Kyrisch

That's not impossible. It's just not an attainable circumstance given present technology. Let me stress again that you're asking a question concerning the nature of relativity with an added assumption that violates relativity. No one knows how wormholes really work, if they even exist. The signal could even arrive before it was sent, as ajb pointed out. But it could... Velocity transformation is a calculable phenomenon within the maths of relativity.

You know this didn't actually happen, right? It's a chain letter. It's hilarious regardless but I'm just making sure you're not one of the people who believes that this was an actual question on an exam and all that.

Sound does travel in a straight line, but in straight lines in all directions out from the source. The real picture of the propagation of the wave would actually be a sphere around the source of the sound. The sound isn't traveling in a sphere or circle, it is traveling in straight lines from the source outward, creating the emergent spherical shape.

Your question is not answerable because the scenario is impossible. Nothing can be transported instantaneously. The only relativistic effects that would occur can only occur if the phone signal traveled at its proper speed.

Your P.S. invalidates the question. The whole point is that the phone signal can only travel at the speed of light. You're asking a question regarding relativity with an assumption that breaks the main tenet of relativity.

It's kind of like SATOR AREPO TENET OPERA ROTAS... SATOR AREPO TENET OPERA ROTAS Only with numbers...

Enter the p-zombie! The philosophical zombie is a thought experiment. What if a being existed that was physically and qualitatively identical to a human, but did not have conscious experience or emotion? For instance, if you poked it with something sharp it would recoil and say "ow" but not really feel any pain. Is this possible? I don't think so. Even though the zombie is just that, the fact that it recoils and says ow constitutes it feeling pain. A robot can exhibit emotion in this same way.

You've started an ethics debate. Don't expect to capture this train wreck >.<

If he correctly identifies it, he will be able to care for it and it will become a sort of mutualistic thing. Pets aren't entirely selfish.

What empirical evidence do you have that six is the "perfect" number?

The same diversity exists in the insect world, if not more. Mammalian diversity is not as unique as you perceive it to be.

I thought recent experimentation showed that the universe was expanding at an accelerating rate.

Finally got Back n' Forth! http://FantasticContraption.com/?designId=388091

Ugh. You're right. I'm used to being able to copy and paste URLs. Try this one... http://FantasticContraption.com/?designId=331330

I made a surprisingly simple "Handling". I think it was one of my better ones... http://FantasticContraption.com/?designId=329049 Oh and I can't get over how cool my Big Ball is. The idea came to me by complete accident... http://FantasticContraption.com/?designId=348931 Oh and can I get the award for the most needlessly complex? I used a gigantic suspended conveyor for Four Balls... http://FantasticContraption.com/?designId=348539 And for some reason I'm a big fan of giant writhing chains. I used a design similar to this for Down Under, too. This is Unpossible... http://FantasticContraption.com/?designId=334807

Why are you guys so hung up about the God? He's actually asking a physics question that is completely answerable. Yes, once the mass that is being "lifted" is greater than the mass upon which one is standing, the "ground" would move more than the object that is being lifted. The object, however, will move, just not nearly as much as the planet. Because of this, I think as long as the lifted object moves it is considered lifting, and both objects will move (at least infinitessimal amounts) even if one is nearly massless or extremely massive.

I've heard over and over the distinction that science deals in the "how"s and philosophy/religion deals in the "why"s. But, essentially, these two words mean the same thing. Why? -- for what reason, cause, or purpose? How? -- by what means? Few people grasp the fact that purpose and reason to something do not always have to do with a higher power. Why do things fall? Why is the sky blue? Why does light refract? These are all questions that can be answered scientifically and which can be phrased equally using the two words "why" and "how". As such, since philosophy does mainly focus on "why", and science focuses mainly on "how", and since it has been shown that sometimes these two usages overlap, it can be said that while philosophy may not be the core driving principle of science, it is definitely related. I believe that philosophers evolved into scientists over time, and philosophy evolved into the scientific method.

While this may be true, [math]i[/math] can be defined as [math]i^2=-1[/math]. [math]0.\bar 95[/math] can't really be defined as anything. And, as I said before, how can you compare it to [math]0.\bar 9[/math]? Is [math]0.\bar 9[/math] really bigger than [math]0.\bar 95[/math]? They should both have the same number of 9's (an infinite amount). Given that, it can be construed that [math]0.\bar 95[/math] is in fact greater. But then, if there is a place to put the 5, then there must be a place to put another 9, in which case it can be construed that [math]0.\bar 95[/math] is in fact smaller than [math]0.\bar 9[/math] by a factor of [math]0.\bar 04[/math]. So, even if the number [math]0.\bar 95[/math] existed, it cannot be evaluated as either greater than or less than [math]0.\bar 9[/math], which, I believe, was the original point of you bringing it up.

[math]0.\bar 95[/math] is meaningless. Since it is meaningless, it cannot be compared to [math]0.\bar 9[/math], an actual, rational number and evaluated as either greater or less than.

Well, complementarity is the notion that particles must either exhibit particle properties or wave properties, but never simulataneously. The observation that waves can be affected by gravity while still maintaining wave properties (since gravitational force only exists between two objects with mass, a particle property) violates that notion.

Okay, I'm following... Any reference point wouldn't change position, it would only oscillate with the shape just as a buoy rises up and over a wave. The buoy never changes displacement in the direction of motion of the wave. Actually, the way I see it, the torus would oscillate such that any cross section would be eccentric to some degree and would only be circular at equilibrium. I dunno if any of this would work because a sphere encompasses an infinite amount of zero-dimensional points, not near-infinite. Would what you proprosed still work? You were talking about probability, that at any one time it is, say, 25% likely that a point will "stray", so in total, 25% of the enclosed points, at any one time, will be "straying". But what is 25% of infinity?

That's true... retrograde amnesia would bias his account of it. Did you feel dazed at all?

And that's the time when you would want to avoid them most.

Waves aren't really anything in an of themselves. I really conceptualise them as manifestations of energy. Not as though they were a type of energy, (kinetic, gravitational), but rather their manifestation in contact with matter. They aren't really much else.

That's actually not the case... [math]0.\overline{9}[/math] is actually equal to 1. There are plenty of proofs for this.