Warp Spider

Well, wrestling (not including professional wrestling) is not exactly a glamorous career. I expect a lot of professional wrestlers used to be professional bodybuilders, but pro wrestling pays a lot more and is a lot more prestigeous. Likewise, making it big in MMA competitions is a bit more impressive than just being a "famous" wrestler.

Well, the clocks travelled at a relatively high speed, which allegedly caused them to experience time dilation. In reality, that experiment and the similar ones performed elsewhere did not cause time dilation in the clock, they only caused the clock to become inaccurate. I can smash a clock so it stops completely, does that mean I've stopped time? Of course it doesn't, it only means that the clock is inaccurate. The speed of light only comes into play in that those experiments in no way indicate that time is somehow related to the speed of light, gravity, or space in any way.

Well, to that I'd say.. it's just a movie. The effectiveness of firearms is far from nullified at close range, thus the term "wet works." That movie was neat, but the guards/anonymous gunmen were absolutely terrible. That guy.. the hero guy.. would have gotten much more efficient results using traditional gunfighting methods.

Yes. Light takes time to travel and so high speeds can cause it to become out of sync with reality, thus making something appear to have suffered some sort of time warping, when it really did not.

I didn't say it was the same as the doppler effect, I was merely providing an analogy of how something can appear in all respects to be different than it actually is. For instance, those clocks may appear in all respects to have suffered some sort of time warping, but that doesn't mean that they did - just like in the case of the doppler effect, just because the frequency of a sound is different, doesn't mean that the frequency that the oscillating object that generates it has changed it's frequency.

Well, that depends on where you are at the time, but I'll assume it's in the US and say: normally, no, unless the officer believes you may be a terrorist (they don't require any real grounds for that either) at which point all your freedoms pretty much go out the window.

That movie was just.. silly.

I don't see how this interacts with the experiemental data at all. Nothing was moving faster than light in the experiement. So it's just a big coincidence that, for reasons you cannot even form an hypothesis over, that clocks moving in opposite directions fall out of sync and do so in the manner and degree that was predicted by relativity before the experiement was performed? And you assert this with absolutely no evidence which offers even a reasonable cause to dispute relativity? Holy smokes. I've explained it several times in this thread already, but maybe I can make it even simpler. Perhaps you've heard of the Doppler effect, whereby a sound may be percieved and in fact is transmitted at a frequency different than the object is actually oscillating. This doesn't mean that the frequency of the object has changed, but by any means of percieving that sound, it would suggest that the object is oscillating at a different frequency. Like the doppler effect, a clock can read an inaccurate time after travelling at great speed, not because time itself has actually been changed, but because the perception of it has changed.

Just because it can be demonstrated as true doesn't mean that it's true? So, if I gleen your hypothesis correctly, it was predected that faster moving objects would percieve time more slowly, and in fact, clocks moving at the same relative speed but different absolute speeds do show the time differences predicted by relativity, and you have no plausable explanations that can explain the difference which relativity explanes quite will, and you have no conter-indications for relativity, and every other prediction it has made has proven true, but you don't think it's right becuase it doesn't fit your hunch? Sorry, I can't accept that as a useful argument. Uhh, the fact that it moves faster than light distorts the RESULTS of the experiment, it doesn't distort time itself. That's why it agrees with everything else despite not necessarily being true. It's an indistinguishable facsimile of time being warped, without it actually being warped.

Well, how does that make it unrealistic? Is the blood spraying from your victim going to blind you and change the outcome that much? If not, then does it matter what the bullets are made of? However, in a "NHB" match, there are things that are not allowed, that definately COULD change the outcome of the match.

When you speak a language with 5 different meanings for the word "bounce," and phrase can make sense.

Well, assuming you can't outrun the person until they get tired of charging, and counter-attacking isn't an option, I'd say the best way is to dart to one side and toward the person when they get close. If you're moving towards them the distance will be closed faster giving them a smaller window to reach out and grab you.

Military wargames use live firearms firing simunitions, armoured vehicles, and even some explosives. "Wargames" is identical to the real thing in every way except that people who get shot only pretend to die/be wounded. There's no special provisions made for safety.

I've heard (though this is just hearsay) that there are a handful of ninja-type assassins left in the world. (Well, my understanding was that they're pretty old now and long since retired.)

Well, I can't exactly give a reference to every military simulation that the US has taken part in, but of all those I have heard of, the US has won very, very rarely.

Well, a person kicking at the speed of light isn't really that simple of a thing. Furthermore, I maintain that there's no proof that time is in any way related to the speed of light, and all the "proof" that is availible is circumstantial at best. I'm not particularly fond of people bandying about notions like that as if they were some kind of concrete fact.

I suppose so.

JTF II is actually more-or-less world renown as being the very best special forces in the world. Too bad your helecopters are so bad.

Well, although the likelyhood of being attacked is quite small, it's still present, and I think it's better to have a weapon and not end up needing it than to not have a weapon when you do need it.

Like I said, I'll buy that gravity warps space, but not time. Just because the results show that, it doesn't mean anything, because it's just the clocks being warped, and not the actual time they measure.

Well, yes, you CAN win by knockout, but he wasn't beaten by knockout very often, the times he was beat I believe it was by points. (as far as I recall)

Not to burst your bubble, but those tests only prove that light is affected by gravity, not time itself. Also, even if you did do an experiment that showed that you could "go back in time," it wouldn't necessarily mean that you were actually in the past, as mentioned before, just that you'd fooled yourself into thinking you were in the past. Like a wave machine. The wave splashes over you once. Although you can run back and beat the wave and then get splashed by it again, it's not like you've gone back in time to the original splashing.

Really? Where did you here this? I recognize that the US military is embarrassed to tell you that, but they have war games versus the Canadian military every year and lose every single time. It's not that they're a bad military, just that they are heavily mechanized, designed for wide-open desert fighting, and that doesn't mesh well with special forces.

Well, the notion that time is related to the speed of light is still highly theoretical, and a rather unsupported claim if you ask me. Certainately you would percieve the world as if you had travelled back in time, but would you really have, or would it just be an illusion created by you "outrunning" the light from things that happened in the past? I guess that's a more philosophical question than anything, but personally I think the whole gravity/velocity affecting time thing is a bit far-fetched.

Well, martial law is really no fun at all. Curfew and whatnot. Anyways. You have a point, sort of, about how everyone is arming themselves because everyone else is doing it. However, this isn't as bad as it seems, because there is a limit to how much you can arm yourself. Ideally everyone could be armed to the absolute minimum level, but since there is a variance in the level or armament, and the criminal element tends to be the ones on the upper end of the spectrum, it only makes sense to take the alternate route, arm yourself as much as possible, that way it's a level playing field. Though one would think this would continually escalate there is a hard limit based on current weapons technology. The most a person can feasibly carry concealed is maybe a couple of submachineguns. So if EVERYONE has a submachinegun, it will have the same level of stability as if everyone had a knife, or as if everyone was unarmed. Everyones on a level playing field, which is important, because not many people will try to mug you if they don't hold some kind of advantage over you. A common misconception about armed societies is that someone's just going to flip out and cap you for some little thing, but there's no evidence to support this, and plenty to the contrary. There are plenty of armed societies in the world, and a small argument doesn't escalate into gunplay there. I can't say I've conducted a thorough investigation, but I highly suspect that more people are packing where you live than you think, but they aren't flipping out and blowing people away over every little disagreement. There were kids who carried handguns at my high school. They even got in fights sometimes but the guns didn't come out unless the other guy pulled one first. You say that lots of people have guns in their vehicles where you live, but are they shooting at each other at red lights? Of course not. (I hope. ) It's actually quite safe and stable when everyone is packing.