swansont

It sounds like kind of a zen issue. Color is a combination of physical properties, ambient light, and human perception. Check out the link in this post by ewmon http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/52540-color/page__p__570454#entry570454 edit: or skip two posts down

Yep. The matter/antimatter imbalance appears to have existed for some time, which means that electrons have been around for a while, too. You're also breathing some air breathed in by a T - rex, as well as drinking some of his/her urine whenever you chug a beverage.

It does, but the acceleration is smaller because it's further away. Hence the bulge.

Your USA Today article did not say that anyone is petitioning the government to set aside any security protocols. It was a story about telling Muslims not to use the body scanners and opt instead for the pat-down. Just like everyone else can do. hypothetical = supposed but not necessarily real or true

No, 2/3 of the legislature, as I previously wrote. It's been in place since prop 13 passed in 1978, and was just amended in the most recent election cycle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_(1978) So blaming either party "in charge" is misplaced, if they did not have a 2/3 majority. Prop 13, in several ways, is a source of the problem.

When I said entangled because of spins I meant that spin is the entangled property. If this is the case, then you don't know what the individual spins are until you measure them. At that point, one will be spin up and the other spin down (assuming they were entangled as a spin zero system). Once the measurement has occurred, changing the spin of one of them will not affect the other; they are no longer entangled. Before the measurement, "changing the spin on purpose" means some kind of an interaction, which breaks the entanglement.

I see now that the number I found was for LA county, not the city. So that part is moot. But the main point is in regard to your point about the ability to drill for oil, and that point stands — California is more densely populated. If you don't see the relevance of your point to the politics, I have to wonder why you brought it up. If you don't see the relevance as a rebuttal to your point, I don't see why you would add in a red herring about tying this in to Conservative/Liberal State Governments.

California has an unusual situation regarding taxes, requiring a two-thirds majority to make changes or to pass a budget. A comparison with any legislature that uses a simple majority will be off, in terms of which party is "in charge."

No, it doesn't. If the particles are entangled because of their spins, you don't know what the spin of either particle is. If you know, they aren't entangled.

Population distribution and fraction of markedly un-flat terrain might have something to do with the ability to do exploration and extraction. California has a higher population and smaller area, giving it more than twice the population density of Texas; it's also worth noting that Dallas, Houston and San Antonio all have higher population densities than LA, so rural areas will have significantly lower population densities in Texas. California's severance tax on oil is zero, while in Texas, it is 4.6% edit: that's $2.7 billion for Texas as of 2007, for all severance taxes, accounting for 6.9% of the state budget (Alaska ranks first, at 64.4%). http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=12674

The squiggly line represents a wave; what is oscillating is the electric and magnetic field, as ewmon has noted. When you see the sine wave drawing, what is represented is the strength and direction of that field, not the trajectory of the photon. Linearly polarized light has the same orientation of the field. Elliptically polarized light has the same rotation of the field direction. Polarizers work by suppressing the field in one direction.

I hope you realize that this really isn't physics. In doing physics, we observe that mass warps space, and attempt to describe what that warping is and what the ramifications are. The question of why is metaphysics, and not particularly relevant to the investigation.

That's an interesting summary. Where did you make the claim that morality has no explanation in evolutionary theory? I can't imagine such a claim would have lasted very long without a thorough debunking. I can't find it. I did ask for violations of physical law, in response to your claim that "If humans and human behavior are the result of physical law then human behavior would necessarily be amoral." Since we have moral and immoral behavior, by the logic of your assertion, humans must violate physical law.

No. You can't use "other forces" to get around conservation of energy, because those other forces are also subject to it. Every step of your scheme has losses in it.

[math]\lambda=\frac{c}{\nu}[/math], so 1 Hz corresponds to 300,000 km. You'd need an antenna of roughly the same size, i.e. significantly bigger than the size of the earth.

True for beliefs, but I don't think it's that expansive for actions (in the US). If the state has a valid secular reason (I believe the term is "compelling interest") to outlaw some action— that is, the law is not there for the express purpose of restricting a religion — the first amendment is not a guarantee that the action can take place . The government has the power to accommodate the action, but are not required to do so. It would not allow for human sacrifice, for example. In Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, it was ruled that the state can outlaw peyote, even though it is used in religious ceremonies. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=494&invol=872 The notion dates back to Reynolds v. U.S., in 1878, which upheld a bigamy law http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=98&invol=145#165

1. Imply? It has actually happened. No implication necessary. People had to bring lawsuits to get the situation corrected. However, if it's the American way, why so much pushback from the right? 2. Have you an example of "Muslims asking for exceptions to the law" ? (not a Muslim. Muslims, plural, as in a concerted effort to have a different set of laws applied to them) The main difference I see here is actual vs hypothetical. Fact vs fiction. Of course. Just as the converse would hold. But that's the point — it's the splinter group that's causing the rift, and that's the group you need to be focusing on, not the larger group.

It's probably best not to equate size and mass, since they are different properties. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and deBroglie wavelength tell you that a low-mass particle, which will generally have a small momentum (all else being equal), will have a larger wavelength, which corresponds to a larger uncertainty in its position.

I think the liberal frustration is the convenient blurring of distinction between Muslim extremists and Muslims in general whenever someone wants to question or attack the liberals' motives or actions. The analogous act would be to interpret support for Christian Protestants as support for the KKK, and I don't see that happening. The religious right has actually done things, e.g. creationism in schools, despite court rulings that it's unconstitutional. Is it fear-mongering (or at the same level) to point out things that have actually taken place? Is the left claiming that the religious right has attacked the country, and is planning to do so again? If an attempt at passing something contained in Sharia law which had no secular purpose actually happened, the left would fight it as a first amendment issue.

That might work, and I think I've read that some road paints have tiny glass beads in them for just that purpose. But as in any application, cost vs. benefit comes into play at some point.

It's worth investigation, if only to confirm the nature of antimatter. One would have to come up with a mechanism and thoroughly investigate the implications.

High voltage/low current is a taser. It is my understanding that they hurt quite a bit. Current is what kills you because your body actually interacts electrically — current disrupts that. Several milliamps going through your heart cause it to stop working properly.

Any characteristics that would make antimatter more prone to forming black holes is unknown to everyone else, too. So far, at least.

I recalled this thread the other morning when it was raining. The problem, as with the issue of having trouble seeing markings when it rains, is specular reflection vs diffuse reflection. Specular reflection what we're familiar with from Snell's law: the angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection. Diffuse reflection actually follows it as well but if the surface is not smooth, you have reflections in many angles and you can't keep track of it — the light goes in all possible directions. That's what happens with non-glossy surfaces. But a glossy surface is going to give you something that is closer to specular reflection, , which means that the light from your headlights is going to bounce away from you, rather than back into your eye. It's also what happens when a rougher surface gets a relatively smooth covering of water — things look darker because much more light is scattered away from you instead of toward you. What you want is a nice reflective material but with a rough finish, so that some of the surfaces are always going to send light toward your eye. Here's a link that goes into more detail, with pictures and all. http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/refln/u13l1d.cfm It also mentions glare, which might be a problem with glossy paint — light from a driver going in the opposite direction could be an issue.

In the US the standard has been pretty clear that you can believe whatever you want, but you cannot practice acts which are in conflict with the law. The examples of groups who have their own traditions is legion; in addition to several examples have already been given you have Hasidic Jews and the Amish and just about every ethnicity out there. To the extent they want to practice legal traditions and rituals, even to the point of social isolation, they can. The notion that Muslims would somehow succeed in illegal acts any more than anyone else does is nothing more than fear-mongering.