[Tycho?]

c is constant I'm afraid.

Uh huh. And what evidence do you have to back up your hypothoses?

Why would the device have to be as large as earth?

This is just something I thought up when reading about carbon nano-tubes. It boils down to this: could carbon nano-tubes or other super tiny structures be used to create an "antenna" for light? We use lengths of conductors to absorb radio waves, which generates a current in the conductor which is then amplified and converted to sound. Radio waves and microwaves can also be absorbed by a mesh of conducting material. The kicker for both these methods is that they must be around the size of the wavelength of the absorbed wave. I know for a faraday cage (the conducting mesh) the spaces in the mesh must be smaller than the wavelength they are going to absorb. I know an antenna has an optimal size for a given wavelenght, but I dont know what that is. So, if one construced a conducting mesh with holes say 50 nm in diameter (or whatever), could a current be induced in the mesh if light struck it? If they could be absorbed like radio waves a solar cell made this way should be vastly more efficient than current solar cells. ...and like a million times more expensive. Thoughts?

It gives you a number divided by zero, which doesn't work.

The ancient greeks knew the world was round.

Maybe a car and an apple are the same thing. They are both effected by gravity, both can be red! A photon can only move at c. An electon can move at any speed but c or above. An electron is hugely more massive. Plus they are created in totally different ways, and act in totally different ways. An electron has a charge, a photon does not. Etc etc. They have little in common really.

Number of particles will not change.

What the hell are you talking about? Not one of those sentances makes sense.

There are other forms of matter, like Bose-Enstien condensate.

His paper was first published two years ago... wasn't it? I remember cause I read about it while visiting my grandparents over the summer, and I definately did not do that last summer.

Its possible the silicon thing would work, but it would be tricky. Carbon can form chains pretty much as long as you want them to be, but it is much harder for silicon to do this. Hasn't been proven either way though, so its up in the air.

Some guy on an another forum was telling me how he lost his teeth twice, and so had 3 sets of teeth all together. Apparently his dad, uncle, grandfather and some other males on his dads side of this family all shared this trait. Totally anecdotal, cannot confirm, but neat anyway. No harm in a little teeth replacement now and again.

Relativity predicts that gravity moves at c. There have been some experiments done on this, and they agree that gravity seems to move at c.

You may not be reviewing games, but the lesson is still important.

Uhh, you are making inanimate particles want things. Why would a particle want to own the universe, or want anything at all? If this is just an analogy, what in the world is it an analogy for? Also, by what mechinism does all this light turn into the matter we see today? How does this explain the cosmic microwave background radiation? Currently this is explained by having the universe filled with matter opaque to EM raditation up until a certain point when it became transparent. If it started out as just light we'd be able to see the rementants of that today. And what does Newtons third law have to do with energy matter conversion? And why would the universe be pure white light? Why not gamma rays, or x-rays? And I'm not sure if you can call white light pure anyway, since its the combination of visible colors that make white light.

Gravity does not slow down light, it does decrease its energy though by making it longer wavelenght. c is a constant in a certain medium. It always goes at the same speed through vacum. It will move more slowly when moving through air for example (this is not the light itself slowing down, but time added as it is abosorbed and emitted and bounced around).

Attractive features of the opposite sex tend to be things noticably different from one's own sex. Males like boobs, or small feet, or slender, or nice hips, or lucsious lips, or whatever. Females like size, muscle definition, shoulder width... and whatever else. Some of these things do have an instinctual tint, lots of attractive attributes of a female corespond to a female who is in good childbearing shape, or a female who is sexually aroused or whatever. Same the other way. But lots of attractive traits are just differences. A female with huge bulging musles and super broad shoulders tends to not be attractive, simple because when you look at her one would see lots of male traits in her. That foot size thing in china is a great example- females have naturally smaller feet than males. No advantage to small feet, its just a difference that became more pronounced in that culture. Breasts (along with ass) are obvious choices for males because they are very visible, and easily define the sex of the person in question. Doesn't mean its universal though, not by a long shot.

Thats exactly what I believe, although of course the brain just doesn't have chemicals, nerve impuslues are electro chemical in nature. But yeah, stimulus-> nerve impulse -> nerve impulse -> reaction. Sounds good to me. I thought this up way back in elementry school when I was trying to figure out if the universe was deterministic or not (I knew nothing of quantum stuff back then). I wasn't totally sure about it then, and I'm still not. I figured then that the only way to test it was to observe somebody's reaction to something, go back in time and observe it again. If the reaction is always the same to a given stimulus I'd say our brains are essentially just computers. I would be inclined to believe this anyway, can't prove it though.

Hmm, I would have thought the smaller one would shoot higher at first, but now I dont think so. 1.5cm is pretty small, friction would play a signifigant role here. I'd say either the large one would go higher, or both the same. I dont know enough about fluids to calculate it though.

This is true, but a higher frequency sound will have more energy than a low frequency one. But this wont appear as louder in our ears.

Amplitude of the sound wave.

The Germans were incredibly meticulous with their records. They kept records of everything, they had a rediculous amount of paper and film and everything else after the war.

No. DNA doesn't match conviently over borders like that. Any genes unique to a region would be pretty widespread in that region. And in todays world it wouldn't work at all, there are only a handful of tiny tribes that havn't had genetic influence from other areas. A virus that affects people in one country would probably affect people in all countries, as people are so much more spread out now.