Raider

The objects take up a smaller percent of your field of vision which is just another way of saying they get 'smaller.'

chris, I think 'learn' would do much better than 'inherit.'

Radical Edward, I would assume he's seen SciAm's recent article on it. They treat the 'universe' as the observable space around us, ie: the space near enough for red shifting not to cause objects to disappear.

SR only works in "special" cases (hence the name) which is with a rest frame. GR is what you actually apply to the universe since we don't have a rest frame.

Very good book. The first few hundred pages or so are nothing but evidence and presented almost like propaganda at times, so you might be tempted to put it down at first. Don't.

3-d space would be like a picture, never moving. There must be a fouth dimension, time, for you to even consider dimensions.

Why is that? It seems like we'd just see their future as our past but otherwise normal.

It isn't really fear, but definately an undesirable end that'd i'd like to avoid meeting.

IQ test are adjusted for culture, and obviously you won't score as well taking the wrong test. If you were European, the US test would make you out to be worse than the European ones...

That is the first time i've ever seen anyone say that. Typo?

What exactly is he trying to prove?

Glider, What exactly does this mean? Again...what does this mean? ------ Your definition of being a kid seems very nearly a condition impossible to avoid for the length of an average life. Therefore, people have no grounds to complain as everyone is "being a kid" at some point despite perceptions to the contrary. Of course, the definition provided is not really in context with this discussion and probably needs revision. So? edit:bad tags

Black holes don't hold *everything* within the event horizon or even the singularity for that matter. Uncertainity principle allows for stuff to escape and thus push other things back.

This is not true. Singularities have infinite density because they occupy infintely small space. They do not have infinte mass in finite space. edit:bag tag

If you die, i'll still be here pondering how everything works. Your concern for the universe may end with your death, but its existance certaintly does not. Thus, the conclusion follows that the existance of universe is not dependent on one's own view of such. For future referance, think before you post.

Why would a black hole have an escape velocity? If gravity is geometrical and the singularity is in fact a singularity, the warping of the space-time continium must be infinite. That would mean nothing gets out at any speed short of infinity, with slight exception resulting from the uncertainty principle.

*If this is in the wrong place, my apologies. I'm throwing out ideas, but they are relevant to actual physics. --------------- I was thinking, what if there is no universal rest frame? Working off of relativity, the upper limits of x,y,z velocity would be the velocity of the slowest thing in the universe + c. If it were accelerated, then the upper limits of velocity would increase. The slowest thing in the universe would be the referance frame for momenta, and thus an increase in slowest thing would transfer momentum throughout everything in the universe. This seems to lead to an acceleration of velocity towards infinity, which as best I can tell is not the case. So I propose there is a universal rest frame for the laws of physics to work upon. I'm sure you can find plenty of holes to tear into.

B sounds pretty good to me.

We're a rather young group. At this point, I think females are significantly more interested in being attractive and other superficial things of this nature. Women may mature faster, but they are much slower to admit it and reveal themselves as adults.

Why do people assume that a "social life" is always important to everyone? What is so bad about being more interested in adults than your "peers"? What is "being a kid," and why do people need to do that? Revultion towards anything abnormal is frighteningly dominant in our society.

Another tid bit, make sure your emphasis is on their well-being rather than the enforcement of your rules (even though they may seem the same, it is all about attitude). A lot of parents royally screw this part up on an all too regular basis.

Your kids have to know *every* rule you give them is important. When a parent is micro-managing a kids life it is very annoying and you will start getting ignored quickly. Thus, keep your mouth shut about small matters and let them learn for themselves. When their safety is genuinely at risk or an equally grave matter, explain to them WHY such is the case, and THEN what you think is the best course of action. If your intervention is rare enough it will be seen as important when it comes and most intelligent people (yes, kids are too) will respect that. Never tell them what to do and then explain yourself after they question you. This is not how logic works. Argument THEN conclusion. If your kids are idiots, you just have to beat the mess out of them, I suppose.

The government does not have a duty to protect a citizen from himself. Education on drug use is reasonable, but telling people they can't do it is an infrigement upon liberty.

Entropy is based on mathematical averages, and is only a very broad generalization of current observation rather than an inherent property. As best as I can tell, time always exist (but doesn't necessarily progress or regress at all....ugh, transitions between events?). Therefore, trying to define time with entropy seems rather absurd to me.

This isn't the parallel universe picture i've been presented in the path. I've only seen that "new" universes are created when any event occurs with probability<1. This only deals with one universe, and is thusly misleading, no?