Severian

I am not sure I am understanding the question. Are you meaning that the cart is moving in a circle? Or is this path straight? It is very pertinant to the question because if it is moving in a straight line then (presumably) it is not accelerating' date=' whereas if it is turning it is accelerating. This will only happen if the cart is not accelerating. So this is only true if the cart is moving with constant velocity. This is the answer which made me think the cart is moving in a circle. If it is, then this is true. If it isn't, I am not even sure what this statement is trying to say! Relative to the ground, this statement is always true. Relative to the cart, it is never true (unless you count an infinitely thin parabola). This is always false. Gravity is acting on it so it will accelerate.

Definitely! Teasing a kid at school can give them profound pychological difficulties later in life because children are emotionally immature and easily damaged. Gay adults on the other hand are adults - they should be able to deal with disappointment. Many many people cannot be parents (for one reason or another) and it doesn't leave them emotionally scarred for the rest of their lives. Anyone who can't deal with this is basically emotionally unstable in the first place. However, that is no excuse for forbidding gay people from being parents. I would rather see children growing up in stable families with (two) hetrosexual parents. I believe that this is the optimal environment for children and frankly I see homosexual parents as a disadvantage, but it is less of a disadvantage than many other factors. For example, I would rather see children being brought up by two gay men than living in an ophanage, or living on the streets in poverty, or living with abusive parents etc. In that light, I think suitability as parents is much more complicated than just asking for their sexual orientation. But the child's best interests must come first.

When I was younger I used to use base 12. I reasoned that it was the most useful because you can divide 12 by 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 with no remainder (whereas 10 can only be divided by 1, 2 and 5). Then I always counted one, two, .... , ten, eleven, twelve, oneteen, twoteen, thirteen, ..., tenteen, eleventeen, twenty etc.

Don't take it personally. I take the mickey out of everyone - I am allowed to, since I am a doctor...

I got INTJ too, strangely enough. Some of the questions are a bit naf though. Like "You are more inclined to experiment than to follow familiar approaches" - this completely depends on the situation so a yes or no answer is not very applicable. (I answered No, since all things being equal would mean that I was equally likely to do either.) Or "You spend your leisure time actively socializing with a group of people, attending parties, shopping, etc.". What do shopping and going to parties have in common? Parties are a social activity while shopping is very solitary. So what are they meaning by 'etc'?

Dak's English seems to have lots of "foreighn" words too. Pass the Freedom Fries...

The change in the lifetime from one frame to another is not model dependent.

I wouldn't call that a bug. It is correct to 37 significant figures! I think you are being a bit perfectionist if you want it better than that.

Do I really need to point you towards the big blue star to the left? I have explained your initial problem, and I am correct. Explain in detail where you object (so that I can facilitate your learning) or get the hell out of these fora.

And how does one have a time interval between one event?

Yes' date=' it is model independent. It only requires quantum mechanics which has nothing to do with gravity or relativity. Time dilation is a conequence of the Lorentz transformation. The equation I wrote down is actually a simplified version of the Lorentz transformation in the special case where the initial frame is has no spatial displacement between the two events. (This makes the time a proper time, which is just a definition of course.) The Lorentz transformation between the frames does not change, but if you change the set-up then the time tilation equation will change because you have a different simplification (the spatial displacement between the events in the other frame becomes zero). You would find that you get exactly the same time dilation equation, but with the two times reserved. What is your problem with that? This is the application of a completely frame independent set-up showing that relativity predicts time dilation in an entirely consistant way.

You can measure the lifetimes of particles in different frames of reference and observe exactly the correct time dilation effect.

I don't understand why this thread is still alive. Didn't I explain the confusion in the OP? What else exactly are people not understanding about time dilation?

Isn't that exactly my point? You shouldn't need to prove anything! It is none of anyone else's business. If you want to have an exchange of rights with someone else, you should get it without all the baggage and assumptions which come with 'marriage' (unless you want them).

I think it would be more or less impossible to choose the initial axioms so that everyone would agree. Look at the differences of opinion when IMM tried to construct a set of axioms for morality. And while I would probably accept the mistakes made by majority opinion, I would not accept the mistakes made by an AI's programming.

I don't think that is true. In the UK there is now no financial benefit to being married (Gordon Brown got rid of it a few years ago) and there was no outcry. In Germany in order to get the rights, you have to get 'married' by the state separately from the church (but there they are still silly enough to demand a sort of weird celebration thing with vows etc - you can't just sign a legal contract, and still give a tax break). In fact, there is a new initiative in the UK to automatically give people who are long term partners the same rights as married couples without the need for any actual 'marriage'. So I don't think the idea of a document of rights as a separate entity from a 'marriage' with a religious/cultural/sexual connotation is really so unfeasable after all. It is really the next step after gay marriages - why not have people campaigning to have the rights of a 'marriage' without any sexual or romantic requirements? Why shouldn't a brother and sister (or two brothers, or just two best friends) be able to have the same rights? Why shouldn't a man be allowed to have multiple 'wives', or a woman multiple 'husbands'?

OK - I finally downloaded the doc (since everyone else had with no problem) The issue here is the definition of time dilation. Time dilation is: [math]t=\gamma \tau[/math] where t is the time between two events in a particular frame of reference and [math]\tau[/math] is the proper time between the events. The proper time is the time in the frame in which the two events happen at the same spatial point. In the first diagram, the event where the light is sent out and the event where the light is redetected are both at the same space point for an observer in the ship. Therefore the time it takes on the straigh path is the proper time, and the time on the angled path is greater (as per the above forumla). This is time dilation. In the second case, you are confusing which is the proper time. The events of emission and absoption are no longer at the same place in the in the ship's frame so this is not a proper time. In fact the proper time is in the frame in which the path is not angled and the time in the ship's frame is in fact 't' in the equation above, not [math]\tau[/math]. Therefore, as your intuition told you, the angled path still takes longer, but this is still time dilation.

How can a question be a strawman? I was asking you to clarify your statement. You said: "all you see is Israel tanks confronting Palestinian children. yYou don't see the truth". So according to you in your first stament, what-you-see = "Israel tanks confronting Palestinian children" but in your second statement you say what-you-see != the truth. Therefore logically you are staying "Israel tanks confronting Palestinian children" != the truth. Do you deny this? Oh come on. Do you truely expect anyone to believe that? Get real.

If you want to answer this question you will have to first define what a terrorist is. Is a terrorist not a terrorist if they wear a uniform? Is a terrorist not a terrorist if they only attack soldiers and not civilians? Is a terrorist not a terrorist if their cause is just? Is a terrorist not a terrorist if they are part of a democratically elected government? Is a terrorist not a terrorist if they don't kill anyone?