fafalone

When Galileo realized that all objects fall at the same rate regardless of mass, I'd say that was original. It was in opposition to what everyone had viewed, and they couldn't conceive of it before he demonstrated it.

There's a finite number of forces that will act on it; if all the of these were taken into account, we could predict with extremely high probability, the point that the penny would land. Granted that now the task would be extremely inpractical and probably impossible with technology levels, but theoretically it's not random.

Well it depends on the environment. If you set up an experiment in deep space and exerted the exact same force vector on the penny in the exact same location, it's movement would be exactly the same. Quantum probability is a whole other ballpark, although I don't see it having an effect in this instance.

I'm going to take a break from debating that to work through some equations from that page and from relativity/QM in general, then discuss things in my physics class tomorrow, then I'll get back to this debate

Go to the forum page and click "Create New Thread" at the top.

Just because we don't have the ability (yet) to account for every factor, doesn't mean that we couldn't. It IS predictable, there's just more factors than we can currently account for. Turing patterns come to mind, which have elucidated patterns in the movements of living organisms that otherwise appeared to be random.

1) Yup. 2) Exactly, an atom's electron isn't infinitely spread out. 3) Ok, and you're saying we'll *never* be able to generate this much force on electrons?

This has nothing to do with God. The penny does not fall randomly.

What is random? Give us day-to-day example of a random process.

Then how is mass an accepted property? The primary influence of an electron is localised to the immediate vicinity of the atom, or else how would bonding occur.

An environment designed to contain a very high number of electrons as to increase the liklihood of collisions despite repulsion forces.

Quantum length is another name for Planck length. Furthermore, while quantum effect affect everything, the influence of classical effects does not completely disappear until this length.

There is equally no indication that it isn't. And you have to consider classical volume as electrons are larger than a quantum length. This entire thread is a whole lot of narrative and not a whole lot of people showing why "laws" (if you can really call them that, because last time i checked we weren't completely 100% sure of anything related to this topic, especially in quantum mechanics) would be invalid if in an artificial environment managed to split an electron.

I don't think so.

If you believe we should not go to war with Iraq, you need to adequately address all of the following issues: Iraqii people are being oppressed and denied basic freedoms by Saddam Iraq acknowledged having large amounts of chemical and biological weapons at the end of the Gulf War, he lost that war and accepted a deal to remain in power if he destroyed them. However, he has not accounted for what happened to these weapons in any way. Mobile facilities for developing weapons of mass destruction have not been accounted for. Resolution 1441 required a currently accurate account of what happened to all of these; however the report contained no new information. Weapons inspectors have expressed disatisfaction with the cooperation of Iraq; Iraq is not offering any guidance in determining the fate of its previously acknowledged weapons of mass destruction. Weapons inspectors are not being permitted to interview scientists in private. Iraq has sought to acquire Uranium. Iraq continually opens fire on coalition aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone. Each year, Iraqii anti-aircraft weapons open fire on American, British, and other aircraft over 100 times. These attacks continue in spite of the new resolution. Iraq will not allow U2 spy planes in its airspace to assist weapons inspectors in their search. New evidence has began to establish a link between Iraq and the Al-Qaeda network. These are clearly not the actions of a government with any respect for the world community. Iraq's continued deception of evidence of a growing threat, and we should not wait until Iraq strikes first, since their weapons ability could cause a disaster far worse than Semptember 11th; you would think that would teach us the value of not waiting until something terrible happens before taking action.

You'd need a rather large sample of specimens.

Well there might be if one of the newer ideas in cosmology turns out to be true, that the universe exists in cycles that last trillions of years; and if cycles are symetric.. well then everything might turn out the same each cycle.

Once again, since it's exceedingly unlikely this happens in nature on its own, lepton conservation should not be an issue.

They are believed to have nuclear weapons.

Chemical and biological. He has not accounted for the ones he had that were supposed to be destroyed; no evidence of their required destruction exists. He's not even claiming they were destroyed.

And you probably can't mathematically illustrate why any of them shouldn't be able to be divided either (among the ones with mass, ex. photon is one and has no mass)

He DOES have weapons. He IS hiding them. The weapons inspectors have indicated this.

He started a war on Kuwait; if you actually looked at evidence not publishd by green peace equivalents, you'd know he's attacked several countries and his own people. The analogy with Hitler was to illustrate that Hitler, like Saddam, had not done anything to the US, but was still threatening us. The threat is growing, we should not wait until it imminent, because then we won't be able to stop it in time.

The government should not force their morality based on the Bible (outright violation of church and state) on a large group of people who are not morally opposed to it. Furthermore, I'd like to hear one of the political leaders talk about the statistics of how many embryos are created and lost during in vitro fertilization and why this isn't morally wrong, since it's still destroying embryos.

Moved to the educationforum