Sayonara

For windows update.

So the big question we all want answering is "is it still a circle?"

I'm not sure he wrote what he meant to say.

Well I am guessing the way around that is that the disc distorts (perhaps adopts non-euclidean geometry), but then it's not a circle.

You really are stupid sometimes. What has that got to do with anything?

I simply wanted you to explain your argument in a clearer and more comprehensive fashion, but since you seem to want to just have any old argument I couldn't care less. Given that the radius of a circle is the distance between a point on the circumference and the center, if the circumference increases due to relativistic effects I don't see how the radius can stay the same, even if those rel. effects do not apply to it. Surely it increases simply because the circumference does?

No, I did not say that it was an illusion. The crazy in your head speaks for you, not me.

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=2963

Seeing as SP2 was an "oh god, people want secure systems now!" rush job, I doubt it.

It depends what version of XP you have. Make a partition on your hard drive, install your version of winXP on it, and then install the service pack. Then watch the results. The thing about it "stopping programs working" was alarmist rubbish that got spread around by the usual idiots (it was actually just default blocking of some ports by the new version of the XP firewall, that's all). Read the Microsoft pages for a description of what actually happens, why, and how to fix it.

It's a very handy toolbar with a load of super tools on it. In Firefox go to Tools > Extensions > Get More Extensions It ought to be in the "top extensions" bit.

We pronounce the J as an H anyway, so I don't see that it matters. I understand what you mean, I am saying that it only applies because you said it applies. It's not necessarily so. M.C. Escher, for instance, would definitely disagree that logic is a prerequisite for constructs of the imagination. In the flight example there is no logical link between animals and flight, which is where it falls down. "A bird is a flying animal, I am an animal, therefore I can fly" is an instance of the Composition fallacy. There doesn't even have to be flapping involved tbh.

In that case I retract post #31

Make sure you reg on the forums for speedy support

http://www.uh-hosting.co.uk

Ah, I just found this:

Qwi Xux? If memory serves it was Bevel Lemelisk. Remember the whole sequence where he keeps getting killed and cloned for failing to complete the designs he's asked for?

I did consider that, but it still didn't make as much sense as the "typo of education" theory. Reading it all again (twice) I think he meant to say that Mexico could not be considered part of the "all" that atinymonkey mentioned.

I like the way that right-clicking on the page gives me a copyright notice, and viewing the HTML source tells me that it's protected and my IP is being logged. Not that that's anything to do with the theory of course. It just amused me.

No, it's only the same under those specific circumstances. What I wanted from Yourdad was an explanation of why in terms of relativity (as you just provided), since otherwise there would be no reason why I could not just provide an image of a circle as distorted by a laterally convex mirror and make the same claims. Although I appreciate the response (god knows I can't expect one from yourdad), I don't need you to reinterpret what I said for me.

Well then I guess it's a good job I didn't say that, now isn't it?

Even then I'm not 100% convinced. I mean (this is nothing to do with wormholes btw), what happens when a universe ends? In the closed multiverse model all the energy it ever contained has to be preserved somehow.

Or just ride the cow. RIDE THE COW GIR.

Too late - I already deleted the post because I saw that I had read Yourdad's out of context. Personally I don't see any reason why if one universe can form, no others should.