JaKiri

You want me to tell you the most intellegent person in human history? Given that intellegence is qualititative, I'd say it's a stupid question, totally ignoring our lack of information about almost all of the population.

The problem is he doesn't understand natural selection.

As it's something we can never find out, empirically it's wrong.

WHICH theory of relativity? Spec Rel works perfectly fine, and that is the one you've quoted before. People, do NOT underestimate Einstein. The Photoelectric effect (explanation of) was his doing. This is a prerequisite for Quantum Physics. Special Relativity is one of the most elegent physical theories in history. General Relativity is a masterwork, which has been proven to be empirically correct on every level except the quantum one, and nearly ALL researches into a Grand Unified Theory are assuming that the flaw lies with the Standard Model of Quantum Mechanics, not with General Relativity. Oh, he also predicted the Einstein-Bose condensates and won the nobel prize. He's not the 'cleverest man ever' as some people seem to postulate. He did however create some of the most important theories in the history of physics. Whilst Bohr made important contributions, his achievements are little compared to the above.

That's not 'the mathematics'. Show me the empirical evidence that you have gathered for your proposal, why the current model differs from your one and then make a prediction that has not yet been verified. That's how science works.

There are further depths to plumb.

Shot in the face with Dacisms?

The episode's called 'Into the Fire', and is 4x06. ps. Up until the ST series MEGA SPLURGE, Dr Who had the most unique air time of any Science Fiction series.

Are we all bulletproof too?

25 hour days, so you get an extra hour in bed EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK.

Given it was combining the forefronts of 20th century mathematics....

No, they put it in a later episode. And assuming Fermat didn't just fluke it, there's still his solution.

Thank you gentlemen, you may consider yourselves dismissed.

Yep. But then after Wiles prooved it they inserted a line about his proof being the most innovative since, well, Wiles's. Cheecky American Capitalist Pig Dogs.

The clocks are both observers. Here GR comes into play, and tells you which one is time dialated relative to the other.

It's what all of science is based on. Don't like it? Go and argue about mathematics. ps. What happend to the 'edit' button? <Rad Ed> top left of the post, dude: Posted On: Today at 10:23 AM [Edit]

Ask Einstein, that's how he got a metaphysical framework for the Lorenz Transforms.

Bloody frogs

Once again, scientific facts. We know they're wrong, but they're also the best we've got. Oh, and the only thing you need to account for relitavistic effects is the constant speed of light relative to observers.

My point exactly! He didn't do it!

'Hey, I don't get this whole empiricism thing' Scientific fact is not and never can be accurate at a more than empirical level. The Standard Model is the best we've got, so it's scientific fact.

I did, for one post :|

See if you can put it in the margin, for extra points.

Your internal organs, speak into them, body fat.

Try a hot air balloon. I hear that the Montgolfier brothers should be attempting to carry a sheep, a duck and a cockeral through the AIR shortly.