Cap'n Refsmmat

When you use multiple incredibly accurate atomic clocks and they tick more slowly at exactly the rate mathematically predicted by relativity, under various conditions. There's other ways to do it, too; the spaceship could emit pulses of light at certain intervals, for example. Or you could watch the movements of the people inside, who would seem to be in slow motion.

To quote Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner_of_war#Qualifications

Could you explain this more? I don't understand what you mean here. What scriptural or religious justification do you have for the claim that humanity was awarded to Satan as a gift? Where'd you get this number from?

To quote swansont: Time is what clocks measure. Suppose there is an observer with a clock and a spaceship with a giant clock on its outside, so the observer can watch it. The spaceship blasts past at near the speed of light, and the observer notes how fast the clock moves. He will note that the clock on the spaceship appears to be ticking rather slowly. That's what SR means when it talks about time dilation. An example: The Hafele-Keating experiment loaded atomic clocks on airliners and flew them around the world a few times. When they returned, they were compared with a stationary clock at the US Naval Observatory, and it was discovered that the clocks were no longer synchronized. Time had elapsed differently for the clocks on the airplanes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment

It's also interesting that ultra-Orthodox Judaism is growing rapidly in Israel, despite Israel's comparatively secular nature.

Hmm. What sorts of science/math history discussions do you envision us having?

I'm not sure I saw much about divine revelation when reading the New Testament. Where do you draw this idea from?

Paul holds that obeying the law is not sufficient to make up past for disobedience. Remember that sacrifice is part of the law -- if you break a rule and make the appropriate sacrifice, you are still obeying the law. However, should you disobey God and, say, worship idols, coming back to the law will not save you. If you skip your mortgage payments for three months and then start paying regularly again, you will still be indebted to the mortgage company for those three months. As for why the law includes sacrifices to God, I think A Tripolation has it. I'm not sure one can rationalize this to become completely consistent, though.

This question is somewhat deeper than you might think. We like to think there's some sort of absolute reference frame. By "absolute reference frame," I mean some what of measuring the "real" distance between objects, or the "real" velocity of a rocket, or the "real" time between two events. We like to think there's some correct number for the length of a string or the distance between two stars, and if that number varies because of length contraction, it's some sort of illusion or deviation from the "real" value. That concept is misguided, because there is no absolute reference frame. And if there's no absolute reference frame, there's no difference between space appearing to be shortened and space actually being shortened, because the only way to tell if space is shortened is to look at it and see if it appears to be shortened. Relativity inevitably means you will get different values from different observers. One observer will say a distance is one light year, and the other will say it's a half; one observer will say one year has passed, and the other will say 40,000 have passed. It's not that one is right and one is wrong. They're both reporting exactly what the available data tell them. No; the string will shorten because it is moving. The space between them won't do anything interesting, I don't think. In this example, it is indeed reality. The older twin will have aged more than the younger twin according to every atomic clock you can devise, every biological test you can conceive of, and every perception you can ask them about. Relativity isn't just about broken clocks. I certainly appreciate this. We ordinarily get members who don't want to learn at all, but want to argue with us constantly, so we get a bit defensive by reflex.

I see. And it doesn't make sense theologically. And if you can't give God anything that He can't just make for himself, clearly he'll have to provide you with something to sacrifice instead. Something you can't make, but He can. Like, say, a son.

God can make as many dead sheep as he wants. Why should your dead sheep do any better?

Cut it out. If you don't want to discuss the science, don't start an argument over it. Unless you can get back on topic I'll be closing this thread.

If you want a grumpy, unflattering picture of them, why not just use their driver's license photo? They're invariably terrible.

You have misunderstood special relativity, and you achieve absurd results because you apply it incorrectly. From the perspective of one of the spheres, the string will have gotten very short, and the spheres will still remain exactly the same distance apart. The space between them has not contracted, from the perspective of the spheres. From the perspective of the string, the spheres have gotten very close together (and are no longer spherical, but contracted in the direction of the string's travel), and the string is exactly the same length as it started out. At no point does the string pull on the spheres with any amount of force. Space appears contracted, but that does not require any force to be applied on the spheres. It's a matter of perspective.

Perhaps we can ask a different question. Is there any conceivable thing you can give God to repay Him for your disobedience? Is there some object or material you can give God that will make up for your sins?

Now this is just getting silly. Yes, claiming that God is an impostor and making fun of the appropriation of a pagan holiday is indeed a bit naughty. And if all we're going to do is argue about it, we might as well just stop now.

Wikileaks is at it again, releasing the complete assessments of all prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay, including many which have been released. The assessments cover how the prisoners were captured, what information incriminated them, and all sorts of routine information like their medical notes and behavior problems. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/25/guantanamo-files-lift-lid-prison http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/wikileaks-discloses-new-details-on-whereabouts-of-al-qaeda-leaders-on-911/2011/04/24/AFvvzIeE_story.html?hpid=z1 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/25/world/guantanamo-files-lives-in-an-american-limbo.html?hp Some unpleasant details: (from the NYT) With Obama's failure to convince Congress to close Guantanamo and try the remaining detainees in civilian court, these documents could easily fuel the public debate on the subject. I'm certainly disappointed to see that potential terrorists have been mistreated such that trying many of them in civilian court would be impossible, and that innocent people were held for years on little evidence. Think this will change the direction of the current proceedings at Guantanamo?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_capture

Why? Sine waves occur in nature. Also I'm not sure you're going to get much useful feedback if you require people to pay you $100 to hear your discovery.

Why?

You asked what they're doing to make antimatter, and I told you exactly what they do. Now, the question of why smashing protons together makes antiprotons is a different one, and I have no idea what the answer is.

As I described earlier, smash a high-velocity proton into another proton and it will create two new particles: a proton and an antiproton. No special tricks required.

No. I've already told you that wavefunctions do not work this way. When they interfere, they do not release energy. Particles and antiparticles do not have opposite wavefunctions. Read an introductory quantum mechanics textbook. There is no other kind of wave thingy that they have opposites of. Not in quantum mechanics, at least. Protons, not photons. As far as I know, there's very few collisions or interactions that produce entangled particles. Most collisions result in particles bouncing off each other. Also, it doesn't make sense to say photons "collide," because they're bosons. They can occupy the same space at the same time if they want to.

Then you're talking about something which does not exist in physics. Wavefunctions are the representation of the wavelike properties of particles. Energy doesn't have mass. It can, however, be transformed into something that does. Generally we call things that have mass "matter."

No, they don't. Wavefunctions don't behave that way. A better way of thinking of wavefunctions is that they represent the probability that a particle exists in a certain place. They do not represent the particle itself. Destructive interference can occur with wavefunctions, as in the double-slit experiment, but it does not annihilate the particle or release energy; interference just alters the probability of finding the particle at that location. Negative mass has not been observed. Photons do not have mass. They have energy.