JaKiri

Nope. BASEEEEEEEL

It's the second law of thermodynamics (entropy always increases in a closed system) combined with another thermodynamic law, the law of the conservation of energy. There cannot be perpetual motion machines because: a. The sum total energy of them remains the same. b. The amount of 'waste energy' (if you will) in the system is certain to increase These two combined mean that the energy used to run the machine will always decrease over time, and thus eventually stop. Hence, no perpetual motion machines. ps. Bonus simpsons quote!

Speed of light not speed of sound. And it wouldn't move instantaneously, because the carrier particle for the force involved IS light, so it's not exactly going to go faster than itself.

It depends what you mean. If you're talking quantum physics, then you're working towards the heisenberg uncertainty principle. If not, you're looking at possible variation due to inaccurate tools.

Kent Brockman quote, after Homer breaks the antfarm in space and an ant drifts in front of the camera.

Important to individuals, maybe, but not essential for the subjects.

Atkins all the way.

Good set of evidence there

I don't know about the beginning. Unless we get into the universe creation business ourselves, we may never. And as to the 2nd post, the simplest explanation for what we see is that the universe is expanding. The chance of things 'just moving' is small enough to ignore.

Most windfarms are offshore, afaik. More wind/less disruption to landscape, etc.

The heat death of the universe is the current accepted likely outcome, given the acceleration of the universe is increasing. Why does the heat death of the universe leave too many questions? To my mind, it's much much simpler than the 'big crunch' theory.

I've only had one problem with XP Pro, and that was the fault of the hard drive, not the os. ps Use opera.

Incorrect. All rest frames are equally valid.

My fingers, they type of their own accord.

I was going to find an image of a square root sign to demonstrate what she meant, but when searching google for square root, the first thing up was This, which is much more appealing as a smiley.

Make a new thread

It is a sphere (ignoring the effects of the change of the speed of light in a medium), centred on us. Or at least the observable universe is. Then there's problems with equivilence of rest frames, the impossible nature of finding the edge of the universe, and more.

x^1/2?

Caesar, not Ceasar

And server

If you mean to deduce that since lines exist in space, and infinite points exist in lines, thus space has infinite points, then you're correct. (A->B, B->C, => A->C) (correct logic) If you're trying to say that space is a line (or similar), then no. (A->C, B->C, => A->B) (flawed logic)

You may as well say 'Why is 15 not 3?'

i doesn't have a value in the real numbers. Otherwise it would just be that number. As I said, it doesn't feature on a number line; it exists on an Argand plane, which has the usual number line as the x axis and a similar one for the imaginary numbers as the y axis.

Large pipe ---> Smaller pipe will increase the pressure.

No. It's a number. i is a number. It's not on the number line from - infinity to + infinity, but it's a number just like 1 or 462. i is the symbol that represents it.