assassin_696

Haha, yeah I know :) If you're a Tom Clancy fan have you read The Bear and the Dragon? That's about a war between China and Russia over resources, and in my mind that's far more likely to happen than some great big conspiracy against the US (particularly since the US is probably the biggest market for Chinese exports).

Kind of puts things in perspective when you think about it like doesn't it? :P Of course, I don't know, no one can really know, but I think it's just wishful thinking.

Ah yes, I think I see what you mean now. Although...ah this is confusing.

Really? I mean I quite clearly could be wrong here, but I thought that special relativity showed that the speed of light was fixed. I.e. if you were to ride on a motorbike at the speed of light and shine the beam of a torch in front of you the two speeds would not add so that the beam of light was moving at twice the speed of light. I thought the speed of light was constant in all frames of reference. Although, it's entirely possible and probable that relativity breaks down at singularities like the big bang, but I didn't know much was known about what really happened.

All this talk of moving the universe is just completely illogical. Where could you move the universe to? It doesn't make sense.

The live version has nearly brought me to tears watching it on DVD. It's hard to think of many that i've heard recently, there's a song off the Requiem For A Dream soundtrack called Summer Overture, which was remixed for a LOTR trailer. It's called Requiem For A Tower and it's even more powerful than the original; just the combination of the harsh strings with the deep timpanis, it's utterly haunting. It's been used a fair bit in films and adverts, you'd probably recognise it.

You've kind of misinterpreted Newton's laws there. A constant resultant force yields a constant acceleration, i.e. if you had a car travelling at 30mph and you applied a force of say 2000N it might accelerate to 40mph where it would reach it's terminal velocity for that force supplied. To get it to reach 50mph you need to supply even more force. So, in your analogy the gravitational potential energy that causes the two objects to move closer together is a constant, and will actually decrease as they come closer (because it's being converted to kinetic energy, and energy is conserved). So they won't reach the speed of light. Hope that's clear :)

Did you NOT read the murder example? I know what you're probably going to say, but I have to say this anyway. There's a difference between having a homosexual urge and acting on it, and having a murder urge and acting on it (although I genuinely can't think of any reason why people would be born genetically pre-disposed to murder, I would imagine that's far more likely to be nurtured, as it were). Acting on one urge causes obvious harm (murder), but to act on a homosexual urge does not cause any harm. I know that they are roughly equated in Christianity through sin, but you can't equate them ethically.

Sorry, but it is right. Here's a couple of scenarios for you: 1. The Sun somehow goes supernova right this instant. That would roughly equate to a massive explosion, and explosions carry a number of different things. The first is the light from the fire or whatever, since nothing can travel faster than light, it actually would take 8 minutes to reach us. Repeat, we would not feel the effects instantly. When you look up into the sky at night you are looking into the past, you are looking at the light from stars which left thousands, maybe millions of years ago. Those stars could have long gone supernova but we won't see that until the light from the supernova reaches us. 2. The Sun somehow vanishes, completely disappears. Now, since the Sun's gravity is the only thing keeping us in orbit we'd stray off our orbit straight away right? Wrong, gravity cannot propogate faster than light. The loss of the Sun's gravity would not be felt until the light (or absence of) reaches us. Thought so. General Relativity predicts it, right? Yeah exactly. I've forgotten the proper history of it, but I think Newton's theory does actually predict that gravitational discrepencies would be felt instantly, but Einstein's reconciles that with the unsurmountable speed limit, c. I'm slightly hesitant to say that nothing can travel faster than light, because recent experiments in quantum mechanics, especially the EPR paradox and non-locality show that maybe something, messages between photons or whatnot might go faster than light could travel, but you'll have to read about the effects yourself, it gets pretty weird. Suffice to say we, as humans will never travel faster than light. As Reb keeps saying, for any kind of mass to approach light-speed you need more and more energy, and once you reach the speed of light you need an infinite amount of energy. The only reason photons travel at that kind of speed is because they are massless.

Ok well since your asking for my personal opinion then I'll give it to you. Science doesn't come into it here. I'll also come from the point of view thats "its a fact they are born gay" instead of making that "lifestyle choice" during puberty years as you requested. How can it be wrong in my eyes you may ask? Well from a Christians perspective we were told to go forth and multiply and as we know homosexuality can't do this, so its against that for starters. I also believe its an unnatural act, and there's many (notice I didn't say all) perverted people who do such acts. Simple. BlueLancer and myself have both provided evidence that homosexuality occurs in animal species and so for you to argue that "it's not natural" is ignoring the fact that actually, it is. Just because it doesn't propogate the genes of a species does not mean that it's not natural. If the Bible tells you to go forth and multiply, what about if homosexuals donated sperm to a sperm bank? Would that be okay? Besides, telling a people to go forth and multiply is fine for a small tribal settlement thousands of years ago, but nowadays it's plain ignorant to continue to follow that instruction since we're clearly running out of resources and the ability to care for our brood. If you're continuing to argue against the facts (that's it's not a conscious choice or decision) then you're just sticking your fingers in your ears.

Don't...remind...me... :uhh: Lol, which subject results are you waiting for? All of them except French, which I took last year. So; maths, english lit, english lang, music, R.S. geography, history, physics, chemistry, biology.

I can't tell if you're joking or being serious :shock:

I could really, really recommend that book to anyone remotely interested in physics. String theory should be treated with a healthy dose of impartiality at the moment, it's a little far ahead of experimental verification, but Greene is a really fantastic author. You can also watch the companion documentary on PBS for free here, (follow the link that says "Watch The Program").

I think Lover You Should've Come Over by Jeff Buckley used to be me. Not so sure now, maybe Little Cream Soda by The White Stripes but maybe not.

Bingo, logical fallacy. The burden of proof lies with the person claiming ghosts exist. And so far there has been absolutely no proof that anything of that kind exists, so no I don't believe in it. There's normally a rational explanation, even if it's hard to find.

Dammit Bari, be more close-minded, I can't keep track. :P

Sorry, but it is right. Here's a couple of scenarios for you: 1. The Sun somehow goes supernova right this instant. That would roughly equate to a massive explosion, and explosions carry a number of different things. The first is the light from the fire or whatever, since nothing can travel faster than light, it actually would take 8 minutes to reach us. Repeat, we would not feel the effects instantly. When you look up into the sky at night you are looking into the past, you are looking at the light from stars which left thousands, maybe millions of years ago. Those stars could have long gone supernova but we won't see that until the light from the supernova reaches us. 2. The Sun somehow vanishes, completely disappears. Now, since the Sun's gravity is the only thing keeping us in orbit we'd stray off our orbit straight away right? Wrong, gravity cannot propogate faster than light. The loss of the Sun's gravity would not be felt until the light (or absence of) reaches us.

So your saying drugs wrote those hits? Not the years of experience with music? Yeah, okay, sure. Have you ever listened to Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds? Years of experience with music...yeah right :P

I'd disagree there. For example when I assume a position in a debate, whatever it may be, that does not mean that I am close-minded to the fact that I might be proved wrong or that there is a more valid alternative. Maybe it's simply coming down to definitions, but to me close-minded implies that one is completely unreceptive to the possibility that one might be wrong. Therefore I am not close-minded when it comes to a religion (believe it or not). I have an opinion, and it's a fairly strong one, but I am still receptive and open to the possibility to the fact that there might be a God. I'm skeptical, yes, which I believe is the position anyone should assume when someone is making an extroadinary claim without evidence, but that does not make me close-minded. And calling myself an atheist does not make me close-minded, I just think that the burden of proof with any claim is with the claimant, and if they cannot come up with any kind of proof the default position should be to not believe, but not close your mind to the fact that evidence might one day be presented. Sorry for bringing in religion a bit, but it helps put my point across. As someone who is scientifically minded, like warri0r, I thrive on what is true and what can be proven with evidence. But when I don't see any evidence or proof then i'm going to be skeptical, not close-minded, just skeptical.

I'm all for legalising activities which can be done in the privacy of your own home without harming anyone. I think the problems of soft drugs are overhyped. Of course, there are associated problems, like the health and psychological effects associated with soft drugs, and the question of where do the drugs come from?

:P

Beat me to it. It's another example of the media overhyping a curious experiment, but it's been debunked anyway. The rest of the article then goes into more detail about the physics. By the way, Einstein was fairly ambiguous about time travel. There's nothing in his theories which explicitly forbids it, but if it was ever to be possible it's unlikely it would take the form of a time machine which could travel anywhere.

How is being close-minded ever logical? And give me a reason, instead of some pithy "your brains will fall out" response.

Pfft, don't listen to these guys. You really don't need alcohol to have a good party, and like I said, at your age it'll just make it worse. Just have a blast and get everyone in the mood.

Don't...remind...me... :uhh: