Kyrisch

If I'm not mistaken, that's called emergent properties; I'm talking about math here. I found a forum where mathematicians were arguing whether or not two plus two can actually equal five. I was recently thinking how in the world could this be possible, but I can't find the site I looked at.

I never understood this concept. What proof backs this up?

This argument is sometimes also presented as "2 + 2 = 5 for large values of two." This doesn't make sense to me whatsoever. Can someone please help?

On the contrary of what the title suggests, this is an actual serious question born of curiosity that came to mind while spending a miserably dreary morning outside in the pouring rain waiting for the bus.

Is there a greater chance of a mass getting hit by a raindrop if said mass is moving or stationary?

I can't work out the answer. Is there some advanced math formula for stuff like this?

To tell you the truth... I was sort of making a joke. I had pressed the button myself, and in my next post explained how it worked

Oh, I think I know how it works... The IP address of the person who pushed the button is saved and when the site is accessed from that address it displays some false error screen.

The link doesn't seem to be working... maybe someone pushed the button?

I don't say the pledge at all, actually. I refuse to pledge allegience to a government that tells the citizens nothing.

Beers both look and taste like horse piss.

Science is the gathering of facts, facts by definition can be proven, true proof implies the absence of doubt, but the absence of doubt is possible only in the presence of omniscience. Omniscience is a scientific impossibility, therefore fact is a scientific impossibility, therefore science itself is scientifically impossible... By the use of science, I have proven the absence of science...

My friend wrote this. He is deeply religious. How do you think I should debate him? I've already answered back, this:

A fact is a statement that can be proven. One statement cannot encompass everything there is to know (ominiscience), therefore science can only be omniscient when it has proven and infinite number of statements. Also, just because a fact is supported by some evidence, doesn't mean the fact is right.

 

For example: "The moon makes its own light, just like the sun." This can be proven by the observation of looking at the moon at night, when "there is no sun". Further research has disproved this; the moon is not a star, the sun is not "gone" at night, etc. Science is actually uncertain in nature, although it tries to be omniscient.

He has yet to respond.

Space' date=' is something, it is not nothing, otherwiese it would not excist and besides light passes through it thus it must be someting.[/quote']

Light does not need a medium through which to travel. The "aether" you were talking about is a very old theory that has been disproven. Most of space is, in fact, nothing, only a few stray atoms just floating. What are they floating on? Well, no one's really sure. There are theories, of course, but not one, solid answer, which is what you seem to be looking for.

And your point is?

Who says the speed of light can be changed? Are we talking about c or the apparent speed of light through glass, air, water, etc.?

C cannot be changed, but light slows down as it travels through denser mediums.

We are not really getting anywhere, are we? I am still confused about why you started this thread in the first place. Do you want us to tell you that the scientists are wrong, or are you just enjoying the attention? Do you want us to tell you that gravity cannot possibly move at the speed of light, even though there is an appreciable amount of evidence supporting this? To agree with your baseless ideas that gravity is obviously instaneous because that's what common sense says even though there is not one single piece of evidence that supports this and it violates a theory postulated by one of the most intelligent people in history? I think you yourself are confused. You seem to contradict yourself in your posts. Let me give you an example:

Most science on such a large scale depends on the law of relaticity so breaking that law scares you? Einstein was a freaking genius.

First you seem to belittle the Theory of Relativity, then you praise Einstein for being a "freaking genius." So please clear up what the reason you started this thread is, and what exactly is it that you don't understand.

Um.. Not ever elect a Bush to office again?

Yeah, "save the environment; plant a Bush back in Texas!"

Ok man why are you mad?

You do know that less than a decade ago people tought gravity was instant? now people believe that it has the speed of light' date=' next time your gonna be told it has half the speed of light and your going to believe it? You repeating exactly what pther scientists research has told them???? What you should try and do is stop being a puppent and try thinking for yourself.[/quote']

 

What YOU should do is look at the evidence and instead of refuting it right away, consider that it is possible. Gravity being instantaneous violates Einstein's Theory of Relativity, and that theory has been standing for quite some time now. Do you have evidence that gravity is instantaneous (I mean, besides what you seem to be basing all your claims on; "common sense")? The scientists in the article have evidence that supports gravity moving at c. They haven't just made it up out of nowhere, like you seem to think.

I tried... And I worked so hard on that metaphor, too...

It's time for me to change my avatar, but I cannot choose between these three pictures I have. Please voice your opinion!

Note: There is no multiple choice.

1

2

3

Ok I read on the internet somewere that gravity has the same speed as light does. If this is true how come a black hole can suck light right up? I know this people have done lots of research in order for people to believe what they state' date=' but I believe this is impossible and gravity must have a speed wich is greater than the speed of light in order to suck it up in the matter wich is seen through telescopes. Can someone who knows much about this subject explain how this is possible please. I am barely coming out of highschool and havent studied much but science is an easy subject for me and stuff just makes sense so please tell me how this man is right.[/b']

 

 

Heres a link to the document

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3232

Since you don't seem to be able to grasp the scientific view, let me try to explain it to you with a metaphor.

Think of gravity as a person that is grabbing you by the ankles and keeping you on this earth. This is his strength (the strength of the graviational field around the earth). The sun and the earth also send "Mr. Gravitys" out into space. They run as far as they can, and they stop when they get tired (The edge of the gravitational field). Now picture a black hole. The "Mr. Gravity" in the black hole is a bodybuilder. His arms are huge! (Stay with me here) When light crosses the event horizon of the black hole, he grabs it and wrestles it into the black hole. He is not faster than light, he is "stronger" than light.

Now his speed is how long it takes him to run fom one body exerting a gravitational force on another to the other body. It just so happens that all "Mr. Gravitys" have the same speed as all "Mr. Lights". The Mr. Gravity that lives in the black hole is "stronger" than light, but they both run at the same speed.

Remember what I said before? "The sun and the earth also send 'Mr. Gravitys' out into space. They run as far as they can, and they stop when they get tired (The edge of the gravitational field)." Well, it takes 8.3 minutes for one Mr. Gravity to run the distance between the sun and the earth, the same speed it would take one Mr. Light (which the sun also sends out). Since many Mr. Gravitys and Mr. Lights would already be on their way, somewhere between the sun and the earth in space, running at the speed of light, Mr. Gravitys and Mr. Lights would still be reaching the earth even after the sun was gone. They would continue reaching the earth for 8.3 minutes after the sun is gone, and then both light and gravity would stop reaching the earth and we would swing out of orbit.

I hope this clears things up.

It is probably a combination of "night" and "tranquil".

**And' date=' with an estimated ten billion, billion stars in teh known universe, even if their was only one chance in a trillion, that would leave opportunity for life to spring up 10,000,000 times.[/quote']

 

Life doesn't form on stars. Life forms on planets. You need to calculate the probability of a life-suitable planet and multiply it by that insanely small percentage there. Pretty soon you'll be left with a lot less than you originally thought.

The Philadelphia Naval Yard harbors a hidden history beyond its role as a docking port for military vessels. It might just have been the site of one of the strangest scientific experiments of all time.

 

The infamous Philadelphia Experiment defied the laws of physics as we understand them and, according to some, cost several servicemen their lives...

 

Those who believe it tell the story this way: in 1943, the Germans had the advantage on the high seas. Their fleets of U-boats wreaked havoc upon Allied military and merchant vessels in the Atlantic. The United States decided to pull out all the stops with a device that could electronically cloak vessels from being picked up on radar. In Philadlephia a small destroyer known as the U.S.S. Elridge would test this theory.

 

In June the Elridge was fitted with tons of strange equipment. Generators and coils were mounted throughout the ship in order to produce encompassing electromagnetic fields. When the devices ran in unison, this setup would theoretically bend the light and sound waves around the ship, making is virtually invisible. At nine a.m. on July 22, 1943, this theory was tested for the first time. When the generators turned on, a green fog surrounded the ship. In a blink of the eye the fog and the ship itself entirely vanished! Fifteen minutes later the generators were turned off and the Elridge reappeared. The crew was in a state of shock and violently ill.

 

They reran the test in late October. This time, when the generators were turned on, the ship disappeared again but left a clear impression upon the water. There was a blinding flash of light; then even that disappeared. Meanwhile, miles down the coast, in Norfolk, Virginia, witnesses saw the ship materialize off their shore. For several minutes the U.S.S. Elridge, moments ago docked in Philadelphie, sailed the Virginia coastline. Just as suddenly as it had appeared, it vanished and was seen once again in Philadelphia.

 

When the ship was boarded, the entire crew was ill. Some of the crew had disappeared, and five were fused into the walls of the ship. Some had been emotionally and mentally stripped to the point of insanity.

 

No one knows how the physical teleportation of the U.S.S. Elridge could have happened. The government quickly covered up the results of the experiment, although over the years many witnessed have verified the strange tale as authenticated fact. Some say that the Philadelphia Experiment is nothing more than a sci-fi fantasy. Others swear that it is terrifyingly true.

I have been fascinated with this particular tale for years. Sounds like some funky quantum mechanics to me. What are your thoughts on this?

*Text taken from Weird U.S. by Mark Moran and Mark Sceurman.

I have synthesthesia; I can feel music. What you seem to have is a much more advanced case, however.

I bet you didn't know that your brain slows down your perception of time every time you move your eyes to refocus on something. In reality' date=' your eyesight is blurry while the lenses in your eye refocus, but you brain doesn't want your conscious mind to perceive this so it holds on to the moment before you moved your eyes and drags it into the space of time when your eyes are refocussing. When the image is clear once more, it snaps back to "real" time.[/quote'']This sounds very interesting if it is accurate. Where did you learn about this and is there an article on it somewhere?

 

I read it in the wonderfully informative and thought-provoking book The Science of Harry Potter. In this book, the author gives examples of amazing technologies and odd facts that could give the results of the apparent "magic" in the Harry Potter books. I don't know if you would be able to find an article on it.

Looks like they just rotted away...

-If you do anything at all that resembles hugging a tree