Strange

And so does pretty much every other object in the universe. I don't see what that has to do with Pi. Except as we have now learnt, the meter is related to Pi.

It was the word "exponentially" I was objecting to. Obviously waves travel, they don't do it exponentially. Pinpoint the location of what?

If you say so.

I assumed you were just using DNA as a metaphor. I can't see how it is relevant in any other way. Rousseau, like you, seemed oblivious to psychology and naively believed you could build a system around everyone doing the "right thing" Because democracy is based on (typically) the rule of the majority. Rousseau's system is based on perfect consensus (which is why it is ludicrous). But there are others who disagree, and might fight vidorously to defned their views. That is why your idealistic everyone-gets-along system cannot work. How is your "separate organisation [with] a degree of authority" any different from, say, the police and justice system in a modern liberal democracy? Why will people behave any better in your system than they do currently? Most people already do cooperate in the way you describe, accepting the political system and obeying laws. But there will always be revolutionaries, terrorists, dissidents and criminals. I don't see what you are doing that will change that.

The only conclusion I can draw from reading that is that you think "everything leaks". I have no idea what triangles have to do with it. And I'm not sure what problems "everything (including triangles) leaks" solves. Does it provide a more accurate description of gravity than GR (can you use it to calculate the precession of Mercury or gravitational lensing)? Does it explain quantum mechanics? In short, what is for? But if you like triangles, there is some actual science you might like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamical_triangulation

Amazing. I never knew that. A bit more background here, for anyone interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seconds_pendulum

It is just a coincidence. There is nothing special about 9.8 m/s/s. It is just the average gravity on Earth. It changes from place to place and with altitude or depth. And it depends on the (arbitrary) units used to measure it; it is about 32 feet/s/s and about 7.1*10^10 furlongs/fortnight/fortnight. They don't ravel "exponentially" (I'm not even sure what you mean by that. In peer reviewed journals.

"Utilitarianism is a theory in normative ethics holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes utility, usually defined as maximizing total benefit and reducing suffering or the negatives." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism Which is never going to work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Social_Contract (laughably flawed; it is hard to believe that anyone took this seriously) You claim that is unjust. Others would say it is just. Why do you get to impose your opinion on them? You make it sound so simple. I'm not sure if you are hopelessly naive or you just have no idea about people. And that is why it is hopeless idealism and will never work.

I wouldn't disagree. But if you want to define what genes do as intelligence, then where does it stop: water running downhill? Is that "intelligent"?

Interestingly, genetic (or evolutionary) algorithms are often better at solving problems than a more "intelligent" approach.

The choice is yours! But I think you have the potential to be a real scientist. (xyzt, in case you missed Nicholas's earliest posts, he is still very young so you could cut him some slack... Also, I don't think English is his first language so he sometimes appears confused )

I wouldn't worry too much. You have an active imagination, you like to ask questions but you are also willing to think about, and question, the answers.

Note that you can only see laser beams (in the air) because there is dust or mist and some gets reflected into your eyes.

I will probably not be around to see the next major paradigm shift in physics (#sadface). But maybe this is why some people prefer religion to science. Abstraction means just looking at the information that is significant. When performing experiments on Earth, you can usually ignore the rotation of the earth, or the presence of the moon or the sun. The effects of these are typically too small to be important. However, if they are large enough to be significant to your experiment, then you take them into account. But in that case, that the mass and motion of Andromeda is still insignificant.

But that is because of their mass. (They obviously have non-zero density as well, but that is also a consequence of their mass.)

I'm afraid I don't understand the question. You can only see light when it hits something and is reflected into your eyes.

I doubt we can ever have perfect knowledge so I assume science will always be looking for better explanations. And because the other motions are not relevant. If they are, then you take them into account. One reason that science (and engineering) works is because we can do "abstraction" - ignore irrelevant details.

Then we already have that system in most advanced countries. It doesn't seem to work as well as you claim it should.

The hypothesis that the Earth is stationary was falsified by the evidence.

By observing, forming a hypothesis, developing experiments to test (attempt to disprove) the hypothesis, observing the results, getting others to check and test the hypothesis, and so on. If after all that, we haven't shown the hypothesis to be wrong, then we have a theory about how nature behaves. Until we find some new observation that contradicts the theory. Then we modify the theory or come up with a new hypothesis and start all over again.

You are ignoring that fact that what you consider to be a "just" decision and what someone else considers to be a "just" decision may not be the same thing.

As it is sunlight it will be visible light (although, as with all light, you will only be able to see it if it hits something - which is normally something carrying a fluid to convert the incident radiation to heat and carry it away to do something useful).

It sounds like utilitarianism or, worse, Rousseau's social contract. What do you do when people disagree on what is "just" and what is an acceptable level of infringing on others in order to ensure your happiness, and ... It would work in an ideal (non existent) world where everyone had the same opinion about everything. But it is impractical in the real world where different people want different (and conflicting) things. If it were possible, then surely thousands of years of wise rulers and intelligent judges would have delivered it by now. If it hasn't been possible in the past, why do you expect it to be possible in the future? Really? When?

No, not new maths. New physics. The theory of relativity (and its mathematical description) replaced Newtonian gravity (and its mathematical description). Yes, the mathematics changes, but only because the theory changes. Maths doesn't make things happen (nor do theories) it just describes (and predicts) what can happen. If faster than light travel is actually possible then one day we will have a new theory that describes (including the maths) how that works. On the other hand, we have no reason to think that it is possible and a good, well-tested theory that says it isn't.

It is not impossible *because* of mathematics; the mathematics just describes the physics that makes it impossible. (Of course, it may be that a future theory shows us how it is possible, after all. But there is no point speculating about that.)