Tres Juicy

Very astute

If you have doubts about this go parachuting in a vacuum and see what happens....

Fair point. But the general gist is "do as I say or else"

Cool, I will have a look at this properly when I'm not at work Thanks SH!

Could you point me towards some of the experimental proofs? I think I'd like to read a little more on the subject Thanks

It says that it works. Once independently tested if proven it becomes mainstream science. Testable, repeatable results is what science is based on

How can distance be realtive? Surely they are either at the same distance or they are not? With this in mind, if B (stationary) fires a laser past A while he is moving at 0.5c B measures the light to move away from him at c and A also observes the light going past him to move away from him at c (even though he is moving at 0.5c) Is that right? If it is surely one of these measurements is false? I mean the light cannot be doing different speeds for different observers can it?

Insects are far more important than us. Wipe out insects and the ecosystem fails Wipe out people and it flourishes

Hi all, So, Relativity says that the speed of light is the same in all frames of reference, but I can't get my head around it... Here's my question: 2 observers A an B A is riding a horse (why not?) at 1/2 c - B is stationary. A fires a laser at a distant target and measures the speed of light travelling away from him to be c B, our stationary observer also measures the speed of light travelling away from him to be c So lets say that the laser was fired while the two observers are at an equal distance away from the target and that from that dstance the light will take 10 seconds to reach the target from that point. Does that depend on the reference frame? Does the stationary B measure the time it takes to be 10 seconds, while the moving A measure it to be 5 seconds? How can the light move away from A (who is travelling at 1/2 c) at c and not reach the target sooner than it would if fired from a stationary position? Or do they both measure the same? If so, that can't be right can it? If they both measure the same then the speed of light is different in each frame(?!) That's enough for now I think.... Can someone enlighten me as to how this works?

HA! We're all screwed if we don't convert! That's what I was told... New International Version (©1984) He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.New Living Translation (©2007) in flaming fire, bringing judgment on those who don't know God and on those who refuse to obey the Good News of our Lord Jesus. English Standard Version (©2001) in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. New American Standard Bible (©1995) dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.) In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: International Standard Version (©2008) in blazing fire. He will take revenge on those who do not know God and on those who refuse to obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010) Whenever he executes vengeance in blazing fire on those who do not know God and on those who have not recognized The Good News of our Lord Yeshua The Messiah, GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995) He will take revenge on those who refuse to acknowledge God and on those who refuse to respond to the Good News about our Lord Jesus. King James 2000 Bible (©2003) In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: American King James Version In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: American Standard Version rendering vengeance to them that know not God, and to them that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus: Douay-Rheims Bible In a flame of fire, giving vengeance to them who know not God, and who obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. Darby Bible Translation in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who know not God, and those who do not obey the glad tidings of our Lord Jesus Christ; English Revised Version in flaming fire, rendering vengeance to them that know not God, and to them that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus: Webster's Bible Translation In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Weymouth New Testament He will come in flames of fire to take vengeance on those who have no knowledge of God, and do not obey the Good News as to Jesus, our Lord. World English Bible giving vengeance to those who don't know God, and to those who don't obey the Good News of our Lord Jesus, Young's Literal Translation in flaming fire, giving vengeance to those not knowing God, and to those not obeying the good news of our Lord Jesus Christ; Lucky it's all crap eh?

One of the theories is that you can only go back n the time frame where the time machine exists. So if you invent the time machine in 2012 you can't go back to 2011

Yes, I know . And again this goes back to my original post - whether there may be a limit to what we can learn about the brain/consciousness given that they are our only tools for that particular job. What I mean is perhaps a shared bias exists in all brains If a "blind spot" existed how would we detect it? The scientific method/process does a great job but it in itself is a product of the potentially biased human brain

I'm not talking about individual bias, but the bias of the brain in general (all brains) The reason I say this is that it may be that the human brain is limited to thinking in certain ways. I'm wondering if there may be a "blind spot" when it comes to consciousness attempting to understand itself. If that were the case it would be very hard to detect.

Or he's just a sadistic dick an enjoys watching you suffer?

Reallity is reallity. If your house burns down you don't get to decide that it didn't

No, you don't get to decide what's real at all

I could elaborate by saying that it is highly unlikely that fire and people incinerating themselves could possibly cause enough selection pressure to make us lose most of our hair as a result But do I really need to?

I would have to agree here. Although that's not the fault of the poster. It is the fault of whoever wrote the questions. The questions seem to have been written with an agenda in mind... These in particular: I can imagine that the answers to these will likely be used as ammunition to ridicule people with differing views and science in general

Which would explain my sock paradox I mentioned earlier

Are you talking about the fabric of space itself? If you are, then I refer you back to this: The aether idea came about because it was assumed that any form of wave needed a medium to travel through and since light could pass unhindered through a vacuum, there must be something else there as the medium. This assumption was wrong.

Michelson-Morley: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment Space is there, but it's not comprised of any ether... Let me put it another way: Imagine ether did exist, it would still have to exist somewhere. That somewhere is space, the space that your ether would exist in. I think I see what you're thinking, but it doesn't work that way. Space ins't made of anything, it's just space. Einstein said something like "Space is what we measure with a ruler, nothing more". There's no structure to it, just volume. You can't think of it any other way, however tempting it is.

MM experiment and lack of aether wind spring to mind. More to the point, why are you so convinced that there is such a thing as aether?

There is no aether or ether.... Are you suggesting brining back a container of space? If so it would be a vacuum and would be crushed (depending on the container) by the earths atmospheric pressure. If you were to open the container under water there would be no bubble, the water would just rush in to fill the void.