JaKiri

Doesn't this violate conservation of energy?

No, it does not.

Generally speaking, A Law is something that has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. (Thermodynamics, gravity). A Theory is something that still has questions that needs to be answered.

That's not true. A scientific law is a postulate that can be expressed in a single statement, and has been empirically proven to be true. A theory is just as true as a law (in some comparisons, probably more so), it's just it's made up of more statements.

The problem is that sometimes in science, like many other things, there people who don't like the results, mainly they or others disprove their theory, so to get the desires they want, they do their hardest to 'get the rules changed'.

Eh?

In science arent laws and theorems the same? Just that laws was the old term that has stuck for things discovered hundreds of years ago?

There are no theorems in science. There are scientific laws and there are Theories (commented upon above), but both of those (in a scientific context) is something that has been observed to be true. If there is definite significant evidence that contradicts the known theories, then the theories are discarded or changed.

A theorem or mathematical law are things which are true given the axioms of the system - and cannot be disproven under those conditions.

For example, the Pythagorean theorem is critically dependant on Euclid's Fifth Axiom (the parallel postulate), which is an example of a law. A law is not necessarily always unchallengable. When Euclid's Fifth Axiom is negated, hyperbolic and eliptic geometries can exist.

That's true of theorems as well, you know.

In "Resident Evil", the holographic girl says that "after you die your hair and nails continue to grow". AS far as I know, they grow very little after you die, and the illusion that they have grown more is the result of your skin "shrinking".

That is indeed true. But I don't think we need to mention all of Resident Evil's immense number of gaffs or plotholes. Except one.

The entire reason the "plot" happens is because the hazchem lab is on the same ventilation system as the rest of the base.

They did tests with frozen H20 bullets which weren't able to reach their target bue to vaporization. So I was wondering if any other substances could be frozen fired out of a gun and do damage to a target then "Dissapear".

Just use a damn repeating crossbow.

just a thought' date=' and I don`t know the exact maths, but it`s not heavily relliant upon that anyway.

 

how long ago was this gettysburg thing? how fast is the earth moving in space?

Multiply those 2 and you`ll have the distance you`de be away from the earth as it is now, probably millions of miles away when it took place.

so if it were REAL Time Travel, it would present Problems, quite Obvious one at that.[/quote']

 

That implies some kind of absolute positioning in the universe.

I have a feeling someone will point out that any space/time distortion (compression) has similar limits related to the fact that nothing but light can travel at the speed of light.

Not just light. All the exchange particles travel at the speed of light (well, maybe except gravitons, but that hardly counts).

the plasma in the centre of a hydrogen fusion reactor is like that at the centre of the sun.

Actually, it's much hotter than at the center of the sun - because you can't simulate the same amount of pressure, you have to up the heat.

I don't see how the repurcussions of random events can be said to be a "plan", so I say no.

Do you believe in Creation Science or Huministic (Evolutionary) Science (the 'big bang')?

What exactly is "Creation Science"?

Just wait' date=' WTF did I read that before?

 

~Scott[/quote']

 

All over the place. I've encountered it in (if memory serves) Douglas Adams, Feynmann and Pratchett.

Mathematics is a language, and philosophical relitavism has little to do with S/GR.

For people on the earth the suns distance is an absolute.

You're standing by a lift door on the 6th floor of a building. I'm in the lift' date=' travelling upwards, and I pass by the 6th floor.

Even though we are in close physical proximity, the distance from me to the sun will be different from the distance from you to the sun, because I'm travelling at a different relative velocity, and the ratio between them will be SQRT(1-v^2/c^2).

That is, as far as we can gather, [b']true[/b]. However, it disagrees with your assertion that there is an absolute distance from the earth to the sun. Therefore, your assertion is incorrect.

Can you please stop posting self-contradictory ("It's an absolute distance, if you measure it relative to other things!") guff, especially when you're trying to argue with what may be the most supported theory in the history of science?

Hello JaKiri and Ed from Northwich

 

with a public poll like this one if you want to see who voted

you look on the poll results where it gives the number like 1

where you will see a LINE UNDER THE NUMBER

and you move the rodent over to it and click

I fairly obviously know how to find out who voted for what.

These are real events that should be studied using real science. Scientists should go to Gettysburg, collect data and perform experiments, and then try to come up with a reasonable explanation.

Scientists should do a lot of things, however, studying something which if true will probably be utterly incomprehensable isn't really one of them, as there are a limited number of scientists.

Given that we haven no empirical data to go on and no actual evidence that this took place, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be doing here.

No, maybe i mistunderstood the feature, but you can only see what was voted for in what proprotions, not who [/i'] voted for each one.

(or you to be a moderator)

It's this, in this instance.

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/3451/image6iz.jpg

If you scaled an ant to the size of a human, then it would die pretty quickly.

If you compare an ant to an elephant (for example, no pun intended) then you'll see that an elephant has many adaptations to allow it to live at that size - the thickness of the legs for example.

The legs of an ant of the same size would just snap instantly, because they wouldn't be strong enough to hold the same weight. This is because the mass of an object is proportional to its volume, whereas the strength of a leg is proportional to its area - x^3 is obviously going to increase faster than x^2.

It's not really a trivial question at all, because it shows us a lot about how different creatures have adapted to the problems of living at different scales - and, indeed, that there are different requirements at different scales.

Hopefully we will see the end of this mystical world of fantasy, and get back to discovering proper science

It's an interesting enough diversion, and, of course, you wouldn't be saying this had something come out of it.

BTW how do you see who voted for what, i tried to on the UK election poll.

"View Poll results". Of course, it either has to be turned on (or you to be a moderator) for that to work.

Now, how would you scientifically explain this?

I'd first find out if it was true.

If it was, I'd bring empiricism to bear. If the phenomenon was at odds with what we currently hold to be true, then we'd change what we'd hold to be true.

Of course, if you're asking us to try to explain how this is consistent with current science, then I'd have to say it isn't, and ask for independent proof of the event.

Why?

If I leave the earth with 1ms^-1 with 10ms^-2 ' date=' I can't leave it?[/quote']

 

The escape velocity is the required velocity to escape without applying any additional assistive force. Dragging forces into it (boom boom) is unnecessary, especially as we're dealing with a (simplified) example where there can be no change of magnitude of velocity.

Newton didn't invent the idea of relative space. Galileo knew it and it goes back to ancient Greece. Newton used these ideas to fabricate a theory.

Yeah, I had forgotten about Galilean relativity, although I'm not sure he actually talked about anything than the concept. Have you got any information on the Ancient Greeks because, as far as I can remember, Galilean Relativity was an attempt to challenge the Absolute Motion of Aristotle.

But in a field where there can be only one winner there's going to be a lot of losers.

This is fairly obviously true. What percentage of footballers have won the world cup? What percentage of lottery players have won the jackpot?

In the scientific enterprise Oxbridge cuts it and getting a 1st won't hurt.

I'm not sure what this refers to.

By the way your "sounds" suck. You can do better/different if you want.

I'm equally unsure what this refers to.

This is really about the uniqueness of discoveries/inventions. It may well be the case that these can be made by one person. But history shows many examples of at least two people engaged in the same field but not knowing the other person. Leibniz and Newton were both working on a calculus of movement. Darwin and Wallace were working on the ideas of natural selection. Einstein can be credited with his[/i'] development of GR but I would be surprised if there weren't many others engaged in a similar enterprise.

Of course other people were engaged in a similar endeavour. I don't see why we should care about them if they didn't succeed.

Try putting more of your talents into communicating cleary. Avoid insults. You can do it.

Please, explain why it is relevent that Newton used known science. To simply change the name of the scientist, and the discovery:

Me: Einstein was the first to come up with General Relativity

You: You can't prove that someone didn't come up with it first.

Me: That doesn't mean we should assume that they did.

You: Einstein did it with the existing knowledge base of science and mathematics.

Me:

Prior example of what? Do you believe that Newton did his work without using the ideas and mathematics of the past?

So no one before Newton had thought of the concept?

You appear to have the memory of a goldfish. Either that or you're being deliberately obtuse.