JaKiri

NavajoEverclear's problems are purely philosophical. Soon he will drop his eggs and they will hatch and all will be well. Or he'll apply Occam's Razor. One of the two.

No research has ever been done on it. No research WILL ever be done on it. This is because it's not a flaw in mathematics, it's a flaw in the person adding up; I've shown how the $30 is reached using both sets of values, and there is no argument against it, only ignorance (as you appear to be doing). This is not the first time I've seen it. This is not the 10th time I've seen it. For god's sake, I found it in a book of mathematical tricks and puzzles from the 1960's, it's hardly NEW. Thread over.

OK, special relativity assumes that all rest frames are equally valid as eachother. Lets say you've got the planet. The guy moving away from it (at a constant velocity) can assume (correctly) that he is at rest and the planet is moving away from him, so they suffer the effects of time dialation. It's only when he turns round (he ACCELERATES) towards the planet/other brother, that he can no longer be a rest frame (as he's accelerating), and hence the other one must be 'correct'. That's the simple explanation, it gets a bit sillier if you want the full one, because the gravity of the planet is an acceleration as well, but this is the essence of the solution.

No, you're wrong. It's just a TRICK. No research has EVEN been done on it, and none EVER WILL. What you're saying is that because of some mystery of adding up, a dollar bill vanishes into the aether!

They're not though. The $27 is in a different calculation from the $2. One calculation is what they paid + what they received back (27 + 3 =30), the other is what they all have NOW (25 [manager], 2 [boy], 3 [guys] = 30)

The point is it's NOT the same calculation. The question is more like saying '9x2 = 18, but 9 + 8 = 17 WHERE'S THE EXTRA ONE GONE?'.

The one that undergoes acceleration is the one that undergoes time dialation. If there is no acceleration, then they are both simultaenously the older one and the younger one, as they will be the older one from their own point of view and the younger one from the other's.

You're very confused. Actually, you're very very confused. There's not much that's right in that post at all. For a start, even under newtonian mechanics, the escape velocity of the sun would only be in ratio with the ratio of masses if the radii of them were the same. Secondly, I'd learn about special relativity (sticky in the relativity board). Thirdly, the underground chambers are to detect NEUTRINOES, not gravitons. Attempts at graviton detection are done in particle accelerators, such as the Large Hadron Collider which is being built at CERN. Fourthly, gravitons have no mass and no charge (as was stated). Fifthly, gravitons fly EVERYWHERE! (They're the exchange particle). Sixthly, gravitons travel at the speed of light (exactly the same speed as the propagation of gravity in GR). Seventhly, this thread deserves to be in pseudoscience. I could continue. I won't.

Are you saying glaciers can't be 3km thick?

The principle is called 'adding it up wrong'. The $30 is made from the $9 they paid and the $1 they each received, it's just worded to deliberately confuse. (The $2 is taken from the 9's) Reword it to be 1 person who pays $30 and gets $3 back. It's pretty obvious.

An example of a hypothesis statement: I always eat roast beef. An example of a counterstatement, which disprooves it: I had chicken kiev last night.

However, the probability of it falling 'up' next time is statistically insignificant.

That's a definition of the counting system rather than a mathematical axiom. As such, it's a linguistic rather than mathematical problem. 1. It doesn't matter if it's being done in a real universe or not. 2. That's just really stupid. Science is about empiricism. If you believe otherwise, you ARE wrong, because that is something that's more than empirically verifiable. Empirical is scientific, and you've misunderstood the nature of empiricism if you think it applies your beliefs to it. What you are calculating is the statistical significance (that's right kids, mathematics!) of the events you have observered. Effort goes into experiments to make sure that they're NOT being affected by the user. I don't know what motive you think scientists have, but 'Making sure I'm right' comes quite far behind 'Trying to find out about the universe'. In addition to this, if experiments did have user bias, then that would be gotten rid of in peer review. You know what area of 'science' doesn't follow this system? The social 'sciences' don't, and normal scientists don't really have much respect for them; they lack the disinterested nature/peer review of 'proper' science. ps. In relation to 'MAYBE WE'RE TOTALLY OFF THE MARK'; that isn't possible. If you want rather a lot of evidence for, say, the Quantum Theory, what about the computer you're using right now? That works and was built under the Standard Model. What about particle accelerators, which every time they're used provide more evidence for Special Relativity. The list goes on and on.

Except the standard model of quantum physics and general relativity. But they only fail to mesh because of the quantum fuzz.

So what you're saying is we should automatically assume things that don't have evidence for them? I'm telling people they're wrong when they are empirically wrong; the chance of them being right is so miniscule that it makes no difference.

It's included so the equations work (which work under every other situation, before anyone gets shirty about 'faith'). If it doesn't exist, and is just made up, then it'll be gotten rid of in the future.

Scientists recognise that the theories may well be wrong (HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO EXPLAIN THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD), but any alternative that has LESS EVIDENCE FOR IT will be MORE WRONG. See: spin gravity. That's obviously wrong because it disagrees with just about all the observed data. Once you come up with something BETTER, then you can criticise the existing theories for being 'totally wrong'.

Worst post ever. Well, not even close, but it's still pretty bad.

Don't forget the universe doesn't have a defined edge, as such

We're talking of any of the spectrum of the electromagnetic wave packets ('photons'). These travel at 299792458ms^-1 in a vacuum, and their interactions are entirely predictable. I don't believe that exists. It would invalidate SR for a start, and something of that magnitude would be international news, not just a small aside somewhere.

Which race is Galactus?

Bloody noneuclidean geometry

And biologists prefer physicists?

It's partially pot luck, the interview systems (remember she may have just had a poor interview, it happens), but all the newspaper stories are complete tosh. eg. Laura Spence. Rejected for Medicine at Oxford. Accepted for Biochemistry at Harvard. BUT SHE GOT THREE A'S! the papers cried. Yes, so did the people who got in Cambridge isn't boring for SL, and from what I hear from people I know there oxford isn't either.

Hey, aliens might use the same kind of communications Satellite positions is the most reliable way, presuming you don't get spy sats sending information your way. ps. Sound is man made too, but we can hear that