[Tycho?]

Look at animals. Do they get diseases and die from them? Most definately, always have, always will. Animals (including humans) over time aqquire resistance to infections. The bacteria and viruses that cause the infections also adapt however, usually at an aburdly higher rate.

Way too high I would think. Fly out far into space, like the distance of the moon. One side of the earth is very brightly lit, while the other is so dark you cannot see it. There are obviously other wavelenghts than are visible, but the sun puts out an incredible amount of energy, I think it would outside the rest of the sky on pretty near every wavelength. Maybe I'm wrong though, someone should look it up to be sure.

I was under the impression that only small amounts of x-rays and gamma rays actually escaped the sun.

This boils down to a more managable question- if you took babies from 0ad (or whenever) and raised them in our society, how would they compare to children born today? I'd say there wouldn't be a signifigant difference, but we have no way of proving or disproving the argument, so its all nicely hypothetical.

To be fair, in the realm where time and length can be different when viewed from different frames, it is rather difficult to discern what "makes sense" and what doesn't.

http://www.google.com http://www.wikipedia.com

How would the photons alone be responsible for the orbital paths? Photons have never been obvserved to have any attractive force, that would be easily tested here on earth with a laser for example. Plus we know the moon orbits around the earth, but the earth certainly emits photons in comparitavely small amounts, and only on its day side.

Well whatever. Does the gravitation field increase as mass increases? In any case, can it happen, or is gravity not involved in this?

Ok, I can't keep this straight in my mind. When an object accelerates close to c, does its gravity increase, or is it just inertial mass that increases? I dont think that gravity increases, but I want to make sure on this. (you can explain your answer if you feel like it, but really just saying which is correct would be fine)

I knew Italy and Croatia, because those are my refference points for that country. I would have been able to work out Austria, but instead of Hungary I probably would have said Slovakia.

I hadn't heard of this, it would be interesting if it was true.

no

How in the world is that rude? He posted a link which was extremely relevant to the subject at hand. It would have been foolish to make a new thread just for that link when this one already exists.

He means just the outline of the circle. So anything inside or outside the circe doesn't count. It being just a line, it would have no height or width, it would only have a length, and hence would be one dimensional. I guess.

Yes it does, and yes it is. I've never heard of anything like this, and would bet that such a setup could not levitate that way, because, whats it levitating against?

This test is stupid. 9) Hitler 18) Ghandi 27) Lincon 45) Hitler Anything to do with hitler is incorrect. I am extremely non-aggressive, almost rediculously so. And I just did the 45 one again (different questions) and I got Einstien. This quiz is stupid.

Have a human baby be raised by apes. Have this human raised by apes and a dolphin go through a gauntlet of problem solving tests. Thats the only way to put a human and dolphin on fair ground. A normal human grows up with technology, and an education. We are taught how to use tools, how to solve problems, how to learn. Just as a trained dog will appear to be more intelligent than an untrained dog that is otherwise the same. A trained human, which all humans are, cannot be approached except by similar training and education. A cave man could have the same potential intelligence as someone today, but without proper education, without an advanced enough language, they can only get so intelligent.

Yes, you have several "facts" incorrect, and your reasoning is flawed as well.

I'm not giving my first name away. Present, though not on all fingers. I'm 18. Male.

I dont see how this is an astronomy related question. And use google. It isn't hard.

No, there is no universal frame of refference. This is a key part of relativity, as everything is relative to the observer.