demagogue on 20/2/2006 at 01:48
:D
Oops, sorry for the technobabble.
For the 100th anniversary of E=MC^2's birthday I promised myself I'd finally read all the articles surrounding it and try to make a little sense out of it because it was supposed to be like the most famous equation/discovery into our universe ever made, and since I was as clueless as anyone I thought I should at least read about it before I die. I actually wasn't trying to be a smartass; I just had the stuff still in my mind and hadn't gotten to talk about it with anyone (it's not exactly sparkling conversation for a party).
-------------------------------------------
Just to respond to Wyclef (don't read if it hurts your thinky!):
I know exactly what you're saying ... That "hiking path" analogy is really misleading because it makes you think it's the traveling twin with the "longer" path when it's actually the stationary one who ages more.* But it's still a good analogy to say there's nothing at least logically paradoxical with stretching time anymore than stretching space.
*(although, to be fair, technically the travelling twin's worldpath is enlongated or stretched out in a sense because she can go the same "distance" so-to-speak with fewer "steps" (ticks of the clock), like she's taking bigger "steps", and so ages less, at least the way I learned it. I should have explained that for the 2 people around here that actually care).
On the whole 'instantaneous' aging thing and the asymmetry without a clear "something" making them asymmetrical ... it's maybe queer, but it's not a logical paradox, at least not in the same way something like backwards-causation is, e.g., where someone goes back in time and kills their former self which is just logically wacko. It's just something left to explain. Anyway. I read some argument somewhere explaining why it's not really a problem ... something like it's only instantaneous from the point of view of the "measuring" from the frame of observation, that is, just for purposes of doing the math and can't be taken literally; there's no absolute clock to even try to take it literally. But I guess you already know this since you said it's an "idealization".
But anyway, I know what you're saying, and don't think I'm disagreeing.
The debate has been argued to death for 90 years by now by probably 10,000s of brilliant people and the theory is still around ... that says something.
ok, no more mumbo-jumbo out of me, folks.
I don't want to fry fett's brain or BlackErtai's thinky.
Hesche on 20/2/2006 at 07:30
Quote Posted by Low Moral Fiber
an apple is a vegetable
Which leads us to the central question: what is the real distinction parameter between a fruit and a vegetable?
Swiss Mercenary on 20/2/2006 at 07:37
The fruit part of a plant has seeds.
Hence, tomatoes, cucumbers, cherries, and apples are fruit.
Potatoes, carrots, turnips, and squash, are hence, vegetables.
demagogue on 20/2/2006 at 07:42
And onions are lillies.
(well, it's true...)
Hesche on 20/2/2006 at 09:07
C´mon, in my world cucumbers aren´t fruits.
So a pumpkin, by your definition, is a fruit?
I thought the distinction is that fruits (re)grow on perennial plants like bushes and trees, whereas vegetables grow on annual herbaceous plants. So a cucumber defenetly is a vegetable.
And strawberries are roses.
hopper on 20/2/2006 at 09:14
Quote Posted by Swiss Mercenary
The fruit part of a plant has seeds.
squash, are hence, vegetables.
You have a lot to learn about sqashy, seedy fruit parts...
DarkViper on 20/2/2006 at 11:31
"As to whether a pumpkin (or tomato or whatnot) is a fruit or a veggie depends on who you ask. Legally speaking, both are vegetables. Horticulturally speaking both are fruits (cuz they've got seeds)"
Hehe. Legally.Also, Pumpkin is defined as "The large pulpy round fruit of this plant, having a thick, orange-yellow rind and numerous seeds".
I don't get that. So are they saying the pumpkin is the fruit of the pumpkin plant? :confused:Sources: (
http://www.stupidquestionsanswered.com/answered/pumpkin.htm) Stupid Questions Answered, (
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pumpkin) dictionary.com
Tumbleweed on 20/2/2006 at 11:50
I fail to see how any posts on this thread subsequent to Agent Monkeysee are necessary.
descenterace on 20/2/2006 at 12:46
(
http://www.relativitychallenge.com/cicsModel.htm) Uhhhh...
OK, I think this guy is taking the piss. The differences in this 'thought experiment' are caused by
air resistance, not flaws in relativity. If the experiment was done in a vaccuum (with appropriate spacesuits for the participants), I wonder what his results would be?
Quote:
The founding postulates of SRT define the speed of light as a constant. Thus, when experiments have been found that seemingly contradict this postulate, researches are pressed to explain their findings such that they remain consistent with SRT. Since the CICS model uses a revised set of postulates that allow for the passive and active control of the speed of light in a Complete Coordinate System, such explanations are unnecessary.
The speed of light is a constant
in a vaccuum. In matter, it's being absorbed and re-emitted by the subatomic particles in its path. This does not contradict Relativity at all.
SD on 20/2/2006 at 16:57
Quote Posted by demagogue
And onions are lillies.
(well, it's true...)
No it isn't.
Onions are
Alliaceae. Lilies are
Liliaceae.
In the dim and distant past they used to be considered related, so I guess this is what causes the confusion.
Quote Posted by Hesche
I thought the distinction is that fruits (re)grow on perennial plants like bushes and trees, whereas vegetables grow on annual herbaceous plants.
Nup. Vegetable is a culinary term; fruit is a botanical term. They therefore aren't opposites. Which is why a cucumber is both a fruit and a vegetable.
Quote:
And strawberries are roses.
This, however, is true. Although perversely, a strawberry is neither a fruit nor a berry.
