JaKiri

The US never HAD Afghanistan, outside of the major cities. Now they only really 'have' Kabul.

Serious replies don't have anything to do with this thread, to be perfectly honest.

One nice consequence of the War on Terror is that the world's heroin production has skyrocketed.

All of the above, depending on how you interpret it. C is the usual interpretation.

God knows the name. It's just recession speed ( a+b/1+ab/c^2 ). Which ever one accelerates. To copy and paste a bit of a post I made earlier this month (which is why it doesn't make sense): Acceleration breaks the symmetry. Notice in the twin example, the one that, in the end, suffered the effects had accelerated in the middle; let us examine the Twin Paradox again. In this case, the twins are in two spaceships, travelling at constant velocity away from eachother. One thinks (rightly) that the other is suffering time dilation relative to him, and the other thinks (rightly) the opposite. (The key word there is relative. No pun intended.) However, if Twin 1 accelerates, and travels back to Twin 2, Twin 1 has aged slowly and Twin 2 has aged quickly. Why this result? As I said before, it's because of the acceleration. Remember, all our observations are made relative to rest frames. As Twin 1 has accelerated, he's now moving relative to his (former) rest frame, and so suffers time dilation relative to it. If you look at his new rest frame, then he was travelling relative to it before he accelerated, and so is time dilated in that one too. To summarise: if you accelerate, there is no longer any rest frame in which, relative to it, you have not been moving, and therefore will always suffer time dilation.

It's the other way round in physics, at least at present. Just about every interpretation of what goes on is because THE MATHS TOLD US, not the other way around. Things like black holes, and quantum uncertainty, and antimatter. The maths came first, the interpretation second.

No. (0.5c+0.5c)/(1+(0.5c)^2/c^2)' date=' or 1c/1.25, or 4/5 c. Why yes.

I own a copy of the Rocky Horror Picture Show screenplay.

Forces approach infinity as seperation approaches 0, so no, you could never overcome the electrostatic repulsion by just applying a larger and larger force.

Fine as it goes, but nothing means anything in physics without mathematics to back it up, I'm afraid.

They're in Afghanistan, and they're winning. [edit] The Taliban, that is.

They are NOT theories. I bet you that this is a forum called Science Forums and Debate, situated at http://www.scienceforums.net Have my million billion pounds ready by monday please.

If it's true, then you're likely (but not certain) to be able to prove it. If it's not true, then by the definition of true it will not have a valid proof. If you don't believe it, disprove it please.

I was going to make a reply about how my top 20 were already posted, in Sayonara's link, but then I realised that your post here doesn't actually make any sense.

May I be the first to point out that it is in fact (going by the first post) the top FOURTEEN films.

Because it's much easier to say 'I'm a tory' (say), than to actually explain your views of political philosophy, which most people haven't developed anyway.

Not at distance :q:

Osmosis happens because there's more water going one way than the other; it's an equilibrium. I don't really see how 'galaxies moving apart' could be considered as part of an equilibrium.

Referring to things 'wanting' to get to another state is just shorthand for saying that lower energy states are more stable, and thus they are more likely to remain in that state having reached it. It's like ice and adding salt to it.

They were 'lovers' in Neil Gaiman's Sandman, and that's good enough for me.

The photoelectric effect, to be precise. Liebniz. Newton was a right pillock, though.

Alas, expert input will be lacking. All of the people I knew (mostly postgrads) have moved on. University of Durham, if you're wondering.