JaKiri

Dear sir the first invalid syllogism is in the second sentence of the second paragraph. When you have corrected this i will continue to read your post. Yours Giles [/standard response]

As I said in the last thread where you said almost exactly the same things, CRITICISING THINGS BECAUSE YOU UNDERSTAND THEM WRONG ISN'T A VALID ARGUMENT.

It doesn't actually generate any thrust. The parts move towards eachother, but compared to their original rest frame, their momentums are equal and opposite.

I thought that exchanging technology was a base idea in the ISA?

Peter Dunn: Conservation of momentum.

It has been considered. However, there is bugger all evidence to support it, compared to a very large amount for the opposition.

You can only finish the game if you've read the book. Which makes the game a bit redundant really.

Superchump, stop posting now. That one won't be bettered.

He's not representing the people, he's representing the States.

Re: pps. So do I.

We got the question. Whether it was the right question because of the arrival of the Golgafrinchams is another matter.

You sir are the highest class of idiot. The one who thinks they know everything and ignores all evidence to the contrary.

You're either stuck back in the land of Windows ME or haven't used the same versions of OS9/X that I have.

(Addendum) It's not me discrediting ANYBODY, it's me highlighting incorrect assumptions/'understandings' of the current model.

There's one thing being 'possible', another being 'demonstrateably incorrect'. This falls squarely into the latter. Most definitely.

First (there's no such word as 'firstly', if we're being strictly correct. But, then given your posts, we aren't), that's true, except it doesn't change the fact that you were talking about NEUTRINO detection, not GRAVITON detection. Secondly. Photons, and all other carrier particles, are massless and carry no charge. Can you see things? Well, I think that implies that massless, chargeless particles can interact. Thirdly: Whut? Fourthy, you're just wrong. Very wrong. Photons are just ONE EXAMPLE of a luminal particle (as it were). All the other carrier particles travel at light speed TOO.

That's pretty much all we NEED to explain at the moment

Hawking is TERRIBLE.

hahahahahaha

Superstring theory has a nice getout clause on the conflict between them, but at the moment we're still trying to correct a spelling mistake by building a new library, if you see what I mean. (At least in terms of the work required)

Of his theories, only GR might be losing ground, but then any theory would be a developement rather than a replacement, as there's so much empirical evidence for it. The way that GR is assumed to be correct and the Standard Model of QM is assumed to be wrong for all the 'new' theories I've heard about might be taken to be a bit of an affirmation of GR. ps. To (possibly misquote) Einstein, when he was asked what he would have done if Lord Rutherford's experiments at the time of the solar eclipse (the first test of GR) hadn't shown the required results, he replied something along the lines of 'Well, I'd have to say sorry to the dear Lord, for the theory is correct!'

I said that. He ignored it.

The planck length suggests otherwise

Your own individual time never changes, that's the point. Just everyone's relative to you

There isn't. It's a flaw in the use of the system.