Sayonara

The spelling nazi will still get you.

Right, the beams of light meet at that point because the speed of light is constant in all inertial frames. But is that necessarily what you see as an observer (assuming you can perceive the collision, of course)? I think I might have confused myself on this one. Damn you Einstein.

I think I understand your setup. What makes you think the answer is yes?

As I understand it, under those conditions the answer is no. However there is the small issue of observers in different reference frames seeing a different point of collision than the one you see. And you'd both be "right". Is this video essentially describing your scenario? http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=wteiuxyqtoM

I think that your own velocity will also make a difference, so it might be that there is not enough information in the question for a simple answer.

When posting a link to a thread in another thread on the site, do not paste the URL. Instead, use the xxxx[/i]] tag. For example, to link to this thread you would do this: A link to this thread Resulting in: A link to this thread Alternatively, if you want the link text to be the same as the thread URL, simply do this: [thread]37063 Resulting in: [thread]37063[/thread] The reason for this is that when the site is reorganised or moved, any small change to the directory structure can break absolute URLs. This has happened a few times in SFN's history and as a result the site is littered with broken links to our own content! If you want to link to a specific post, for the same reasons as above you should use the xxxx[/i]] tag. For example: Sayo's post #1 Resulting in: Sayo's post #1

But any photon which touches the eye, having previously not been touching the eye, must have travelled in order to get to the eye. The alternative is that as you walk around (or indeed stay still) your eye collides with stationary photons which somehow relay information about your surroundings, despite not physically interacting with them. I don't think that the conclusion "photons do not travel" can be supported by the observation "a photon leaving A might not be the same photon which reaches your eye".

And his siblings. The parents are going for the whole Nazi Action Playset theme.

It does occur that you could have a new idea which provides an old prediction.

Do you understand what the term "frame of reference" means in physics?

That rather depends on which frame of reference you are considering, so you need to specify it.

You used appalling grammar.

You don't need to cite sources for everything you say, but if you are a "serious scientist" then you ought to already be in the habit of referencing for claims of flat fact, particularly extraordinary claims (as in, extraordinary to everyone else, not to you), or those which radically affect the discussion. Persistently making unsupported claims and throwing a hissy fit when you are asked for sources is a breach of the rules on two counts, and if you really have a lot to contribute to this forum then it would be a shame for you to tot up infraction points and be automatically banned for something so simple and easily-fixed as a repeated failure to provide references.

Yup. When scientists decide to make a monster they usually get it spot on.

Pioneer, you have written five paragraphs without even touching on the OP's question of how scientific theories are produced and advanced. What you have written may make sense to you, but in the context of this thread it is plainly gibberish. Carry on derailing this thread in that fashion and you will receive a spam infraction.

But your question is flawed. As to, I think, is your understanding of what a sacred cow is. Unless you perceive the lack of a true or false response to mean that the subject is somehow unquestionable. If so, that is not the case - the only problem here is that you demand an answer for an ill-considered question. Perhaps using the answers given in the thread you can reformulate your query into a form which people will be able to discuss more easily?

I don't see how your lab can be safe from Cylon interlopers.

Is this what you had in mind? http://store.quantummechanix.com/How-To-Spot-a-Cylon-Poster_p_2-20.html

Common forum acronyms.

If you object to posts you are much better off using the "report post" function (exclamation point icon) to bring it to our attention. Reported posts are checked regularly.

You too. Cite a source.

Such as? Put your money where your mouth is and give a solid example.

By who? Cite a source.

Thank you Lance for your gracious acknowledgement of the error. We have finally avoided one of those protracted arguments!

It's about intercourse, isn't it?