You might want to try Manjaro Linux. It's based on Arch, so it's a rolling release, but they have their own repositories for testing updated packages before release. Plus, their installer is much less of a hassle than Arch's, including an automatic graphics card driver installer.
How do the NASA scientists know that these pictures are of rivers and not long inlets? In other words, how do they know the hydrocarbons are flowing?
Self-creation is nonsensical (violates non-contradiction and all reason);
In my view the laws of reason are just as empirical as the laws of physics. So you have to be careful with what you dismiss as unreasonable. The universe is not bound by human-created reason. Quantum mechanics puts lie to the rule of non-contradiction. Set up a double-slit experiment and fire one electron at a time. When we observe which slit an electron went through, it either goes through A or B, but not both. And yet, we observe an interference pattern, so we have to conclude that the electron went through both slits. Both slits and not both slits. A contradiction in reality, right?
On another note, there's another possibility in the Creation by Other category besides something God-like: Creation by Other Universes. One possibility is that a black hole is where a piece of spacetime twists off from a universe and inflates into its own universe. Universe Zero begets Universe One and was begotten by Universe Negative One. Every universe has a beginning and an end (big rip, heat death, or big crunch), but the set of all universes is eternal. Perhaps in the physics of the metaverse, the null set of universes is impossible. Or, the actual number of universes is infinite and always has been.
I've worked with many physicists, some who agree with you, some with me. As long as the math works out, either way works.
Yes, I said as much in my second to last post.
I've never looked at the wikipedia articles you mention except to look up the mass of the proton.
In my opinion, the invariant mass-energy of a system should just be called mass. For fundamental particles with no internal structure (as far as we know) like electrons and quarks, this would be the rest mass. By this definition, photons have no mass because they have no invariant mass. For a compound system, like the proton, the invariant mass is its total rest frame energy divided by c^2. The total rest frame energy of a proton is the sum of the invariant mass of the quarks times c^2, the energy of their motion in their ground state, and the energy of the virtual gluons and photons (which themselves have no invariant mass).
You say the quarks and gluons gain extra mass from their kinetic energy; I say the proton gains extra mass from the kinetic energy of the quarks and gluons. This is starting to sound like the difference between 0.999... and 1.
The only difference between your world and mine is linguistic. We're choosing to attach the word "mass" to different parts of equations. The math works out in either case.
Gravity doesn't act on mass directly. A black hole (or any other large mass) warps the space around it. Light travels in a straight line through curved space (a geodesic if you want to be technical about it). It's similar to how, if you walk in a straight line on Earth, you actually walk in a circle due to the Earth being round.
2 kg. However, it is more useful to think of this as the sum of the mass of the beachball and the energy of the photons because both of these can be measured in the rest frame of the beach ball. In the rest frame of a photon, the photon doesn't exist. This is another way of saying that photons do not have a rest frame and that they do not have mass. It is clearer to equate rest mass with mass to keep it separate from measurements different observers will disagree on. All observers will agree on the rest mass of a particle: m^2 = E^2 - p^2 (in natural units).
The concept of relativistic mass would be useful if it allowed us to keep using Newtonian equations, but it doesn't. Sure, relativistic momentum is p = gamma*mv = m_rel*v, but kinetic energy is not K = (1/2)*gamma*mv^2. It's (gamma-1)mc^2.
NASA's page about the eXtreme Deep Field has a picture showing the amount of sky photographed compared to the size of the moon. It looks like all 5500 galaxies could be covered up by a grain of sand held out at arms length.
Discrediting a theory isn't a permanent thing. Any theory can be brought back if evidence warrants it. Even Einstein's "biggest blunder," the cosmological constant, is now the most popular theory to explain the universe's accelerating expansion.
Not true. This from an interview with Adams' son:
Ansel Adams frequently made duplicate photographs of his images when taking them. One thing that I tell people constantly is that it is always a good idea to take more than one shot of an image if you can in the camera. According to Michael, Ansel frequently took multiple exposures of the same shots. Many of his negatives are duplicate images of which he'd select the best image to use for printing.
In short, a parent's overreaction caused the school's overreaction. The teacher will get a "slap on the wrist" for including materials without following proper procedure. There will be no criminal charges.
Oh, and the reading of internet stories about prostitutes was a complete fabrication.
No technique ever becomes archaic; it becomes an artistic choice, like black-and-white photography. Same with focus, which probably won't ever go away since it's so intrinsic to how our eyes work. I agree that this could be a huge development once artists figure out what to do with it.
Businesses will offer spaces to the handicapped on their own because it's good for business.
No, they won't. There aren't enough handicapped customers to justify--profit-wise--the reduced number of parking spaces due to the greater width and restrictions of handicapped spaces. When markets forces fail to produce a desired outcome (i.e., allowing the disabled to participate in commerce), legislation can (and sometimes does) correct the failure.
Always draw your curves, then plot your reading.
