Mr Skeptic

You displace a fluid, and the fluid pushes up on you by an amount equal to the weight of the fluid you displaced (which may or may not be more than your own weight). Why? Consider that the fluid at deeper depths is at higher pressure, so that it pushes that part of your body more than the fluid at a lesser depth.

Here's an idea: take a speed of c, and add another speed less than or equal to c to it. What speed do you get? Since it's a law of physics, it applies to all frames. Or do the laws of physics depend on how fast someone thinks you're going? This might depend on how you define "synchronize" and "simultaneous". Because Newtonian physics is only an approximation and fails when its assumptions don't apply. SR gives indistinguishable results as Newtonian physics at low speeds, and at high speeds the correct results.

Hot lava isn't very conductive to life. However, it does have plenty of minerals, fresh out of the earth. It takes a while to convert to soil however. If it wasn't for new material such as volcanic material, our soils would eventually be washed into sand as all the minerals get carried away to sea.

But would anaerobic life actually have high enough concentration of oxidizer to make a flame? I mean, if you consider terran anaerobic life, I'm not sure you would get much of a fire burning them in hydrogen or methane. Even as aerobic life, we have very little oxidizer in our bodies and oxidizer does nasty things to our biochemicals. --- Incidentally, we have anaerobic photosynthesis and even anaerobic animal life.

How about this?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indium_tin_oxide

Does this help?: http://jersey.uoregon.edu/vlab/elements/Elements.html Elements emit more than one color.

He means a vehicle with lots of wheels and weighing a few tons. They're slower than electricity but can carry a lot.

As far as I know, the only way is to start with accelerating electric charges (typically an electron), and once the wave is started it is self-sustaining.

By induction (look it up).

Darkness moves at the speed of light. However, a shadow can move much faster (or slower).

No electric charges are needed to create an electric field, any more than you need magnetic charges (which don't exist) to create a magnetic field. The change in one field (electric or magnetic) is due to the change in the other field.

Even Newtonian gravity predicted the deflection of light by gravity (though only half as much as General Relativity predicted).

An accelerating charge produces an electromagnetic wave. In a classical electromagnetic wave, you have two components: a changing electric field, and a changing magnetic field. The changing electric field produces a magnetic field, and the changing magnetic field produces an electric field. It just keeps doing that as it moves along. In quantum mechanics, the photon is considered a massless particle.

I use AVG, and I tell it to do its scans at a time when I'm not using the computer.

And in any case you can consider photons to have (relativistic) mass since they have momentum and energy. Their rest mass is zero, however.

If you're going to make an analogy, at least make it a good one. Perhaps momentum instead of speed? If you have less stuff moving faster you might still get the same amount. Anyhow, bandwidth has little to do with the question of latency.

The major error I see is assuming you have an inertial frame when you have gravity. You need general relativity, not special relativity, when you have non-inertial frames.

Right, but when you apply special relativity to a general relativity problem and get the wrong answer, that doesn't really prove that special relativity is wrong. It just means you made a mistake assuming an inertial frame where there is a non-inertial frame.

A good point, and one of the many reasons that we are not rational (or at least sometimes appear not to be). In part this is because the game of life has multiple rounds. If this one game was all there were, rejecting a proposal on the basis of unfairness might not be rational. But in a multi-round game you can make it clear that you reject "unfair" proposals, logic be damned. In the end, this sense of fairness can benefit you, as others fear to offer you an unfair proposal.

And where would that be? Which tax can we cut to increase revenue? I think it's more nuanced than that. I think it's pretty clear that some taxes are worse than others, even if they account for the same amount of revenue. So switching from one to another could increase revenue even with a slight decrease in tax rate. Likewise, some spending can increase economic growth, although not all spending will. Some spending (both government and private) simply redistribute wealth rather than create it, and such spending won't increase revenue.

Living things need to have an energy source. An energy source is a heat source.

Corrupt politicians is however something that has been agreed on for thousands of years. I recall reading that Socrates said he couldn't be a politician cause he wasn't corrupt enough. I don't think that every politician is corrupt. A majority, perhaps. But also, a politician does not have the privilege of doing as he thinks is right. You see this, for example, when a politician decries earmarks and then seeks earmarks for his district. Or, fails to do so and gets voted out by the people...

You may be able to get this info from the biomass growth, by subtracting the proportion of the biomass that is not carbon.

5'---GATC--- 3'---CTAG--- it gets cut as shown. The hyphens are just placeholders.

Because to project a vector on another, you need to take into account how similar they point, rather than how perpendicular.