J.C.MacSwell

There are really no reasons left not to dismiss that one...

Can you elaborate on this? When was that? He was born in Edinburgh, correct? Apologies if that is OT.

I was thinking yes, it is possible, but can see an objection to the use of the term, as Strange points out. I don't personally have any objection as the luminiferous aether of Newton has been clearly ruled out. Whatever it is cannot be fixed to any frame we would readily recognize...including any inertial frame.

A lot of good advice on all sides of this. It is good Raider that you are thinking it through very thoroughly. One thing with regard to the job itself, because it sounds like it may allow for an education in and of itself compared to most jobs 16 year olds have. My questions would be about how transferable the skills and knowledge you gain at work might be? If the company does not do as well as they hoped, is it in an industry that would still thrive? How competitive would your skill set be moving forward? You have a lot to consider. Finishing another term would put you where? Your Employer may look at you as even more important to them at that time than currently. I like much of CY's advice. You should have a good discussion with your Employer if your plans and options include them.

What is the essence of distance? Why is it that the wave cannot transverse faster or slower across it? Why can it not arrive sooner or later?

I agree he doesn't want to make that defence, whether true or not...he is in fact married. He's made that commitment...but not to us. Your Dad sounds like a pretty stand up guy. The World needs more like him.

I always put myself in the other persons shoes. I am 6 years older than my wife (she says 7, which is totally wrong, as we met slightly over a month after her 24th birthday, and I was 30, and would not turn 31 for almost a full month). We met on a blind date so no PC concerns I know of at this time. But I always ask myself...what if we had met and I was subordinate to her, or she to me? What kind of perpetrator might I, or (I would hope) she, have been?

Nor is anyone else. First of all, as already discussed, the luminiferous ether as per the concept as we know it is inconsistent with our measurements. We know it doesn't work. I think an argument for considering "something" is that we have come to agree on a physical model where a photon leaving the Sun arrives some 8 minutes later, the exact time varying in an exact way, very accurately and consistent with our model. So what is it about this distance that doesn't allow the photon to arrive in 6 minutes? Or 6 years? We don't know what it is about the photon that does the accounting for this consistency, or anything about the space between the Sun and the Earth that would allow for such consistency either. We really don't know if there is something actually needed to do this accounting or not, we just know if there is it is not the type of mechanism we have yet imagined.

Ok, quiet. Fair enough. A reason to keep it, or rather resurrect it in a modified form, could be facilitated by extra dimensions. Credible attempts have been made earlier by Kaluza-Klein and others, and later string theorists, but nothing come up with yet has fully made sense.

I was. Thanks for the correction. +1. I need to keep better track of my science history. OTOH, did you know that leeches have been back in use for some time? http://sciencenetlinks.com/science-news/science-updates/modern-leeching/ OT: The luminiferous ether was assumed to be fixed to some preferred frame, but measurements of the speed of light, and in electricity and magnetism, indicated otherwise. Edit: I see Carrock was much quicker

Indeed. Next time you are caught in the bitter cold without a sweater...futilely rubbing your hands together..you won't be so quick to shun it's existence...you'll wish you had more of it

Something fabricated leaving our solar system. Isn't this when they realize we have become semi-intelligent... and come and destroy us?

No.

I thought it was rhetorical. If it wasn't... The light blue is a common type of additional protection...flexible enough to put on and reduce the forces further in case of a drop or whatever. It is not optimized for it's size to protect the device any more than another hard outer shell with an even lighter padding inside could be. It is just very simple and practical.

No, to what exactly? Why twice? Most guitars would be fine at well over that, even over a small area. The problem is that impacts can involve forces much greater. A heavy hard shell case can afford a longer impact time for the guitar than a lighter softer one, it all depends on the design and conditions of impact. It matters not a wit whether something is decelerating or accelerating. Consider stationary bullets collided with c) Paper armour at 1000 feet/s d) 6 inch thick steel plate at 1000 feet/s Which will survive and what damage will happen to the bullet in each case? (hint: assuming you had your bullet at 1000 feet/s...these are identical to your two scenarios...exact same events looked at from different reference frames)

There is no difference between acceleration and deceleration other than choice of reference frame. A heavier case will impact more heavily with the ground, generally speaking, a greater impact force as you say, but that is not the force on the guitar. The padding allows it to displace with respect to the case, as well as spreading the force over greater area. Assuming the same outer dimensions of the case, any disadvantages of a hard case can usually be mitigated by the design of the padding inside, unless the thickness of the case significantly reduces room for it. Hard outer shells generally spread the load over a greater area of padding, which spreads it over a greater area of the guitar, Sports helmets are a little more complicated in design, but generally all have a hard outer shell.

Pardon the pun, but it is somewhat "case" dependant. If you dropped one onto a fairly solid piece of glass, supported by a foot or so of fibreglass insulation, a heavier case might break the glass, allowing a lot more time and distance to decelerate the guitar than a lighter one that would not break through. Now compare that to dropping them onto the same insulation supported by a concrete floor. Wasn't there a thread previously on this?

No. Probably more my narrower definition of "never really going to meet".You can evaluate someone, or something, in a one sided manner, without any meeting of the minds. Does that assume religion to be the forerunner of science? Perhaps in some respects it is.

Doesn't to me. They were given as examples of where science and religion meet. In the context of the discussion I don't see it.

Arguably yes. To what degree are they trying to use or accept religious faith based arguments? Examining religion doesn't really meet it, in the context of the two coming together.

Aren't they attempting to be sciences? Don't forget when debating religion the laws of science and scientific method never fully apply. For example the second law of thermodynamics: 1. You can't win 2. You can't break even But 3. You can, and often should, get out of the game

Religion and Science are never really going to meet. If any religion ever comes up with anything proven, Science will say "we'll take that!" leaving the poor religion without anything Supernatural with any verified substance to point at... So let's not begrudge them their faith based arguments, and stop trying to trick them into using scientific ones...

Yeah. But that's getting back to your original point about the physical impossibility. How do you even approach the Earth with a small fraction of that energy without it imploding into a Black Hole? You start with a nice little Merry-go-Earth project, it implodes into a small Black Hole(if you somehow strengthen things to avoid your first objection...flying apart), and everyone involved that doesn't get sucked in abandons the project and races for cover...

If at it's surface it was suddenly at almost lightspeed, for some unexplainable reason, and physical reality immediately came back into play, I think it would become a Black Hole of finite mass, with the mass depending on how close to lightspeed that "almost lightspeed" was. Some of the known Universe should escape, due to the Expansion and time required for any effect to reach the distant known Universe.

Ten oz had plenty of opportunity to state that "no", meant something other than no to the statement of Raider's that he quoted, if that was in fact the case. He did not. That was the context of the "you're wrong" of Raider's you quoted, not the "wrong" you were assuming. I doubt it would take you 3 pages to admit that or, if you didn't agree, make yourself clear.