Kyrisch

Well the actual math is [math]T = T_0 \sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}[/math] where [math]T_0[/math] is the time that passes in the relative rest frame, T is the time the moving object experiences, and v is its velocity.

Say this circle is a merry-go-round. You are on the edge, spinning at relativistic speed, and you are trying to measure the circumference with a ruler (the circle is large enough that this isn't completely foolish). The ruler would contract, and therefore more ruler lengths would fit around the outside. You would measure the ratio to be larger than pi. Maybe this is a question of reference frames, though. In a rest frame, the circumference would contract. No such specification was made in the original post, however.

If you spin it at relativistic speeds, the circumference (and thus the ratio) increases.

Well yes, but it was a simplification. I guess I should have said "if only one in every million was a winner..." Regardless, he understands now so it did its job.

Well, a one in a million chance event happens, on average, once every million times. If a lottery sells a million tickets and only one is a winner, that's a one in a million chance. However, there are three hundred million people in America; therefore, if the lottery sold three million tickets and one in every million was a winner, there would be three hundred winners.

Look, [math]\pi=3.1415927...[/math]. However, given the constraint that the smallest length possible is the Planck Length, then a significantly small circle may have a circumference-to-diameter of nearly 3.0. Pi is defined as that ratio in constraint-less space; thus, even though you can theoretically construct a "circle" whose ratio is nearly 3.0, this does not change the value of the constant, pi.

That's close, except it follows vector maths, not scalar maths. Vector sums work differently.

-facepalm- Moment of inertia ...is NOT an instant in time. Edit: insane you beat me to it xP

You want a direct question? How does binary code travel faster than the speed of light? WTF does that even mean? And also it is so obvious that you don't know the slightest thing about physics because you keep referring to a moment of inertia as if it were an actual instant in time >.<

But in order to understand it, you have to tie it to something that you already know. Otherwise it would not be able to be processed at all. It's like asking the question of whether you can fathom something that is truly unfathomable. The answer is no.

Often frequenting Christian forums to see what progress the Evolution versus Creation front has made (not really all that expectantly) I am quite tired of hearing this. Social Darwinism is NOT evolution. Please refer to my last post; Darwinism and the Theory of Evolution are QUITE distinct entities. The first is an ideology, the second is a scientific theory. The first relies on rhetoric and concepts, the second on data and predictions. You must not conflate the two or ignore this key distinction.

>.< Darwin, in attempting to describe his secular theory to a religious public, used a story. However, his theory (which is the only thing that matters in the scientific community) is no more rhetoric than that or gravity or relativity.

Would it be safe to attempt to print money on something you know is tracking such print jobs?

As most every Englishman of the time period would have been raised in Christianity, there is no doubt that his upbringing, as everyone's inevitably does, affected his interpretation of the fact somewhat. However, modern evolution is not "Darwinism". We have genetics; we have so much that Darwin did not have and it all points to his theory. It was his theory, and he was Christian, but the theory is not Christian. The theory is effectively agnostic, having no say on where the first form of life came from, just how that first form diversified into what we see today.

The existence of force is not dependent on acceleration, rather one can calculate the force exerted on a body by multiplying its mass by the amount it is being accelerated. Since an object will accelerate at g in free fall, in order to keep the object at rest an opposing force equal in magnitude to act upon it. If it would otherwise accelerate at g, then the force acting upon it is mg. If it is at rest, an opposing force of mg is being applied. Therefore, knowing the weight (one definition of which is the force required to keep the object at rest in a gravitational field), one can calculate the mass. Yes, the object is obviously undergoing an acceleration of zero magnitude, that's what being in equilibrium (no net forces acting upon it) MEANS. If it were accelerating, the scale would give a false reading.

Wow. How long ago did I even start this? Anyway... The riddle. You did all the legwork, just go back and look at the riddle. Think about it -- the census taker knows both the product and the sum of the daughter's ages, and he still says he does not have enough information. It follows that the sum is 13 because that is the only sum that is repeated. Then the mathematician makes a reference to his eldest, indicating that, like you said, 1,6,6 is not valid, leaving 2,2,9.

No. Precisely because it is not perfect. The only reason Maxwell's demon was a paradox because he introduced said supernatural demon. It was later resolved with the conclusion that whatever sorts the particles itself would balance the entropy, i.e. the "demon" would introduce more entropy judging the temperature and then opening the door than the entropy lost by the system of particles by itself.

Well in a way we have evolved natural coverings. The only reason we use "artificial" coverings is because we are intelligent enough to recognise and utilise the benefit. Seeing as our intelligence is evolved, the argument could be made that any consequence would also, technically, be.

I want a vorpal sword. Whatever it is xP

That limit is just a definition of the derivative. It's really only useful in actually solving for the derivative algebraically with polynomial functions. With most others, you end up with indeterminate forms.

Out of curiosity, what makes spider silk so strong?

Well, given certain restraints like "the number cannot be negative", which is feasible in many real-world scenarios (number of siblings, number of cars, and other "survey questions") it can be done. Say the average is 8 of ten samples. Since the numbers have to be positive, the minimum is automatically zero. So, we have the equation [math]\frac{0 +0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+x}{10}=8[/math] or [math]\frac{x}{10}=8[/math]. The maximum would then be 80.

If someone holding a light clock accelerates to a significant percentage of c, an observer in a relative rest frame will see the clock (and indeed time itself) moving more slowly for the person traveling at the velocity.

Skin wrinkling is caused by oils on the skin that make it waterproof slowly being washed off by immersion in water until there is so little, the skin is no longer waterproof and the cells absorb the water, thereby swelling and convoluting the skin. I'm pretty sure the wrinkling would disappear at relatively the same rate on a dead body as a live body, since that is just osmosis which can occur even in dead cells (indeed, the outermost layer of skin is dead cells). The formation, too, should be at a relatively similar rate because it only has to do with the washing away of the sebum (oil) and has very little to do with biological processes.

Ludicrous Speed capabilities!