JaKiri

They'd bounce off eachother, for the most part. ps. We're not going to have much word on the graviton until the LHC is completed.

That would be quite impressive, as I have the largest vocabulary of people I know, a rather fine grasp of mathematics and an intuitive understanding of most sciences. Although this isn't a question of science, it's a question of linguistics and formal logic. A =/= A is what you're essentially saying.

Energy doesn't have mass. Mass is a form of energy. You know the basic types of energy you're taught; 'heat, kinetic, gravitational, electrical' and the like? What they are is derivitives of the basic kinds. Kinetic Energy is Kinetic Energy. It's the only way to describe it, and is, in terms of special relativity, the differing energies from being defined in different rest frames (but that's a really overcomplicated way of saying it.) Heat is another form of kinetic energy, it's just that the objects moving are at the particle scale, and the movement is very small and in random directions so you don't notice it with your eyes. Electrical is another form of kinetic, essentially. Gravitational, and the kind you get from magnets, etc are examples of potential energy. Have you seen an equation like this? F = GMm/r^2? That describes the attractive force between two masses due to gravitation (the masses being M and m, G is the gravimetric constant, r is the distance between them). The potential energy of a system (be it with whatever fundamental force [i'll describe them at the end]) is simply the amount of energy required to move an object into a field. It's like pushing two magnets together. The third kind of energy is mass; remember the equation E = mc^2? That's a basic equation defining how much energy represents that much rest mass. All of these forms of energy (except kinetic) can be represented by a 'carrier' particle; the best way to define carrier particles is like this. You're in a boat, and there's someone in another boat close by. You throw something to them, and your boat moves away from theirs due to conservation of momentum. It's like that with carrier particles, except you can be attracted as well as repelled. The carrier particles exist for the four basic forces, which are: The Electromagnetic The Weak Nuclear Force The Strong Nuclear Force Gravity.

Well, I know that time is merely an arbitrary direction based on thermodynamics, but WHAT?

Particles, of varying spins.

Explain to me please how a 'perfect copy' has the capability to not be a 'perfect copy'?

So what you're saying is TIME TRAVEL HAS NO EFFECT, THEREFORE ISN'T PARADOXICAL! And what's this about Relativity?

'What about a perfect copy? Would that be a perfect copy?' Bit of a truism there.

Clones may have the same DNA, but they aren't identical. For one thing, DNA doesn't specify the precise way in which blood vessels are arranged. That's different even for identical twins (identical twins have the same DNA).

If we're talking Fission or Fusion, kinetic and photons. If we're talking matter/antimatter reactions, photons.

Nature doesn't decide anything. Things just 'happen'.

I tried to ignore DS9. I really did.

It's not messed up, it just doesn't mean anything. Seriously, what ARE you getting at?

Exactly my point. You're taking it to mean something that is not it's literal meaning, thus.

I think the phrase is 'They're talking crap'.

The pockets of snooker tables.

Most physicists don't like Hawking because of the way he dumbs down science in his books, not because Hawking radiation is a stupid idea, which it isn't.

Oh, the electrons move exceptionally fast, just not all that much in a set direction. ps. Fundamental particles have volume now?

You don't see what I'm saying. All the interactions that can possibly take place do so at the speed of light. The only way the next particle can know the one before it is moving is by it having a different electromagnetic field around it, wihch will change, as I have said before, at the speed of light. All the carrier particles travel at c, or are theorised to at least. That's why the possibility of gravitational interactions at superluminal speeds is rather perilous to Relativity, because that the speed of gravity is c is a basic idea in general, and it removes the information limit in special.

Here you go then: The balls interact through electromagnetic repulsion. That's what creates the illusion of solidity. The carrier particle of EM-repulsion is (You guessed it!) light. Which travels at the speed of light. TADAA.

Barring any actual physical (as in of physics) disagreement, I'd comment with a materials science based one; All structures compress. The time delay from them compressing would be more than enough for the light to travel. No matter how rigid the structure, there is always some give. ps. More physicsy explanations later!

It's not too messed up, it just doesn't mean anything. Nice flowing text there.

Well, for a start I'd suggest you find out what you're talking about; the Cosmological Constant refers to something different than the simple expansion of the universe, and the writing in those verses implies something different; just because the word 'stretching' is used doesn't mean the verse implies an expanding universe. Secondly, the Pope has referred to the Big Bang theory as canon. This would imply that the Roman Catholic Church disagrees with the exact text of the bible. Thirdly, I'll find some more sections that disagree with measured fact in time, but until then I'll leave you with Genesis 3:14, which suggests that snakes eat dust.

The simple answer is that we can't and we never will. Laplacian Determinism (which is the proper name for what you've stated there) doesn't work with quantum theory, which deals in probabilities rather than certainties, and to be more precise the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which states we can never be certain of the absolute properties of an object; we can know it's location with precision, it's velocity with precision, or both with less accuracy. It's impossible to predict events with total accuracy, and because of this it's impossible to predict any event with precision over time (due to chaos theory, which states that small changes in the initial state of a system will produce significant changes as the system evolves).

It's quite simple. Parts of the bible are demonstrateably wrong. This by definition makes it impossible for the God OF THE BIBLE to exist. People may say that those parts are metaphorical or whatever, but not only does this raise doubts in the rest of it, it means that whatever god they believe in isn't the Yahweh of the bible, because they believe other than is written.