Fuzzy wrote:
Anyway, I think It would be great if there was some sort of massive organized attempt to educate the massively stupid.
Isn't that what school is supposed to be?
Like maybe for an hour during primetime on TV, everyday for a month, someone with a brain should explain the current scientific thinking behind the theory (and fact) of evolution. I nominate Mike. I wouldn't mind seeing him on TV... Hell, It'd probably be the most educational thing on TV.
Even if it were on, most people probably won't watch it anyways or will just dismiss it as "evolutionist propaganda." Also, 1 hour a day for a month won't really be enough.
And Mike's websites are spectacular, intellegent and very educational, but Mike's degree is in engineering, not biology, and some shallow people might not like his credentials on TV.
I know you're right, but I really don't want to admit it. I'm a dreamer, I dream of an America with smart citizens.
"Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night."
--Isaac Asimov
"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times... but most of all, it's time to kick your ass, Jackson!"
--Gil Hamilton
"Now, now my good man, this is no time for making enemies."
- Voltaire (1694-1778) on his deathbed in response to a priest asking that he renounce Satan. (posted by Chmee)
I wonder, exactly how well is superior education in the United States (universities and colleges, I mean). Do they also have to obey this kind of bullshitting, or not? It would be awesome if during the first class at U., the professor would ask anyone who believes in ID or creationism raise their hands, then say "well, you're fucking wrong, so get out of my class"
Slartibartfast wrote:I wonder, exactly how well is superior education in the United States (universities and colleges, I mean). Do they also have to obey this kind of bullshitting, or not? It would be awesome if during the first class at U., the professor would ask anyone who believes in ID or creationism raise their hands, then say "well, you're fucking wrong, so get out of my class"
That's pretty much what my evolution 101 lecturer did in the first class.
Keevan_Colton wrote:Except with an infinite sized area, it is an infinite distance to the boundaries from any point, therefore you can treat any point as if it were the centre.
No, you cannot, because there are no boundaries in an infinite universe. So the concept of a center becomes meaningless.
The preffered frame of refrence is simply a choice. There is no reason to prefer one frame over another under special relativity, but that means any frame can be used. Ergo, one with the earth as totally stationary and the rest of the universe moving relative to it is entirely permissable under relativity.
If everything was relative to the Earth, the Earth would be the preferred frame of reference. If the Earth was totally stationary relative to everything, that would mean that Earth's reference frame would not require special relativistic corrections because it wouldn't be moving relative to anything. That is why the concept of a stationary object is impossible.
Damien Sorresso
"Ever see what them computa bitchez do to numbas? It ain't natural. Numbas ain't supposed to be code, they supposed to quantify shit."
- The Onion
I do love my state...but something about our school boards...*hangs head* I'm sure this will be challenged in court and hopefully before a judge who understands the concept of the separation of church and state...
There's too much blood in my caffiene system! When women are depressed they either eat or go shopping. Men invade other countries. SoS:NBA Because boys are icky
Keevan_Colton wrote:Except with an infinite sized area, it is an infinite distance to the boundaries from any point, therefore you can treat any point as if it were the centre.
No, you cannot, because there are no boundaries in an infinite universe. So the concept of a center becomes meaningless.
I'm not arguing that it isnt meaningless, the very fact that it is meaningless is why any point can be regarded as it.
The preffered frame of refrence is simply a choice. There is no reason to prefer one frame over another under special relativity, but that means any frame can be used. Ergo, one with the earth as totally stationary and the rest of the universe moving relative to it is entirely permissable under relativity.
If everything was relative to the Earth, the Earth would be the preferred frame of reference. If the Earth was totally stationary relative to everything, that would mean that Earth's reference frame would not require special relativistic corrections because it wouldn't be moving relative to anything. That is why the concept of a stationary object is impossible.
Except, as there is no preferred frame of refrence, an arbitrary one can be used for all calculations. The selection of which frame of refrence can either be done based on what makes the most sense and simplifies calculations, or it can be done for silly bugger reasons like saying the earth is not moving and the rest of the universe is.
In any situation you can work with it as though body A is in motion relative to body B, or body B is in motion relative to body A. That's part of why it's relativity .
"Prodesse Non Nocere." "It's all about popularity really, if your invisible friend that tells you to invade places is called Napoleon, you're a loony, if he's called Jesus then you're the president." "I'd drive more people insane, but I'd have to double back and pick them up first..." "All it takes for bullshit to thrive is for rational men to do nothing." - Kevin Farrell, B.A. Journalism. BOTM - EBC - Horseman - G&C - Vampire
.