Lord Antares

I corrected my post to say ''reversed center of mass''. That's what I meant to say. Zztop says I'm wrong about that. I trust him, but the central point still stands, right?

There is no "point" where this happens. It is completely gradual. It is always influenced influenced by both masses of the sun and the earth, wherever it is in between them. There is no point where it stops being influenced by the earth and starts being influenced by the sun. There is, however, a point where it starts being influenced by the sun MORE than by the earth. I would guess that breaking point is the reverse center of mass between the sun and the earth.

I think this is true for any speed except for c. At C nothing appears to be moving and everything is flat. Besides, you would have infinite mass if you were travelling at c, so you couldn't assume ''normal circumstances'' anyway. I think he just meant if he were to leave earth in something travelling fast and came back to it, a lot more time would have passed on earth, so esentially he would have travelled forward in time, in a sense. But that can be done with any speed. @Crosspost with OP - not experiencing time would mean travelling at the speed of light. As I said above, you wouldn't really see anything and everything would be flat and appear to not move. There are other major issues, such as the fact that you would weigh infinitely if you were to travel at c. So all questions about that are highly speculative and not really practical in real life.

Theoretically, yes, but there is no point in speculating about that. As far as we know, the speed of light can never be passed so the whole scenario wouldn't make sense because it would break the laws of physics and thus we couldn't even speculate what would happen. I guess it would be more fun to speculate what would happen if you could travel at the speed of light, because in a sense, that would be traveling into the future as well. If you, hypothetically, boarded a ship that travels around space for 20 earth years and lands back on earth, to the earthlings, you would have returned after 20 years, but to you, only an instant has passed and you're equally as young. So you've effectively travelled 20 years into the future from your perspective. But that's all in good fun because we do not even know if it is possible to reach the speed of light. As far as we can tell, it isn't.

Yes it can and it is. I don't know how familiar you are with general relativity, but it says that it is dependent upon the presence of gravity and speed with which the creature is moving. People experience time differently on a daily basis. A person driving a car experiences time very slightly slower than a person at rest. Theoretically, a person moving at light speed would not experience the passage of time at all and could, in theory, live forever. Also, a person near a stronger gravitational field would experience time slower than a person near a weaker gravitational field. I think when people talk about dog years. they simply mean to equate the percentage of their life to humans. Saying that 7 dog years is equivalent to 1 human years simply means that humans, on average, live about 7 times as long as dogs. So I'm not sure if the 1 human year is like 7 years in the dog's mind, but thanks for reminding me about this, I wanted to open a thread and make some points about this.

Oh god, why do people use Asperger as an excuse to win arguments? Contrary to what people seem to believe nowadays, having Asperger syndrome is not synonimous with being a super genius. Sure, you might spend more time thinking about what you are researching, but that doesn't mean that the person you're replying to hasn't taken more time studying it. Even if you know he didn't, it still doesn't mean you're right. Arguments are won with logic and evidence; nothing else is relevant. I have read your post and it seems to be of philosophical nature. There seems to be no substance and nothing really to understand from it. You can't, by default, claim that you're right if you have no evidence for what you are saying and you don't. Your post wasn't logically constructed well. If you have a relevant point, try to rephrase it in a way that would be understood by others, but don't get defensive and cocky as soon as someone questions you on it. Your last post addressed absolutely nothing Strange said and you just appealed to personality traits, which doesn't indicate that you're smarter than everyone, as you claim. Please stop with claims of intelligence (you don't know how intelligent you are, neither do you know how intelligent anyone else is) and focus on the argument.

Do you know how long these would last? Does 3x energy density mean they last 3 times as long? I wouldn't say so but maybe.

I think replying to you is pointless, just like this thread. You don't listen and instead you choose to cherrypick what people say and answer just one bit which is besides the point. The main point is that there is neither any benefit nor neccessity in accepting your definition. What's more, it's a worse definition because it would only add confusion and ambiguity. You would use the same word for what god is usually used for and for humans for some reason. It's completely senseless and useless. No one in the world is confused or bothered by this except for yourself. Hitler believed he did nothing wrong, so what's your point? Your opinion on this is completely subjective and susceptible to error so the fact that you didn't notice anything wrong with it means absolutely nothing. That being said, I won't reply to you anymore unless you start making sense.

It still makes no sense. Computers have evolved a great amount over the last 20 years and still continue to do so by a incomparably faster rate than humans? Why are computers not renamed to ''gods''? Because it's completely unneccessary. Einstein redefined gravity (refined might be more appropriate) for accuracy and consistency with the new model. It bore relevance to physics. It needed to be updated to account for changes and new equations. It was more correct to define it the way he did. Renaming humans to gods bears no relevance to anything whatsoever. There would be no inherent benefits from doing so. It's utterly unneccessary. The word ''god'' cannot be made more accurate because it's not a scientific term and it's just a made up definition, whereas gravity isn't.

So? What's your point? We have learned things we didn't know in the past. I don't see how your conclusions follow from this. What Strange and Swansont said is both right and wrong in a way. We DID redefine gravity, in a sense, after Einstein's GR was introduced. The equations that we knew still applied and some new ones were added. I don't see what that has to do with the discussion. We define god as a higher, possibly omnipotent/omniscinest being that is not human or of this realm. We didn't learn one thing about god throughout history, so why the need to redefine him? The fact that we've improved our technology and lifestyle standards has no relevance to the definition of god. You just randomly proposed that the definition of god be changed.

First of all, to say that time is the cause of motion is wrong. Motion and time are closely connected, but saying that one causes the other is ill-conceived. Secondly, it isn't know what gravity actually is. General relativity doesn't attempt to explain it because no explanation is known. It simply describes how and by which principles it operates, but it doesn't answer the question which is ''what is gravity?''. I have a speculation on why it works, but don't we all? Without tested and statistical knowledge, saying anything is just a stab in the dark. Answering that question just brings up more questions above our knowledge, such as ''why was the energy there from the start'', ''how did energy come to be'' and you faintly start to wander into philosophy. So, short answer: we don't know. It's easy to understand why objects follow the curved path of space caused by a mass. It's because that path is actually ''straight'' in that curved space, so in a way, it doesn't change direction per se, but why the objects are moving in the first place is a more difficult question.

This doesn't mean anything. Strange is right. It's just a matter of definition. All you have done is proposed a new definition of god. By your definition, humans are gods. By the standard definition, humans aren't gods. That's all. This discussion is too vague and pointless, even for philosophy.

How will we not remember it if you can only go 10 minutes back and more than 10 minutes passed since your comment? Go ahead, make a post before your last one and everyone will crown you a genius and a master of physics.

I was actually defending you at the start because I thought that you didn't object about having to provide evidence, but you started doing that. You don't actually realize that all mainstream theories are supported by a heap of evidence, in this case evolution? Why would you think that scientists would accept those theories if they weren't backed up by evidence? I'm sure googling would be an easy way to find them. You provided nothing but imagination and stories. By saying ''creators'' of the other models, you're admitting that you think they aren't based on reality or neccessarily correct. The difference is they all met the requirements of the speculation forum. Yours didn't.

Sure, but it's faster if you look through some vids. + If a human beats you with certain pawn structures and piece placement, that doesn't neccessarily mean they were correct. Maybe better than yours or not even that. Maybe he got lucky tactically and so on. I'm just speaking from experience. It starts making more sense when you study it for a bit. And watching videos is the lazy man's method

No, you misunderstood me. I don't mean when I'm high. I mean generally, when I smoke everyday, I feel slow and very lazy, even when I'm not high. When I do smoke up, I feel creative interested in everything like you said. I just mean on a general note, being a constant user is a bad thing.

To be fair, I don't think it has any permanent effect either. Positive or negative. All I can say is that when I do smoke a lot, I feel cloudy and lazy and passive and slow, which is a bad thing for sure. But when I stop for some time, I feel completely normal, as if I never smoked it in my life. Nowadays, I smoke like once or twice a week and I cannot say that it affects my life at all. Smoking often is bad and I know that from experience. The issue is, there are researches which say that it has permanent damage, reaseaches which say there is no long-lasting effect whatsoever, and researches which say that it helps boost you brain power. How can you know which are legitimate? Some users linked reseaches against marijauana, and tkadm linked some for marijuana. I've seen many completely contradicting ones. How does one tell which are correct?

Oh, sorry. It's anti-matter. But still, the central point still stands. Even though you can speculate for good fun, no post will contribute to the knowledge of what is being talked up, unless it's backed up by evidence. Just saying. We don't know enough to be able to say how valid or invalid this is.

So little is known about dark matter that any speculations are practically useless. What we think about it is irrelevant anyway, as it can't be proved or disproved. Everyone has a good speculation, but almost no one can prove it.

Learning from the computer is inferior to learning from a human teacher. By playing the computer, you gain a bit of experience, but you're still not learning anything new as far as strategy and gameplans go. Trust me, it's better to learn first and then play.

Yes, that's why I said learning first and then playing benefits you more. This is exactly why. If you don't do that, you will play against people who have studied and learned some strategies, and you will inevitably lose most of the time.

Both are preferable. If you are a beginner, it is better to focus on learning basic strategy and openings and basic endgame technique (like mating with a king and queen, and king and rook) and only then playing. Although some people suggest that just playing is the best way to learn, I disagree, because if you learn first and then play, you can implement what you have learned, you can first learn the strategies and then try to achieve said strategic goals. If you play first, then your or your opponent's moves won't really make sense that much and you won't know how to go about moving your pieces. Have you checked the ChessNetwork channel on youtube? That's how I learned my basics. His beginner series and analysis of his own over-the-board games helped me a lot. Of course, the most important thing a beginner should focus on is not blundering pieces. Make double sure all your pieces are protected or on uncreachable squares. Beginner games are won based on taking the opponent's pieces and tricking him tactically. In that regard, simple chess puzzles will do good for your tactical abilities.

Hey Sam, I made the same exact observations in another thread: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/102612-suggestion-about-the-speculations-forum/ I think what they are missing is that we're not objecting to how the speculations forum is policed, only how the rules are worded. The rules weren't clear to me at and I thought they were contradictory all until swansont explained them in that thread. I think this further proves the point that there is an ambiguity. Really, only a 10 second correction is needed to eliminate the ambiguity.

But doesn't this answer itself? Gravitons are thought to be massless and move at c. Neutrinos have a tiny mass, but their velocity is a tiny bit below the speed of light. So everything is in order. As I understand it, you may be asking ''but is it possible we cannot measure the difference between almost the speed of light and the speed of light?''. If so, two quotes, one from quora, the other from Wikipedia: So, as said above, if it weren't massless, the gravitation formula wouldn't be correct.

It's not that. This statement: isn't really answerable. What do you mean by ''scientific reason for conincidences''? There is low chance of them happening, and thus with a large sample size of events, they will eventually happen. It is that self evident. If there is a box with 10 000 blue balls and just 1 red ball, there is a small (1 in 10 001) chance of you pulling out the red ball. Pulling out the red ball is a coincidence. However, this will happen, on average, once every 10 000 pulls. That's all there is to it. Think of all the times where a coincidence DOESN'T happen. Exactly. With 7 billion people on earth and a sample size of years and years, a lot of highly unlikely coincidences are bound to come up. There is nothing ''mysterious'' or ''unlikely'' about it, it is exactly as per expectation. I read a story where a baby dropped from a balcony onto a passerby. One year later, the same (I think) baby dropped on the same man from the same balcony. True or not, this is a remarkable coincidence but it isn't at all incredible to believe that something like this would eventually happen.