JaKiri

Hey! Ever notice that the Supreme Court Judges who voted to alter the recount date to a time when it couldn't possibly have finished on were Republicans! Ever notice that Gore was catching up very quickly?

And they used documented illegal methods to stop Democrats from voting, etc. Yes, we know.

It was misunderstanding with mild humourous intent

Thanks

To, say, the extremely religious Christian US Government? People who block stem cell research because of souls? etc?

I tend to lump GR in with QM, for no apparant reason, despite the fact that they appear to be irreconcileable. To me, Classical will always mean Newton. I'm just odd like that.

The same might be said, and indeed has, of classical mechanics. We're talking Newton, here people.

E = hf. E being the energy of the wave, h being Planck's constant (6.6x10^-34 Js) and f being frequency. Of course, it may be E = hc/f, but my mind isn't working as I've only just woken up.

Lets look at the basics: Lets start with Archimedian displacement theory. Something floats if it displaces a mass of water with an equal or greater mass of water to itself. Ice is less dense than water, thus the volume of the ice will be greater than the corresponding volume of water, and so it floats. When the ice melts, the amount of water it displaced will be exactly the same as the amount of water that the ice has now become, so there is no net change in water level. As for global warming, sea levels are supposed to rise because of the thermal expansion of the water; the ice at the north pole will have 0 effect, and the south pole will have little.

I'm glad it will stop the earth spinning, because it will knock into space a plague of locusts o'er the land that happens in may.

I'm going to come back to this topic after I've done some research; I haven't the experience with General that I have with Special.

Doesn't work like that, due to conservation of angular momentum. For the other planet to stop the earth, the planet must spin more slowly (in the opposite direct ofc, otherwise the earth would spin faster). Once something stops spinning, you have to apply a moment to set it off again, not remove a force.

If the earth stops, how does it start spinning again?

So it stops the earth, which magically starts spinning again?

Schwarzchild-agogo

About the invariance of measured speed.

See my first point. PS: If this is from reading Hawking, forget everything and read The Elegant Universe, or preferrably The Feynman Lectures on Physics. SH gets quite a few things wrong.

I think you're confusing it's effects with the Family Guy we were watching at the time.

New Scientist's nice and politicy.

Isn't this classical mechanics? In which case gravity travels instantaneously.

It's something 'sciency' involving Einstein. The press jump all over such things.

WinXP Pro is the best os around. Want proof? It's what all the compsci's use.

RISC OS 3.11 FOR LIFE* *or failing that, XP Pro

Relative to your defined rest frame, you're always going at the speed you think you're going, as the Lorenz transforms for time and length cancel. As for stationary observers, you need to use this forumula: combined recession speed = (a + b) / (1 + ab/c^2) Where the velocities of the objects are a and b. All this translates to 'No, your supposition is incorrect' (at the original post, not Giles's). Also: iirc, physical laws are invarient under acceleration/gravitational fields.

Athlons are better for gaming, especially if you get a motherboard with nVidia's nForce chipset. With a top end graphics card like the ATI Radeon 9700 Pro, it's a wizzy little number.