a boundless domain would cause the function to fail the vertical line test.

Except that was multiple centuries ago... Would the same thing be tolerated in this day and age in Massachusetts? Therein lies the problem with this happening as we speak in Nigeria.

Youtube videos are not proof. I mean, really. This a forum of science and you expect to get away with such an outrageous claim based on a handful of youtube videos documented some random guy's story?!. You're really not in Kansas anymore, and you need to realise that or else there will be moderator action against you.

Yeah, the effect exists. It's like the Coriolis "Force" which causes the air to eddy because of the rotation of the earth. It's just not a force.

Exactly, it's no better than the 'experiments' done to prove the effect of telepathy real. When there are results, they're marginally above chance, and never able to be consistently replicated.

Is it some multiple answer test or something? In the broadest sense, all of them could be physically meaningful in the same way complex math is actually used to describe many physical phenomena and consists of a real and imaginary part, comparable to a sum of two different quantities.

Because the question talks about whether or not the expressions could be physically meaningful, I think the B=0 case does not exclude 2 as a correct answer. 1, 2, and 3 can all represent physical quantities, while 4 and 5 cannot.

False. You forgot Q5. Is there enough of the nuclear by-product to imply that a nuclear reaction is taking place? A. NO. Conclusion: There probably isn't anything out of the ordinary going on. In fact, Pons and Fleishmann never formally measured neutron "emission" greater than background levels.

It is completely invisible. And pink.

I think the branching universe hypothesis takes care of this one, but it's not like we have any evidence for or against it.

Why, then, are the first and second moments considered moments? Moment of inertia, as many understand it, can just be called inertia and refers to an intrinsic property of a specific geometric distribution of mass about a specific axis.

So I learned in physics what the first (mass) and second (inertial) moments are, but I am lost in what the actual concept of a moment is, devoid of the qualifiers. What is a moment?

That is because the system will attempt to achieve its lowest energy state and then stay there. In other words, "perpetual generation" is impossible, and you've been scammed.