Delta1212

Well, yes, each person is only ever in their own frame of reference, but if everyone is in their own frame, that's hardly one global frame.

Although I don't have any particular belief in a deity, I feel like this is a question that wouldn't necessarily have a satisfactory answer even if a god did exist.

DNA doesn't retain a complete history of everything that has come before it. However, sometimes it's useful for an organism to eliminate some trait. You can do that by eliminating the genes that code for that trait, or you can do it by suppressing them. As long as the disadvantageous trait is no longer present, evolution isn't too picky about the how. So you can certainly wind up with past traits that no longer get expressed buried in DNA, but it's because they received the evolutionary equivalent of white out rather than backspace to get rid of them. If the bits of DNA in question aren't used for anything else, they probably will get lost eventually just because any mutations that affect them probably won't impact the organism in any significant way, but in the meantime, they are technically still present. That said, again, it's because genetic material is messy and not terribly picky about what is and is not included as long as the final product works, and not because there is any retention of all historical traits in your DNA. Some stuff gets dropped, some stuff gets altered, some stuff gets overwritten. Edit: Here, better metaphor. You've got a ton of papers on your desk. You don't need some of them and, not being super organized, you chuck some of them in the trash and throw others in a desk drawer with a bunch of other junk you never look at. Technically, the stuff you threw in the desk drawer is still accessible, but you probably won't ever see it again and will eventually wind up in the trash during a periodic cleaning out of the desk. It would not be accurate to describe your junk drawer as a complete history of all of your paperwork just because you stuffed a few things you didn't want cluttering the top of your desk in the junk drawer instead of throwing them away outright.

Genes are discrete units of inheritance (more or less). You don't have all of your ancestors' genetic material in you, even in some reduced form. You either inherit a particular allele or you do not. It is entirely possible that if you go back far enough you could find an ancestor that contributed nothing that survived all the way to end up in your DNA. Essentially, just because you had brown eye-ed ancestors does not necessarily mean you have a brown-eyed gene buried somewhere in your DNA.

Saying that "all we need to do is build something that can solve the problem" ignores the fact that it's only considered a problem in the first place because building that something is an incredibly difficult piece of engineering that in many cases may not even be physically possible let alone practical to implement.

I let stuff go that I could feasibly "get revenge" for all the time. I certainly don't get angry over anything that happened years ago. Frankly, I have trouble holding onto resentment for longer than a couple months, assuming whatever was causing it has ended. It's just not worth the time and emotional strain to worry about it. If you gave me the opportunity, right now, to injure some person of my choice in a manner of my choosing, large or small, with no repercussions, not a single name comes to mind as someone it would give me pleasure to even inconvenience. But maybe that's just me.

Points 6 and 7 seem to directly contradict one another. How can something expand when heated and contract when cooled while simultaneously having no temperature? Edit: Also, Einstein didn't come up with Relativity from pure thought. This is a fiction perpetuated by people who don't want to acknowledge that they might need to learn some math. Einstein's ideas had a solid foundation in mathematics and were an exploration of the consequences of the constant speed of light that had already cropped up in Maxwell's equations for describing EM waves.

I do realize this, but the impression I'm getting from Fred is that, the way he's using frame, he means a volume of space surrounding each of our individual origin points, this making "the universe" a universal frame because it is the volume of space that encompasses everything. What I was trying to get across (perhaps not as well as I'd hoped?) is that the distinguishing factor between frames isn't really the area of the location they occupy so much as the velocity at which they are traveling. I realize that isn't strictly the definition of a frame, but I've found it helpful for visualizing what is going on to remember that frames are separated by the way they move moreso than by distance between them.

And to defeat modern encryption, all you need to do is build a computer fast enough brute force any password in a few seconds.

You seem to be using the word frame in a very, very different context than is used in physics. A frame of reference is not a location. It could more accurately be compared to a velocity.

Why 5, 15 and 25?

Good. You've got the beginnings of an experiment there. How are you planning to measure the spread?

So what result would you expect to see from your test if your idea is correct?

But if the photons were actively repulsing each other rather than naturally spreading out as a result of the inability to aim them all in exactly the same direction, a larger concentration of photons should result in a large repulsive force and thus a wider spread. If you agree that this doesn't happen, you've refuted your own hypothesis.

Probably the best advice I've seen regarding what to do with an unexpected financial windfall of significant size, but it lottery, inheritance or what have you, is to find some place to park it and then don't touch it for six month when you'll have gotten more used to the idea that it's there and the impulse to go out and buy everything just because you can will have had time to diminish.

F=ma means "The amount of force is directly proportional to the amount of mass times the amount of acceleration." In your scenario, the equal sign means "the amount of force is directly proportional to the amount of mass" not "force and mass are the same thing."

Once things have calmed down a bit, you might be interested in a trip to Thailand.

Photons don't repel other photons; they pass through each other quite freely. And they behave like waves even when there is only a single photon present.

Except that photons are really nothing like bowling balls whatsoever. They have momentum but no mass, they interfere with themselves as if they were ripples on a pond, but interact as if they were localized (like your bowling ball) and they always travel at exactly the same speed no matter how you measure them, like a car that every other car on the road sees going 10 miles per hour faster than it even though those cars are all traveling at different speeds. How in the world is that boring?

If you don't even know what current physics is, how do you know it's so basic?

"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." What we know represents centuries of work by countless individuals. If you're going to ignore all of that and insist on figuring out the entirety of physics yourself, you're going to waste a lot of time on ideas that have already been studied and discarded and any progress you do make is probably going to retread work someone else has already done. That isn't leading anyone. If you want to lead, you need to work up to the same point everyone else is already at and then push further. If you're not willing to put in the work to get to the forefront of a field, you aren't going to be able to lead, merely stumble around in the dark.

It may just be confusion over the way you write, but it sounds like you just said an attractive girl would look just as good with a penis. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

It's actually pretty abnormal to be repelled by people of the same gender. Most straight people aren't. They may not be attracted to them, but that's different from being disgusted.

Out of curiosity, what would be some types of evidence that would convince you that evolution is more likely than Young Earth Creationism?

For any realistic set up, wouldn't it be a negligible effect, or am I missing something?