prodigenius

The biggest mental leap from classical mechanics to relativity is getting over the concept of universality - that time, space, and everything in them are not the same from everyone's point of view. There is no universal "now." But there aren't paradoxes, actually. One of my favorite ones is a guy running into a 30ft barn with a 30 foot stick at 3/5c, and once he's inside, the barn door closes behind him. The guy sitting in the barn says he fits - the guy and the stick are length contracted and the barn stays at 30ft, so he fits in fine. The running guy says he can't fit - he has a 30 ft stick and the barn is length contracted shorter - there's no way he can fit. Even if the 2 observers can't agree on the length of the stick, they have to agree on whether or not it fits. You can't have one person saying the door closes around the stick and one guy saying the door can't close - they have to agree on this event. Can you figure out who is right and why? It's a little wacky at first, but understand that concept and a lot of relativity falls in to place. The solution to this problem isn't math intensive, but it's beautiful. There are books that explain it far better than anyone in this thread, so I suggest reading about it.

I'm going out on a limb and saying that I understand why teachers say that. Of course there are proper ways of using Wikipedia, and perhaps there should be a proper amount of educational resources devoted to teaching students how to use the internet correctly. Maybe some of you have never been in a non-AP class, but saying "You can't use Wikipedia" is much clearer to the average American than "You can use Wikipedia if you use it correctly," so I understand their concern as much as I dislike it.

What sort of physics/calculus level are you at now?

I'm not positive, but I think you're best off just using native plants found in chaparral, like mustard or something. With insects, that will keep the water and oxygen cycles going. Unless this is a very long-term ecosystem, you shouldn't have to worry about the carbon, nitrogen, or phosphorus cycles for now.

Whether or not the universe is finite or infinite is a highly debatable - and more or less meaningless - distinction that depends a great deal on your definitions of dimensions and boundaries and makes very little difference. I know it's difficult to say that science cannot currently answer something, but right here, it's the truth.

The energy distribution of molecules accounts for the fact that some melting occurs below the melting point; it's just in equilibrium with freezing at the same temperature. If you had pressure differences throughout the solid, couldn't you start melting from the inside?

The explanations of "some reactions are reversible and some are not" is mostly correct, but by itself insufficient. It boils down to the state of matter of the materials; in general, liquid batteries (mercury, car batteries) have more reversible reactions.

naturally I'm biased since I go there, but you should check out harvey mudd college. it's not as well known as caltech or major universities, but there's a good focus on undergraduates and I got into physics research with awesome professors my freshman year. good luck.