Daecon

The speed of light is irrelevent to a doppler-like effect? That's something I'd never have thought. Could gravity not have anything to do with it at all? After all, if gravity affects even light, maybe it would "stretch" the light being emmited by a star into a slightly lower frequency, red-shifting it...? (As opposed to the source moving away, I mean.) Is that theory even plausable?

Do they have a way of stopping their wool growth? Otherwise what's to stop them from turning into giant marshmallows?

Is it true that sheep don't shed their wool naturally and rely on humans to shear it off? If so, how'd that happen? Selective breeding?

(my bolding) But isn't the speed of light independent of anyone's reference frame?

I think these questions are more fun: I know, I'm evil.

That depends on the force and speed in which she throws it upwards to start with, otherwise those answers could be anything.

Depend on the direction? I wasn't aware there could *be* a difference depending on anything. Wouldn't that imply that the laws of physics are not constant with respect to your frame of reference? However phrases like "in most cases" make me slightly uncertain...

So instead of it being a giant nucleus, it's a giant neutron? Why strange quarks? What are they usually associated with, if a neutron is just up/down quarks, where do the strange quarks come from?

Would that negate the shifting effect in light then?

well I would, but then the NSPCC would drink my blood.

Well that just begs the question, "What if the observer is travelling at relativistic speeds?" I don't mean to sound desperate but I NEED TO KNOW!!1!one!!

Just imagine what they would have been like if they existed in the precambrian period. It'd be like the Little Shop of Horrors. I love Venus Fly Traps, I've had two at different times before, and they both grew stems of white flowers, that reminded me of a miniature hyacinth. It's cos they loved me back.

Using another anaolgy, imagine "i" is a photon and "." is a period of time between one photon and the next: Moving away from the light source photons would be i...i...i...i...i...i...i and moving towards the light source would be i.i.i.i.i.i.i.i.i where if you were stationary in relation to the light source it would be i..i..i..i..i..i..i Would that be an accurate anaolgy? With time dilation always occuring, no matter your movments either towards or away from the source, dosn't that make "time" remain constant with respect to the speed of light? If the speed of light never changes, how can the time interval between photons ever change? It shouldn't be different from i..i..i..i..i..i..i because they'll always move at c, therefore the 'next' photon will be emmited by the source at c after the standard ".." period - which would reach you at c after the ".." amount of time? I hope what I'm trying to say makes sense. I hate not being able to convey an idea very well.

Maybe it's just an example of the human body's very limited ability to 'regenerate' body parts as part of the healing mechanism. I also heard of reports in infants that had lost the tip of their little finger, growing it back. I've no idea if that's true or just an urban myth though.

The heat energy from the water is transferred into the kinetic energy that breaks the pipes.

Yeah, you said that already. Next please.

You could have the same sort of phrase on display in a café: SAUSAGESARENOWHERE Who cares if the first word is "God" or not?

There wouldn't be a problem if companies weren't allowed to make patents on medical treatments...

*has cruel visions of dropping a goldfish into a container of liquid nitrogen*

Gah. I have that Carpenters song stuck in my head now...

Why would they want to?

Life begins at the 160th trimester?

"The speed of light is constant." Is that meant in an absolute reference or relative? I feel that there's an inherent difference between the two (when regarding light) that isn't made clear here. Which one is being talked about specifically?