JaKiri

_

Re: the original topic, you have to include the thing you're trying to disprove when you're trying to formulate a paradox (as RE said, see the Twins Paradox). It's about as valid as trying to create a counterexample to SR by saying 'If you apply a constant force to an object, it will accelerate at a constant rate and therefore will pass the speed of light therefore SR is wrong'.

English only, please.

Can you post it here?

That's an onion headline and you (possibly) know it. "President Confronts Depression with 'Big Deal' Plan: 'Big deal, I'm Rich!' Roosevelt Says"

That's because it is. Point me to the repeatable experiments in Economics please.

Because of particle interactions with the quantum fuzz. No space is 'empty', nothing near.

Superconductors do exist, but all school science is simplified, so the teacher was knowingly lying (as the do, and are forced to do, all the time)

Obivously that's a simplified example; however, it starts fairly quickly. Is the body as fit at 40 as it is at 30? Or 20?

Nothing. View the photon emission as an 'event' rather than shining a light beam. The maximum speed for information transfer is c. Does the same apply in this thought experiment? Of course it does. Now yours: all you're doing is adding another event at each end, at the same time as the initial events. Does this change anything? Of course not. This is fairly similar to this 'paradox': I have a torch, and a rod ten thousand million kilometers long. I shine the torch in a direction, and push the rod at the same time. When I poke the rod, a ball falls off the other end, seconds before the light gets there. How does this work with the maximum rate of information exchange being c? Lets look at the rod. What's it made of? Atoms. (Even if it was ONE BIG ATOM! this would still hold, just the force you're talking about changes) How does one atom know when to move? Because it's pushed by the previous atom. How does it do this? Electromagnetic repulsion between electrons. The exchange particle for the EM force is the... photon, which travels at c (shock), so the maximum rate the atoms in the rod can transmit the information is c.

I could probably translate into latin. If I could find my latin dictionary, because I probably won't know most of the words you want to use.

I use hotmail, it's not like it's difficult to filter spam or anything.

It's hideous music, although I didn't actually say that in the post you quoted.

There's also the tendency of stupid people to dye their hair blonde.

It's the 'special' users tag.

Life is a general decay; the body doesn't 'turn off' at one point, it slowly disintergrates (otherwise known as 'aging'). There's no reason to not have a countably infinite lifespan, however.

That sounds like a challenge to me.

The Elegant Universe has a good 'grounding' section in it before it gets onto string 'theory'.

Not really, there's probably differing allowed sizes for mods.

Discussion of science, at least at a point when you can't just say 'This is the currently accepted model' (and that is the end of that) is something which is hard to engender without having sufficient people with the ability to discuss high level science, which is a rather circular problem when you consider that the entire issue is acquiring people with the ability to discuss high level science. Discussion about science, on the other hand, doesn't have to discard the layman; there is no advanced mathematics, which is generally the problem area, given that any qualitative results will be formed from the mathematics and so aren't really available for discussion without rather more explanation of the possiblities that is really healthy; instead, there is basic reading, comprehension, and the like. Examples of talking 'about' science would be discussing the scientific method, your funding example, and the like. It's intellectual, and very accessable to the interested layman. [edit] To an extent I did use rather wishywashy language; discussion 'of science' as compared to discussion about 'science', if you catch my drift and I'm sure that you do.

Gordan Freeman. In the flessssssssssh

Good music.

A point of courtesy here: if you bring up 'statistics' which you think prove your side of the argument, always give sources, if they're not extremely widely known. It's bad form to do otherwise.

There's no dancing monkey in this thread you heathen.

HOORAY FOR FORA