Rasori

Are these conditions too technical to explain to me, or did you just not care to?

So are the virtual photons unrelated to the photons used in light, or are they one and the same?

All very interesting and useful remarks, I thank you. I especially caught on to Jakiri's comment, however, of: This might be a little off-topic, but I don't entirely understand the concept of photons being used as the exchange particle. Could someone explain what exchange particle is technically meaning?

Interesting. So the magnetism in an electromagnet isn't related to the electromagnetic spectrum? I had assumed it was, but now I'm uncertain. And thank you for that good point about TV, Ophiolite.

I think this belongs in one of the mechanics threads, and I'm pretty sure it fits here, but feel free to move it. Anyways, I know that things like radio waves, light, and microwaves all fit under the Electromagnetism category. I'm curious to know what fits under the same category, so anyone interested in making/contributing to a list would be welcomed. Also, if someone could give me a basic reason why these fit under the same category, that'd be nice. I'll try my best to understand it. Plus, are there ways to convert between these forms? Can you, for example, convert radio waves to visible light? Or could you possibly piggyback these things, like by (ignore practical uses, just can this be done) putting light waves on with the radio waves in order to make the waves visible? I don't know where I'm headed with this, and I don't know that anyone wants to find out, but it always is nice to know

FOR THE LAST TIME, STOP THIS USELESS ARGUMENT! It's entirely a matter of opinion as to whether it's a matter of fact, because it hasn't yet been proven that FTL travel is impossible, it's just extremely likely that it is. And yes, for the third time, it's a useless argument because I'm too stubborn to change my mind. Shoot me, I don't care.

The problem is that airports need to completely reformat (in many cases). Here in the U.S., loading 550 people on a plane would take at least 4 hours, after 9-11 especially. Plus, I heard something (I think on Discovery Wings a little while back) that this plane fully loaded may crack the runway, or else that it was just too big to taxi in most airports. You'd need to include a few gates for this one plane, and board them all at once. It'd be a project. But eventually, I can see it happening easily. What we really need, though, is a fast, quiet, and big VTOL craft that can be the next mass transportation system. Be nice to not need a runway. But that's like asking for mass-produced hydrogen cars within the year; odds are, it won't happen.

For most people they will change what they think, but... Ah, the wonders of youth.

Hence:

I never said that the Theory of Relativity would ever grow into a law. I was just saying that theories are less solid than laws. I also never said that it was invalid. I just stated that one day we might get around it. But, like I said twice already, STOP this useless argument. We have a difference in opinion, and that's that. We aren't going to change each others minds (you have a reason not to change, I'm just stubborn).

...I tried to end this. You don't agree that a theory is less solid then a law? If not, I honestly must wonder what the world is coming to. I just said that in a much more elaborated form.

I rest my case with "I'm not going to carry this on..." from me, post #23. The comment after that is called a closing statement. They use them in court proceedings (big arguments) all the time.

Look at it this way: Theory: something based on facts. Generally agreed upon, but can change (Einstein's THEORY of Relativity). Law: something based on observations that explain things that happen in everyday life. Can, but usually don't, change. (Newton's LAWS) It's not Einstein's LAW of Relativity, and even if it was it could still (with very few chances) change. Since it is only a theory (a well-grounded one, granted, but still a theory), it has the chance to change up until we prove it to be true. We haven't yet. But then, as I already said, this is a stupid argument that (I admit it) I started, and I tried to end it. Why do we carry it on?

I read (on HowStuffWorks.com, I believe) that Bernoulli's principle works, but that there's no exact reason as to why the air above the wing has to get behind the wing at the same time as the air below the wing (as in, why two air particles going above and below the wing at the same time have to make it to the end of the wing at the same time). Still, it works. Oh, and if you go to howstuffworks, the article they have on how planes work is pretty informative.

I'm just saying that I'm more willing to say that than you are to say that FTL travel may eventually be possible.

I'm not going to carry this on because it's a useless argument that I started for no apparent reason, but I would willingly say to you that 1+1 doesn't always = 2 if you want me to, because I still think that someday we might have a chance at disproving it.

JaKiri, what's wrong with Punkbuster? Unless you're a hacker, it doesn't do anything bad.

Caucasian is the politically correct term for "White." 1. Age? 14 2. Gender? Male 3. State? Connecticut 4. Natural hair color? Brown 5. Natural eye color? Blue 6. Do you dye your hair(what color)? Or what do you want your hair color to be?(you don't have to pick a different color) No, none. 7. Do you have colored contacts? Or what color would you prefer your eyes to be?(you don't have to pick a different color) No, none. 8. Heritage? ex. Swedish, German, etc. Pennsylvania Dutch (basically German), Italian, English

UCF basically had my point. My thoughts are that people can feel as well as hear the bass, which gives more input and thus more attraction. Personally, I'm 14 and I listen to classical/orchestra music (I realized recently that a lot of my "classical" isn't classical but just instruments and no words (no synthesizers, or at least no syntesizers synthesizing anything but instruments)).

I'm NOT saying that I can prove it, nor am I saying that it IS wrong. I'm saying be a little more open-minded about it then "No, we can't." "No, we almost definitely can't," is a better choice, but I guess people are too lazy to spend the extra five seconds on two words. I agree that, especially with all the information we have now, it appears to be impossible. It most likely is impossible. BUT new information could come up some day that says "No, if you do it this way, it is possible." And 5614, people want FTL travel and communications for space exploration. There would be no use at all for it within the boundaries of the atmosphere and a while beyond.

I'm just asking you to act like true scientists and keep it in the back of your head that it may, one day, be possible. You're almost as bad as religious zealots whose religion is being criticized.

That's gone if you're force-fed the first one.

Notice that those numbers are for life as we know it. Nothing prevents anything from living on hotter or colder planets, we just don't know what could

Does for spying and kidnappers/molesters.

I understand that it's a GOOD theory, I'm just saying that some day something might allow us to get around it. Like how propellor planes couldn't go faster than the speed of sound, then we developed jets. So yeah, I'll concede that we COULD fall up someday.