JaKiri

I've watched some videos that claim that there's a Shadow ship buried on Mars. Doesn't mean it's true.

misunderstood

That looks like a couple of balls, a swirly thing and some wiggly lines. How exactly does it show anything to do with gravity?

The only way I can see that you can get this is by circular reasoning, combined with the no true scotsman fallacy. Marriage can (and often is) secular as well duder.

Wrong cause and effect. It's the tendency to keep moving in a straight line that causes it, the centripetal force is the reaction force from the outside that causes it to orbit the centre.

Of course, there is the question of whether you're inputting (21^5)/3.

Westwood

precendence

diablo

That's not how science works. Requesting thread split to pseudoscience.

Isn't the right to bear arms as part of a militia, or did I imagine that bit?

sausages

'Next question please' It also ignores pretty much all of SR, GR (except the existance of black holes) and what the scientists at CERN know.

I know you mentioned it already, but you're caught up in a loop of miscomprehension that will be difficult to break you out of without resorting either to things you won't understand (like mathematics) or things you refuse to believe.

Try reading up on the one and two slot experiments.

The most obvious bit of confusion is between wave-like interactions and making an oscillating shape on a detector.

The first line is a reply to you. The second line is a reply to Greg. Note: This only applies in the post you were immediately following. It does NOT apply in this post, so you ARE allowed to read the second line, and apply it to your question.

This may shock and alarm you, but I know about quantum physics. Furthermore, stating your rather poor interpretation of it is NOT a good argument when asked to give proof of a connection between quantum theory and something nigh-on entirely irrelevent. Not really. Even if you ignore the fact that it's EXACTLY THE SAME FOR LIGHT, even given that lightspeed is invarient to all observers, you're still left with the problem that light and sound are totally different with respect to this area.

If you want a lot of astronomy on your biscuit, join o... hold on a second, something's wrong here. SOMETHING'S VERY WRONG.

My name is also mark, you see. I also accidentally deleted the word 'Mars' first time around. It should make much more sense now.

STOP STEALING MY NAME. All that we can really say at this stage is that it's certain that Mars did not definitely not have life. If you can get anything out of that tangle of words I call a sentence. Simpler version: We know that it's not impossible that life existed on mars.

It's imprecise phrasing. You're implying that it 'might, but might not!', when it DOES or DOES NOT, depending on the definition of the word.

Yeah, that's why I study Physics at the best (none of this 'one of the' rubbish, greg) university in the world. And call of duty is good, but loading times are a bit off so I'm defragging my hard drive.

Right. Wrong. I could go through all the post in this manner, but it would distract me from my dinnery kievy goodness. Furthermore Shut up about your 'theory' that light travels faster than itself. It's not only wrong in context, it also doesn't make sense within itself.

How does a popscience explanation of Quantum Theory lead naturally to your postulate?