ArthurDent

All power to Dannel, science needs and always has needed people to come up with radical new ideas that fly in the face of conventional opinion. However, it also needs people to perform extensive and well constructed experiments to test the predictions (there must be predictions!) of new theories and it also needs people to formulate robust mathematical models that precisely define the theory that is being tested. Unfortunately, it looks like this theory is one of the 99% (I made this statistic up but you get the idea...) of radical new theories the breakdown under public scrutiny. Shame. I'd like to ask this: What happens to all these gravity particles that are pushing me, my PC, my car, all the oceans of the world etc, when they get to the centre of the earth? Obviously they can't carry on in the same direction because then the particles holding me down would be pushing Australians off the world. Hang on, I've just had an idea myself; perhaps the particles annihilate each other when the collide giving a burst of energy. That would explain why the earths core is so hot! Ok, maybe not but I would be interested in your answer anyway.

The reason why whales, bison, cod and numerous other species have suffered devastating reduction in numbers is because they became commercially valuable while still wild. Exploitation of animals only works in conjunction with domestication and then even the animals benefit (in terms of numbers at least) as they are born into the possession of a farmer who will protect his commodity (fences, barns vets, food suppliment, fertility aids and AI etc. etc.) There is no danger of chickens or pigs or cows becoming endangered in the near future despite the astonishing popularity of their meat. In fact, the secret to the survival of the giant panda is to become extemely tasty (and perhaps black and white fur coats to be the toast of the cat walk). Chinese panda farmers would soo find a way to get our furry friends to breed like rabbits if there was enough money in it. As soon as McDonalds start selling a quarter panda with cheese their suvival is assured.

That's a "no" then. I have spent all morning searching threads for a satisfactory explanation (honest!) and am very chuffed to find I wasn't the only one to think of this as a paradox and that it does have a genuine resolution. Perhaps, if you don't mind, you could point me in the direction of previous threads where this has been discussed. As for a total perspective vortex...I have a wife that does a very similar job! regards A Dent

I joined this forum because I have always had a problem understanding why a space traveller returning to earth will be younger than his twin brother. I get ( I hope) the reasoning behind time dilation generally but didn't know why it wasn't equally valid for the earthbound twin to be younger than the traveller since his speed relative to his brother is the same as his brother's to him. Thanks to a link supplied by Buffy on an earlier thread I now at least see that the traveller's experience is different from the "stationary" twin due to the accelerations undergone and that he passes through more than one inertial frame of reference so the scenario is not symmetrical. However, I still can't really grasp what is happening in physical terms; if any of you bright sparks can explain it simply for me or have an appropriate analogy it might stop my brain aching. Also, am I correct in saying that if two clocks at the same point, A, in space flew in opposite directions, travelled the same distance and arrived back at A at the same time they would still be in synch' (both behind a third clock that remained at A) but if one travelled further or arrived back earlier it would be behind the other?