MigL

Totally agree, Ophiolite. If someone wants to wage war there are a multitude of stupid reasons to do so.

And what exactly about political reality is sane ???

One seeks to explain the workings, The other seeks to explain purpose, dimreepr. I'm not saying there is a 'crusade' against religion Tenoz, quite the contrary, I'm saying one is not needed.

You cannot interact in any way with the moon from one and a half seconds ago as that would imply superluminal transfer of information. As Strange says, that comes from relativity theory which is well established and provides most of our current ( limited ) understanding of time.

Is it lunch time already ?

Here's one of my favorites... How would the world be different had Von Moltke followed the Shliffen plan during the initial assault on France in 1914, and the Central powers won the war ? ( No WW2, no communism, no cold war, etc, etc. )

" their distinguishing feature is that the subject believes something which normal people wouldn't believe" So you and others like Acme have decided what is 'normal' and sane, or worse yet, society labels a group of people as NOT 'normal' and then slowly starts taking away their rights, until they eventually get sent to gas chambers ( I apologize for the extremism to make a quick point ). Sounds like the worst kind of discrimination, that against differing thought and opinion, it could certainly never happen !! Oh, wait, yes it did ! Attacking an idea is one thing ( and perfectly legitimate, we do it here all the time ), attacking a group of people who hold the same ideas by 'labelling' them, is plain wrong and discriminatory.

I agree with all you, religion is a crutch, not everyone needs one but a person with a broken leg certainly does. Do you think it wise to ridicule that person and dismiss or take away his crutch ? Ophiolite obviously doesn't, and neither do I. And I agree Delboy, morality could now replace Religion, and for a lot of people, myself included, it has. Do you think it could have in previous eras, like 1000 yrs ago ? Or do you think the 'fear' that religion instills was a suitable means of achieving morality in those days ? As I said for a lot of people Religion is no longer needed, for others it is.

Further to what AJB has said, it is current thought that the TeV energy is where electroweak dissociation happened through a symmetry break. The mechanism that brought this about is the Higgs mechanism and the result is separate weak and EM forces as well as massive particles. It would have been a very different universe before that point, consisting only of massless particles moving at c. The one I have fun considering is the gravitational constant. If one were to have a Machian ( look it up ) point of view, one may consider the gravitational constant to be dependent on the mass-energy density of the observable universe. Which of course changes over time ...

Sure, you can call both 'extended', but in a different way. You can touch your spatial extensions , like your toes. You CANNOT interact in any way with the you from 10 sec.ago. You've gotta be careful what you say. If you give Michel123456 any slack, he'll go running off with it again.

History has nothing to do with when things happened, CasualKilla. I suggest that the only lack of understanding is on your part.

I'm glad you understand, "old man in a rock n' roll band" ( you must be close to my age to remember 'Fly at Night' ) ( and maybe Canadian ?)

I don't get the boobs. They are a mammalian trait. Or is that a personal obsession.

I assume these scientists are much more competent than I am, Strange, but even gamma ray wavelengths would be HUGE in relation to Planck scale. I don't see how a ship the size of the Titanic would be slowed down by <1mm foam bubbles on the water's surface ( have I got the scale approx. right ? )

Ok lets simplify. We consider two stationary airfoils with the fluid moving past both, except that one is tied down and one isn't. The fluid has a certain amount of energy and it imparts some of it to the airfoils ( heating, lift, etc. ). In the case where the airfoil is allowed to rise, an even smaller amount is imparted to the airfoil as a rise in gravitational potential. In the case where the airfoil is constrained, the fluid is 'deflected' more strongly. In effect the fluid keeps more of its energy This is more easily seen with a flat plate. If you introduce a flat plate orthogonally to a fluid flow, it will tend to fly away in the direction of the fluid flow. The plate gains some energy from the fluid which loses some. The only way to keep it stationary is to hold it, in effect, by giving it energy in the way of thrust.

Can we ? Can we ? Can we ? Pretty please ?

Don't understand. This is not a new model, just a re-interpretation. What is speculative about it ( other than interpretations in general )?

Acme definitely has preconceived notions about the right and conservatives ( approx. half American population ), chadn737. But he's not all bad. He likes Chilliwack after all ( the band not the city ).

I did provide an example of what Religion provides that Science doesn't, or did you just read the first line. I am not religious by any means ( although raised Roman Catholic since I was born in Italy ) and have no need for it, But some people do, as it gives their lives purpose and guidance. And you're right Religion should respect Science, as Religion cannot give us the whys and hows of the workings of the universe. We must recognize that only Science can. But Science should also respect Religion as Science cannot give us the guidance to help others for a common good. Sometimes Religion is corrupted by some, and that is to be expected as it deals on an emotional subjective level, as opposed to Science which is factual and objective. It does however, do some good things, which differentiate us from animals. In fact you could say Religion is that which gives us our 'soul'.

As a person who sees with only one eye ( lost vision in left due to early PDS glaucoma ), I can still walk, run and drive. But if you toss me a baseball there's no way I'll catch it. You need binocular vision for depth perception. If these Raptor relatives are swinging or jumping through trees, I don't think many will survive to pass on their genes. They may also need larger forelimbs to support their weight, as its hard to climb with only your legs. Their balancing tail would then no longer be needed and may prove an obstruction to motion also. Finally, assuming they can hunt from above, would they need big claws and jaws, as they would have the element of surprise in any encounter.

Called in to work as its snowing real bad, so I'm back again. Whether an airfoil is moving through the air or the air is moving past an airfoil makes no difference. A certain amount of air has to change direction for the resultant pressure difference to generate lift. This means you cannot simply consider the vertically acting forces in your energy balance, you must also consider the thrust moving the airfoil forward or the fluid past the airfoil, and the various forms of drag, such as form drag ( due to airfoil shape ) and drag due to lift ( vertical lift produces horizontal drag because the fluid is accelerated vertically around the airfoil ). Every 1st year Aeronautical Engineering text dealing with airfoils, uses the four vectors of weight, drag, lift and thrust in any analysis. You need to do the same for your energy balance, as that is your ( nearly ) isolated system.

Why do you think the only potential energy is gravitational ? Any force will produce a potential, and a potential will produce kinetic, unless constrained. A gravitational force has an associated gravitational potential which results in the movement of a test mass, i.e. falling. A lifting force also has an associated potential, but as your airfoil is constrained, it cannot exchange this potential for kinetic, so it does not rise and potential does not decrease. In effect the net change in potential ( considering only lift and gravitational, not drag ) is zero. If it were to rise, its gravitational potential would increase but lifting potential would decrease. An analysis of the total energy balance on the other hand, would also need to include thrust and drag to be complete, as these also supply/reduce energy of the system as Studiot has pointed out.

Maybe this isn't the proper place to post this, but I don't see why so many intelligent people are so against religion. As Ophiolite has wisely stated the two can co-exist, and Dawkins should know this. Science provides something Religion cannot, and Religion provides ( to some ) what Science can't. Are most of the people in East-Central Africa helping out with the Ebola epidemic there for 'scientific' reasons or 'religious' reasons ? From the purely scientific point of view, the world is overpopulated and can't support the population in some areas. Science teaches us that the way to cull a heard is best done by sacrificing the sick and weak ( strongest survive ). These people aren't there to take samples or test new medications. Most are there because they care for their fellow human beings, that we are all on some level interconnected and that only together we can survive and achieve. This is something Religion teaches us, as our instincts are to fight with and take advantage of our fellow humans. We, and more specifically religious radicals, just need to realize that Religion does this with allegories and not literally, i.e. evolution is what really happened, creation , or Genesis, IMPLIES that we are all 'connected' and that men and women are made from the same 'stuff', one is not superior to the other. Don't 'throw out the baby with the bathwater'.

Just to be controversial... A ticker tape encodes information in a linear fashion. So does an old style cassette tape ( even a digital one ). A VHS tape even has the spiral substructure of DNA in its encoding. Not to mention any serial data stream such as in a USB or SATA cable. I wonder what insights these can provide into SString theory ? No seriously, other than a generalization that information is encoded along a line segment, what other similarities are there ? The SPECIFIC encoding method is totally different. SString encoding makes use of vibrational states, and by definition cannot employ any groupings, as that would imply structure ( a string must be fundamental ). DNA encoding makes exclusive use of groups of proteins for its encoding. DNA uses more fundamental objects to encode information.

Michel seems to ignore many things in an effort to lend credibility to his flawed point of view. Such as the fact that time passes differently in different frames.