ydoaPs

The moon is a lot less massive than the Earth and it is far further away from us. Like swansont said, [math]F=G{\frac{{m_1}{m_2}}{r^2}}[/math] Where m1 and m2 are the masses of the objects in question(you and either the moon or the earth) and r is the distance between you and the centre of the other object. With the Earth being so much closer and more massive, it wins by a long shot until we get much closer to the moon. Even when we are on the moon, it holds us a lot less than the Earth does when we are on the earth.

I'm a nuclear mechanic. When my time is up, I want to study Relativity, Quantum Field theories, advanced maths, and philosophy. I'm not sure which one(s) it will end up being.

until I graduate from NNPTC. I just have the final exams for my second half courses and the comprehensive examination left. I've been even more apathetic than ever, so my grades have been slipping. I am now down to a 3.58 GPA overall. I start NPTU in NY on the 1st of October.

Enter Neodymium magnets. I assume you know you will need to have a current-carrying conductor as well.

That is what I thought immediately.

According to the user title, (s)he is not banned.

Which Relativity? Both have several experiments verifying them. However, they are experiments I seriously doubt you could perform yourself. Indeed.

Roman Numerals I+I=II Roman Numerals I+I=II

That isn't necessarily true. I did almost no homework in High School and even slept in class and got the same grades as many people who tried hard and studied. Some people just have greater aptitudes than others. Like a shirt of mine says, "Genius by birth, slacker by choice." It isn't a good way to approach school, but many people, including myself, have done so and many will most probably continue to do so in the future. Either way, this is the homework HELP forum, not the "do my homework for me" forum.

They died due to lack of interest. We barely got to the chain rule, IIRC.

Gravity is attractive and repulsive?

One may need proof if one were interested in persuading others to share their belief. See post #145

Is it any shock that the example now shows doubt when you replace a word with a connotation of having no doubt with a word with a connotation of having doubt? It may have indeed been a bad example, but I did come up with at that moment. Does the word "faith" not suggest that the faithful cannot know for an empirical fact that deities exist? Any theistic religion which requires faith is some sort of Agnostic Theism. I apologize, but I can't seem to see why you think that it is untenable to hold a belief while simultaneously believing it is not possible to have proof that such belief is correct. Haven't several theists here stated that their belief is "outside science"? They would be agnostic theists. Are they contradicting themselves?

Indeed. I guess I should have explained that, but it was a comment made more in passing.

I think you misunderstand. For instance: You believe that there are WMDs hidden somewhere on Earth, but due to financial limitations, you cannot search every cubic cenimetre to find out; thus you believe but you know you cannot know for sure. Is that contradictory? In much a similar fashion, one can believe in god(s) but also believe that it is impossible to know for an empirical fact that such god(s) exist(s).

What's the current news? As of right now, is it a go or no go?

Indeed. Theists often caricature atheists as all being strong atheists(similar to an argument that all theists are Mormons) with no moral compass, and thus have given the word a sort of social stigma. It has, in fact been quite successful. One only has to see the abundance of various words atheists will use to describe themselves while dancing around the word "atheist." The core of atheism is just a response to theism. Theists say "One or more deities exist". And atheism is just people saying "I don't believe you." This can take on varying degrees of forcefulness(ranging from Weak Atheism: "I don't believe deities exist" to Strong Atheism:"I believe that no deities exist.") Weak Atheism(the core of atheism) obviously requires no faith and as such is often blatantly ignored by theists. Strong Atheism, on the other hand, requires just as much faith as theism. "Agnostic" is a term that is misused as nausium. I suspect that it is mostly due to the social stigma(which is thankfully somewhat receding) that I wrote of above. Agnostic is a modifier of the terms Theist and Atheist, and as such cannot stand on it's own. You either believe in the existence of one or more deities, or you don't; there is no middle ground. Atheism and Theism are the only options. Agnosticism is merely one flavour of the choices. "Agnostic" merely means that one believe that one cannot know whether or not deities exist. Thus, one can be an Agnostic Theist(believe one or more deities exist, but it is impossible to know for a fact that this is the truth) or one can be an Agnostic Atheist(lack a belief in deities, but also believe it is impossible to know whether or not deities exist), but one cannot JUST be an Agnostic. There is no middle ground between belief and disbelief; you either believe or you lack belief. That's enough ranting for one post

Oops, long day. I meant the first law. Why would the universe need a beginning? Er, not quite. Big Bang wasn't the beginning of anything; it was a rapid expansion. After all, SOMETHING banged [ QUOTE=swansont;350633]That's the first law. The second law is entropy increasing in closed systems. Yea, I felt so stupid. I realized that like an hour after I posted it. The idea still stands regardless of my temporary confusion of laws.

Ex-Nihilo is a religious dogma, it isn't science. IIRC, science has the second law of thermodynamics(energy/mass cannot be created or destroyed, only altered in form). Why does the universe need a beginning?

Um, no. Ever hear of a mule? ...assuming eating intelligent animals isn't wrong in a world where we could very well be supported in a vegetarian lifestyle. In fact, if we were vegetarians, there would be more food to go around, so it would be easier to fight world hunger. Even so, "they are hypocrites, so having sex with animals isn't bad" isn't a very good argument. I pray to the FSM that you are joking.

I thought the Orion project was an ancient idea to use thermonuclear explosions as propulsion.

Is there going to be some sort of separate warning system to determine when a member may no longer post, or will it be more of a subjective thing? Will there be temp-bans like in the regular forums? etc. The idea is good, it just needs details worked on. That's what I was thinking.

Good philosophy is backed up with data(where data is available). What good is a philosophy that isn't based in real world facts? See above. Indeed. We could have a general philosophy section and move the Biomedical Ethics to a subforum of general philosophy. I would say the same thing for Philosophy of Science, but it seems to have been moved to the archives(I've never really read any posts there, however). I do think, though, that a Religion subforum here is doomed from the start.

Especially odd with the NASA shooting just a few days later.

IIRC, a long time ago, in a galaxy far far away, it was like that, but we had a problem with people going back and editing posts once the conversation based on said posts had began. As far as I have seen, that has never happened here. We have a great staff.