JaKiri

Nah, we've moved on to getting further than them in the FA Cup, when it was really really clear that Shearer and Robson wanted to win it oh so much, and Mick think's it's a bit of a laugh. [edit] Worst rumour of the season was that Arca was moving to Celtic (there was a link with Chelsea at one stage, but that's natural for every player)

Sunderland. We loaned em Mickey Gray.

Rangers eh? My team is single handedly responsible for knocking Celtic out of the Champions League.

I like to give my equations a bit of TLC too. Although that's frowned upon in the wider community. AND THEY CALLED ME A PERVERT! ME! A PERVERT! After I finish having sex with this sheep I'm going to go round there and TEACH THEM A LESSON

I'm more of a guinness kind of chap.

It gets a bit tricky with accelerations, as I said. You ARE moving on the earth, because you're undergoing acceleration (except in freefall, when you're not, sort of)

SR basically says that all rest frames are equally valid. So no matter what speed someone else thinks you're going at, it's perfectly fine to assume that you're stationary and HE'S moving. The best example of this would be the two astronauts drifting past eachother. I drift past you at 20ms^-1. You're stationary. It's equally valid to say that you're drifting past me, and I'm stationary. Or that someone on a ship travelling close to lightspeed (relative to us) is stationary, and we're both moving very close to lightspeed, just with a 20ms^-1 (or thereabouts) difference. The mathematics all works. [edit] This only works for CONSTANT velocities. If you accelerate, then it all changes, and YOU'RE the one moving (basically). See the thread on the twins paradox (with no planet) for more on that.

Basically, yeah. But the odd thing is that it works THE OTHER WAY AROUND too.

What will happen is that the light will be moving at c in the rest frame of the observer, and you will be going 99.9999999% of the speed of light, so the light moves away from you veeerrry sloooowly. In your rest frame, however, the light moves away from you at c. This is consistent, because time slows down the faster you go (relative to the rest frame). Hold on, I'll do a worked example. Lets say you're going 99.999999 whatever% of the speed of light. According to the person that is watching, it'll take quite some time for the light to move one light second away from you, because you're only just going slower than it. (1 light second being 299792458m) According to you, of course, the light will only take ONE second to go one light second away from you. However, your time is slowed because you're going so close to the speed of light, and the factor by which it's slowed is exactly the same multiple as between your one second and his few hours. There's also a factor of length contraction, but that makes it a bit more complicated to word (the light second you see isn't the same as the light second the person at rest sees, distance wise) You see?

The speed of light is a bad, bad example, you see, and not only because it's impossible. It's much better to view things going just under the speed of light, it'll help you understand better.

For a start, it wouldn't accelerate. Light isn't subject to forces in the same way as ordinary matter. Furthermore, the observer would see the light going at the speed of light too. Not twice, but once. The speed of light is a bad speed to do things at in this kind of discussion, though, as time technically does not exist and therefore you can't have done anything.

No you don't. It's all assumed. Who's to say that children to homosexuals are disadvantaged? Sure, adopting a child isn't like having a dog, or a hamster, but surely two doting parents can't be bad. Look how many grow up with only one parent, be it through divorce, illness or criminality. You in your post said that it was improper to declare lifestyles invalid, yet you, in the next paragraph, do just that with insufficient evidence. Furthermore, justifying it because of references to homophobia is a terrible argument. If something is wrong, it is not the problem of the gay couple who wish to adopt, it is society's problem, and society should not dump it's problems onto them because it is easier, because it causes less resistance.

Find out about your namesake.

Time is stopped at the speed of light. The actual equation is t(at v) = t(at rest) * SQRT(1-v^2/c^2). Obviously, if v = c, then the SQRT will be equal to 0, and time will therefore stand still. I must stress that, unless there's an acceleration, this is true for all observers. ie. if you're moving 10ms^-1 away from me, I'll see you as having slower time, but you'll see me as having slower time too. [edit] Again, because c is so large, we never see the effect in every day life. It has been proven to exist, by an experiment involving atomic clocks and a plane, and by the decay rates of particles.

Hudson, sir, he's a hic.

Why is because the speed of light is constant for all observers. Everything else is due to it, and the mathematics derives from it. If you want something better, then I'm afraid the only other explanation is 'that's the way it is'

Good for you, sticking by your conjecture in the face of all evidence. ps It isn't a theory, it's a conjecture. Theories have to have lots of proof behind them.

I think the problem is that you're misunderstanding the phrase 'travelling through time'. That is an expression that refers to our rate of change of time, rather than time 'moving' or similar. It is we who are doing the travelling, through the direction known as 'time' (direction is a bad word, but it's the only one that can really stick, that comes to mind anyway)

It doesn't. You might as well ask 'How much time does distance????'

I can now use the quote in its native form. I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. 'Car A' 'knowing' what 'Car B' is doing is utterly, utterly irrelevent, (ignore this bit if you don't know what I'm talking about already, it'll probably confuse matters: although always possible by the nature of information exchange) and you may as well say 'How does car a know what car b is doing??? when you're adding together the speeds under newtonian mechanics (ie a+b). It's not a property of the car, it's not a property of the speed it's going at, it's a property of the universe, and exists with respect to rest frames.

No. You might as well say that the distance between the earth and the moon travels at the speed of light. Time is a dimension, not a property (or information for that matter, which is (ignoring some quantum effects which sort of break it but don't) limited to c)

Bollocks it is. The energy required for a bond to break/combine is bond strength. Something else entirely. It does actually (excluding at certain levels of energy, but then every force combines, so it's pretty irrelevent to mention it except in a quest for precision), but carry on. There is a theorised exchange particle for gravity (called the Graviton, appropriately enough), which is radiated from a mass like photons are radiated from a charged body. But decay has nothing to do with it. Only in the sense that there exists a gravitational potential field, but not in the sense that you mean it. I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a statement. See answer to three. Black holes are positive mass. Anti matter is positive mass. Empty space is not empty (see: Zero Point Energy/The Quantum Fuzz)

Light never accelerates. It always moves at exactly the same speed, in exactly the same direction (through 4 dimensional space). And your solar system = atom thing doesn't actually work, because the electrons don't orbit the nucleus in the same sense as the planets orbit the sun. Furthermore, it all becomes irrelevent at the planck length.

That's Zero Point Energy, that's something else entirely.

Correct, with one minor change: To get anything with mass to travel at lightspeed would take infinite energy.