Cap'n Refsmmat

Spontaneous generation isn't really relevant. It claimed that organic matter like maggots spontaneously came into existence around decaying (dead) organic matter. We're talking about organic matter coming into existence via its actual necessary ingredients, not via a dead weasel.

For those who think the "spread it around" requirement is a little too high: I just lowered it from 5 to 2. We don't have too many problems with reputation "loading" yet, so I might as well.

Well, you get what you ask for here.

Done.

Hey, it would probably work.

I like this. Google is essentially inviting innovation and cool projects to spring up. It's a cool system. Of course, they may just use this to find cool projects to buy off of people.

[Thread split from previous location because it was off-topic.]

You can use kinetic and potential energy. [math]PE = mgh[/math] where m = mass, g = the acceleration due to gravity (9.8m/s2) and h = the height. All of that energy will be converted to kinetic energy by the time the object hits the ground. [math]KE = \frac{1}{2} mv^2[/math] where m = mass and v = velocity. So make the kinetic energy equal the potential energy you found in the first step and solve for velocity.

The energy required to do so is infinite. The mass of the object grows as you accelerate it, so it takes more and more energy to accelerate the object.

You don't need to point out that the "designer" wasn't really "intelligent". You just have to point out that ID is not a falsifiable and valid theory.

Ideally you'd have a central configuration file that the code would access, read, and then use to set the parameters.

There you go. That's from your own link. Length contraction means that different observers find lengths to be different. There is no "actual" length because you cannot define which observer is right. If you wish to argue otherwise, I suggest you provide proof. What you are doing right now is worming your way towards being banned.

What's the difference between them "appearing" to be smaller and "actually" being smaller? How do I tell if a ruler is "actually" smaller? I'm interested in what exactly you believe before I start attacking it.

Fixed. I didn't even think about that...

It doesn't really matter which section it's in. It's still homework help, and the rules are the rules, regardless of what you personally think. I'll move the thread.

Whoops, I forgot about CS. Added.

What field do you have a degree in? (If you don't have a degree yet but plan to get one, what field would it be in?)

If you don't think career counselors would be the best choice, walk over to the marine biology department and see if you can talk to one of the professors. They know the field firsthand, so they'd be the best source of information. AFAIK, any research-related field will not bring you an extravagant salary.

Eric 5: So you are saying that a picture of the demo in question showing the rulers being different lengths is not an "obvious fact"? One ruler is clearly shown to be smaller than the other. Are you in dispute with that? Unless you have a weird vision problem in which you cannot judge lateral distances, you are the one ignoring the evidence.

So then what is the picture in swansont's post that I linked to? An illusion?

So then what is the picture in swansont's post that I linked to? An illusion?

Err, huh? Where exactly does the demo prove swansont wrong?

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=399213&postcount=27 Go ahead. Tell me those aren't different lengths. I think that'd be funny.

Unless they wrote the code to handle it, I don't think you can do it.

I decided to go for the next best route.