Yo D

It seems as if this is a "law" of some sort. But I am so used to thinking that, at one time, someone probably thought a horse was the fastest anyone could go. I don't understand WHY the speed of light is the speed limit. Is it because it is the fastest thing we know of...or that nothing CAN exceed that limit? If so, why not? Why shouldn't it be some other speed instead of THAT speed?

I am a substitute teacher. I try to add value to the classes by not simply being a baby-sitter. So, the other day, the high school class had an assignment to read a piece on whether racist speech should be protected, etc. After the students finished, they were to write a short essay on where they stood on the matter.

Since I know I know more about the free speech debate than they do, I would add a few comments as they were writing. I'd say, "Is it OK to cry 'fire!' in a crowded theater?" Just little things that pertained--trying to ask provocative questions from both sides of the debate.

Well, this didn't seem to bother anyone...except one guy. I was in the middle of saying something else and he just kind huffs and says something like, "Look, I can't write this with you talking."

I was pretty embarrassed to say the least. But I stood down. Perhaps I should have not spoken while they were writing, but that doesn't keep THEM from talking. At the same time, being a sub, I didn't have time to figure all this out in advance--I just said the things that came to me as they popped up, trying to get them to think deeper about it.

My question is, if I ever have the situation again, where I'm just trying to be helpful and someone acts rude (I mean, even if I'm in the wrong, he could have had a little patience--he was only writing a PARAGRAPH), I need a really sharp comeback that is not nasty or will get me fired, but one that will put the guy in his place in a major way.

HELP!

It occurred to me that it might be possible that instead of there being a multiverse, as some argue, that out of the nearly infinite number of POSSIBLE universes, they all began to cancel each other out...until we were left with the one we have.

That is, one possible universe, made entirely of anti-matter, cancelled out the one made entirely of matter. On and on and on...until there was only one possible universe. Ours.

Thoughts?

Very simply, every nation on earth agrees to freeze all current debt--this includes payment of debt TO or FROM that nation--for, say, two years. In this time, no extra interest accrues, no fees are assessed, etc. This would apply only to established debt, and not to new debt.

OR

Or if that is too drastic, what about either of the following scenarios:

1) Freeze debt for only a certain (significant) percentage of all debt. Thus, your mortgage might be reduced by half for two years. (Or perhaps only no interest is assessed for two years--all payments going directly to principal.)

2) Freeze debt only for certain types of debt (e.g., mortgages)

It seems to me that any of these plans would give the world much-needed breathing room. Please note that most companies could continue to easily retain and pay their employees based on NEW sales/accounts receivable. The only debt that would be frozen would be current debt.

Companies could offer incentives for people to continue to pay their debt during this period, if necessary.

Yes, it's not perfectly fair. But it seems that without breathing space, we are in danger of losing more than just a little of what is owed, but in danger of losing all or most of it.

Consider that America might actually be able to position itself for growth if we don't have to spend billions on just the interest on debt alone.

Your thoughts or dramatic ideas are welcomed.

Today, I saw a school bus coming toward me. At every moment, we were drawing closer. It occurred to me that if I could follow the "past moments" of that bus, I could trace it's route all the way back to where it started. At every gazillioneth of a moment, that bus was somehow just a bit different than it was a gazillionth of a moment before. It was in different space. I was seeing CLEARLY only the most current moment of it's existence. If I could have seen the last, say, 10 minutes AT ONCE, I would have seen a long yellow streak (I suppose) that would go all the way back to wherever it was 10 minutes before.

AM I UNDERSTANDING THIS CORRECTLY? Space-time has been a hard concept for me to grasp, but I'm slowly getting it. I think. Am I conveying this in a way that works with the right concept of space-time?

Thank you!

Let's say you have a triangle. If you measure from the midpoint of one line to the midpoint of another line, I think that gives you HALF the length of the remaining line. I am wondering what would happen if you went beyond the halfway point on those lines, instead going to a TENTH, say. Would that mean that the remaining line is TEN TIMES the length of your measurement? Sorry if this is not clearer....

It seems possible to me that EVERYTHING is "magnetized" to some extent. Some things (like normal magnets) have a higher attraction to each other than to other things. Wouldn't this explain, say, why we fall DOWN instead of UP? That is, we are attracted to the earth by some light level of magnetism (which can, with enough energy, be broken--e.g, airplanes).

I know it's probably stupid to think this way, but it seems TO ME that gravity is an unneeded explanation for things. OR, for that matter, perhaps everything is gravity...and there is no magnetism. Just seems these two things are too alike--and that perhaps one is unnecessary. Your comments are appreciated (please be gentle--I'm just trying to understand).

I was using Google Chrome in the wee hours of the morning and it told me that Yahoo was not available. I switched to Internet Explorer and Yahoo came right up. But STILL would not come up on Google Chrome. I have a suspicion that Google is "playing games" to block out a competitor. Anyone else notice this?

If you have a planet-sized ball of dirt, it's mass alone will attract other, smaller bodies. This is known as gravity. But consider that if you had a planet-sized magnet, it would ALSO attract smaller bodies. Just like gravity...except with a few differences.

Planet Magnet would attract ANY nearby, smaller body...but it would ESPECIALLY and more FORCEFULLY attract other magnets. Consider the following:

1) What if EVERYTHING is magnetized to some extent? That is, what if the pull of the Earth on the Moon, which we call gravity, is really a very weak magnetic force. What if our being held to the earth while we walk about is not due to something called gravity, but due to our having a VERY WEAK magnetic attraction between us and the earth?

2) SOME THINGS have very strong magnetic attraction. Thus, if the Earth were made of a magnet, it might hold humans the same way we are held by the Earth today...but it would attract OTHER MAGNETS much more forcefully. Thus, there would be (at least) two types of magnetism: Some weak, basic, generic magnetism which exists in all things and which we typically call gravity; and a strong or special magnetism that attracts certain other bodies much more forcefully.

And since we know that magnets can also repel, that MIGHT explain certain things about the universe, as well.

It is easy to see I'm not a scientist, but I have wondered why we have decided that there is gravity and there is magnetism, when "generic magnetism" and "special magnetism" would seem to explain both. Would you kindly comment (without trashing me)? Thank you!

Consider this sentence: "Many of the conquistadors died at sea." Now, any reasonable person would think the subject of this sentence is "conquistadors." NOT SO!!!! Why? Because it is the object of the prepositional phrase "of the conquistadors." No, the subject is--are you ready for this?--"Many."

Here's another one: "Neither of the Bibles were for sale." Well, well, well, your just certain that "Bibles" is the obvious subject. No, the subject is "Neither." Which, as far as I can tell is neither a noun or a pronoun--yet there you go.

Whoever made the STUPID rule ought to be shot, then run over, then drawn and quartered, then slapped, then made to watch reruns.

Can someone explain this stupid rule? Certainly if there is another qualified subject, let it devolve to that one instead of the object of the preposition, but in such cases as I have mentioned, surely we can do better than that. HELP.

I assume it is spelled this way--in any case it SOUNDS like "eco del mathia." It may even be a single word, two words, or even four or five words, I suppose. Just looking for help. Thanks.

Pretend that we have a time machine that can send MESSAGES (not people!) back in time...but no earlier than 1960...and as recently as yesterday. You have one chance and only one message you can send. Would you send a message? And if so, what would it be?

If matter has just always existed, why is it any less likely that some "intelligence" has also just alway existed, and perhaps even exerted some influence upon the universe?

Next, if there has been an infinite series of universes--big bang, inflation, collapse, repeat--then, since there are only so many ways that the limited number of particles in the universe can be arranged, wouldn't that mean that it is likely that there was a prior universe (or perhaps an alternative universe right now) that is EXACTLY like this one? One in which you are reading Yahoo Answers, etc.?

I mean, if you have an infinite number of tries, then there MUST have been (or be) an infinite number of IDENTICAL universes to this one, in which everything plays out the same. And it if plays out the same, then the collapse will be identical...which will necessitate that the "big bang" is identical to the a former one also.

This SURELY takes as much faith to believe as to simply believe there is a God. That is, it is no more ludicrous to believe in an intelligent being than to believe that there have been TRILLIONS of identical universes to this one...of logical necessity, it seems.

Thoughts?

My niece has asked me to help her solve this algebra problem--so help me, I can't do it! Need someone to do it ASAP, and include each step. THANK YOU!

(x + 6)/6 = 1 - (x + 2)/7

Thanks!

One reason we are given is that the recession is because of bad loans. But consider that if the borrowers couldn't pay the loans, they would have begun defaulting from the very first month. For instance, if you borrowed $50 million dollars, the monthly payment would be so high that you wouldn't even be able to make your first payment.

No, something happened so that these borrowers were no longer able to make the payments that, until then, however tough it had been, they had been able to pull off. So what happened?

My theory is that as companies continue to tranfer jobs elsewhere, people loss jobs here...and it eventually leads to the inability to make mortgage payments. Often, some of the very same HUGE LENDERS that provided the mortgage are the ones that laid people off, eventually, I think, creating a critical mass of problems.

When a person loses a job, he not only can't pay his mortgage, but at some point, he tapers down in his other spending, impacting local businesses. Those businesses, now making less money due to people trying to conserve money, also have to lay people off...and the problem grows.

It might have been as small as a tenth of one percent increase in employment, but coupled with the on-the-edge loans, it was enough to set the dominoes off.

Your thoughts (what you think happened, as well as what you think of my theory)?

My wife and I are without income (I lost my job in January 2008). We receive $1200/month in Unemployment. Any income I make, lessens my Unemployment by the same amount...so unless I can find a worthwhile, full-time job (I have been unsuccessful), it makes more sense to just receive Unemployment. I have about $20,000 in a rolled over 401(k)--I have not touched this because it is all I have for retirement, the future, whatever, and I will not use it since it may be the only way to start anew.

I am trying to find a way to use my money to obtain--quickly--a large amount of money. Enough to pay off my credit card bills (around $30,000) and such. We live modestly, but due to small, careless fast-food expenditures (and the such), we got into this predicament.

I don't want to file Bankruptcy or go into Foreclosure. I am willing to sell my house, but want to end this all honorably, even though I can no longer afford to make payments on my credit cards.

I need your BEST IDEAS. Buy a house and flip it? What? Ideas!!!! I need 'em. Thank you!

That is, does a schizophrenic with multiple personalities claim that, say, one person/personality was born in Ohio in 1975, while another person/personality was born in California in 1980? I'm just wondering just how divergent the personalities are. Thank you.

Over and over, the Na'vi "connect" (interface in some way) with animals and trees, using those tendrils growing out of the end of their long hair braid. But there, in the most inimate connection of all, the one where, of all times, you ought to connect at the very deepest level...James Camerson strangely leaves that out. It's apparently just regular ol' alien love-making, instead of the mystical bond that is promised by connecting their tendrils. What an opportunity lost!

By "fix," I mean that we make sure that everyone has access to VERY affordable, high-quality healthcare. Is there a way to do this that is smarter than what seems to be Congress' attempt? Ideas?