blike

This movie skewed things so much it wasn't even funny. He cut and sliced film so much the whole thing became a farce.

Bahahaha, "abuse". RE called it. Anyhow, physical discipline IS necessary at an early age. Since you grew up as an only child, and I doubt you've spent much time at daycare centers, your view of children misbehaving is pretty skewed. Children sometimes simply DO NOT LISTEN. You can tell them to go to timeout, and they say no. Like RE said, most kids can't grasp the concept of something being "wrong" at a very early age. The only way to get through is through negative physical stimulus. Once they're around four, spankings won't really be necessary anymore.

Seeing as how next wednesday is "National Spank-out Day", I thought it'd be interesting to hear your opinions on spanking children. Yea, I'm stretching it putting it here in "psychology", but I wanted it to be on the active topics list, and it does have to do with behavior enforcement

Not to bring up a long dead topic or anything, but that flag picture was real. There are other pics.. http://www.snopes.com/photos/azflag.asp

I still have my astrocam rocket Got a camera mounted to the side that snaps a shot when the parachute is blown out. My first astrocam got lost in a tractor field and I never got the film back

If you're only in junior high, theres not much to do. Work on developing good study habits. In highschool, work hard and try to get yourself into a good school, though its not the end of the world if you don't. Right now just research what its like to be a doctor, and be sure thats what you want to do.

The problem is getting there without having to go through C

.

He's got your haircut though.

I'd want to be knocked out for a week straight while my body withdrew what exactly are you asking for? "my" universal solution? if its universal, wouldn't it be everyone's? = misunderstanding something

Haha, I don't know. Most girls just don't seem interested in this kind of stuff (at least the ones I know). And yes, we're bottoming out with active users right now But hey, looking at the post trends they come in waves. We just happen to be riding in between them now. Anyhow, I don't think inviting my girl friends to post would do much good. just not their thing

brb, need to laugh. last night you were arguing 'Since space-time cannot be separated, your q and V vectors are meaningless. Just because a book says something doesn't make it true... don't forget that not all math people show is correct. Think back to the people who came here proposed GUTs." you were saying that my vectors were meaningless, etc etc (which proved the exact same thing; magnitude of v^2=c^2). So I showed ANOTHER mathmatical model for it. Now you claim thats what you've been saying all along. I highly doubt you believed that |u|=c, otherwise you would have said it earlier on because thats exactly what I've been saying. Yet you claim "Wow, you really have no idea whatsoever what you're doing." nice job trying to reduce this argument to a simple wordgame. admit defeat and move on.

Haha, gotcha.

These are the actual names of them??

Yet another source to add to my library of sources confirming magnitude of 4-vector motion is always C. Special Relativity Page 35-36. Here's a good excerpt: "Thus |u| = c in all frames. This trivial "proof" is a good model for problem-sovling in special relativity: identify something which is frame-independant, transform into a frame in which it is easy to calculate, and calculate it. The answer will be good for all frames. The reader may find this a little strange. Some particles move quickly, some slowly, but for all particles, the magnitude of the 4-velocity is c. But this is not strange, because we need the magnitude to be a scalar, the same in all frames. If I change frames, some of the particles that were moving quickly before now move slowly, and some of them are stopped altogether. Speeds (magnitudes of 3-velocities) are relative; the magnitude of the 4-velocity has to be invariant".

/me misread your post :\

I used to be huge into estes rockets. I remember my first d-class double-stage rocket. Took me forever to build, then I lost it after the first launch.

i think he was just pointing out the origin

Right, thats on the xyz coords. The motion through time makes up for the rest of the speed. must.stop.going.in.circles

Yea, you mentioned in another thread that if you were to go back in time, an alternate universe would branch off. I wonder if there would ever be any mathmatical way to figure all this stuff out, or if it will always be pure speculation.

I'm not misinterpreting, trust me, thats the first thing I suspect. I've had like 15 people that I've emailed respond affirming this. I've read books that explain it in laymans terms. I've plugged through books that explain it mathematically. I provide you a model (and yet another from an Oxford professor) and the best you say is that "space and time cannot be separated"?? (which if they were separated, time would not even be included in the vector). Seriously this stuff is in the first chapters of books explaining relativity. Don't be so foolish to believe that I would seriously contradict you without triple checking everything. Again, my challenges stand. Until then my only recommendation is that you read up a little. I can sit here and say with a straight face that you are wrong.

q and V vectors must be separated from time because they can be handled in a classical manner and time cannot [hence einstein, relativity, and this discussion]. If you would like them to be handled the same, I hope you would enjoy living in a newtonian universe! This is so fundamental to special relativity I don't see how someone can claim to fully understand the implications and yet ignore the very thing einstein was pointing out. This is not "one book" that I've scoured through. Every physics book dealing with relativistic kinematics will agree, I guarantee it. This is out of einstein's notes, its not something some lone author pulled out of the air. I challenge you to find me a legit source that will say otherwise. I also challenge you to provide a mathematical model to find velocity in 4vector coordinates which will work for all observers regardless of their graviational field or velocity and does not apply any special relativistic principles to time [hint, ds/dt won't work].

Eh, no one is separating space and time. They are interwoven, hence the reason for all that math. If space and time were seperate, then time NOT be relative and this whole discussion wouldn't be taking place. Where did I say einstein said we exist outside of spacetime?

You're right, I havn't taken physics one. I should assume this makes it all the more embarassing for you.

Haha, its ok to disagree