I've been listening to Wolfson's lectures titled "Modern Physics for Non Scientists" and he explains this well. This is exactly what special relativity explains! I downloaded it from demonoid. I can send you an invite if you want.

It's also part of the failed Michelson-Morley experiment. They knew that light moved at a constant speed. They thought there was a fixed frame of reference that light moved through. They thought that light was a wave moving through the universal aether. They thought that by measuring the speed of light in different directions and at different times of the year, they'd see differences. It failed. They measured the same speed of light in all directions at all times of the year!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment

Special relativity explained the failed experiment. Special relativity says that all physics are the same for bodies moving in uniform motion. As long as you're moving at a constant speed, you'll always measure light as the same speed! There is no fixed universal frame of reference. Nothing can be said to be at rest, or moving. You can only say something is moving "relative" to some other object. This leads to all sorts of weird things like time dilation and length contraction. Read up on it.

In reply to this comment by Drax:
When the Klingon Bird of Prey decloaked I was like, OMG!!!1!

But seriously, this does a great job at explaining the time / space relation. It still doesn't touch on one spot I've been trying to wrap my monkey brain around for some time.

Light travels at a set speed, nothing can travel faster then this speed. It's like a big universal speed limit. That should mean that if I'm traveling on a magical cosmic space train that's traveling in a straight line at.. lets say 500,000 mph, if I where to shine a flash light in the direction I'm traveling then the light emitting from that flashlight should travel (relative to me) at the speed of light minus 500,000 mph. Otherwise the light would be traveling faster then the speed of light to someone not onboard the magical cosmic space train.

This would also imply that there is a universal speed of 0. Which would mean we could measure our planet's speed through the universe to this speed of 0 by shining beams of light in various directions from our planet and measure how long each beam takes to reach certain distances (satellites positioned in front of each beam or something). After all our galaxy is moving through space, we're spinning in the arm of this galaxy, we're orbiting a sun.. all of these -should- factor in to how fast each of one is -actually- moving, right?

This big brainy friend of a friend told me once, no.. that's not how it works. And I suspect as much, unfortunately he wouldn't explain further. So I don't understand the workings of how there can be a set speed at which light travels and nothing can ever exceed this speed, when there's no specific speed of Zero to start accelerating from. Otherwise some things could very well be traveling faster then the speed of light relative to other things.

Taxes are taxes and are necessary to run a legitimate, law-abiding, reasonably-sized government (if there ever existed one).

That said, beyond agreeable, reasonable standards of taxation, no person has a moral right to take another person's money by force, and electing a politijerk who will take that money by force in your name or on behalf of "the poor" is just as guilty as a common thief.

There's no moral basis for telling a person with $50 that s/he must give $10 to the government in taxes, and then telling a person with $100 that because they have a greater amount of money, they must therefore pay $60 in taxes and be equal to the "$40 neighbor".

Why do liberals have such a hard time with the concept of letting people keep more of what they earn? Letting the poor keep more of their meager paychecks seems, to me, to be the most efficient way of getting money to the people that need it most.

Giving money pell-mell to government (or making your wealthier neighbors give their money to it in your name) doesn't necessarily suit your own interests. Do liberals understand that government has interests of its own? Like any organism, it wants to survive and grow larger and it doesn't care how.

I'm tired of liberals strutting around, making excuses why this time their policies failed (racism/evil corporations/outsourcing/Bob Saget) and why next time they won't, if only we take MOAR from those evil rich people!

Like the companies that should've been "allowed" to fail, liberal-run cities (and states) should get NO bailouts to keep their failed experiments going.

the host has the most annoying voice ever, and that program is filled with test subjects from some mad scientists failed experiment

It seems all these aggressive anti-Palin stories are really strengthening the GOP base behind Palin. To the GOP base she comes across as a common soccer mom making a brave stand against a barrage of attacks coming from the liberal left. For example, the bit Matt Daemon did here about Palin's candidacy being something straight out of a bad Disney movie - the bit is funny, it is a valid/scary observation but it is polarizing. It is not likely to convert most people. If the argument against the McCain-Palin ticket is that a soccer mom with stronger Christian beliefs should not allowed near the presidency then the results of the 2004 election should tell you what America thinks of such arguments.

In my opinion, best to keep the arguments focused on the disaster that was the previous republican administration and how McCain's candidacy will be a continuation of that failed experiment. Use Palin's inexperience (and her likelihood of becoming the president) only to counter the right's argument that Obama is inexperienced. It is probably best to pull the punches regarding Palin's family, her Christian values, anything that may vaguely come across as sexist, any comments about the irrelevancy of her experience as a mom, PTA member, TV reporter, etc. The same goes for joking about McCain's overuse of his time spent in the prison camp. All these points while valid don't seem to be helping.

*Kill the failed experiment

There are many legends about that, it gets a boost of credibility because the military/government instead of just telling the truth and saying it was a failed experiment that resulted in nothing they were caught lying about it and saying there wasnt even an experiment that day (which was proven not true). I heard they werent trying to mess with space time but to create a strong enough magnetic current that would actually bend/reflect light rays away from the ship (invisible) which doesnt sound nearly as crazy as messing with space time (this "time travel" stuff takes away from what really happened and distracts us, the military probably loves these guys preaching about time travel since they know once they say that the discussion is over). What ever is "said" to have happen there is a much better doc that i cant seem to find that focuses more on the conspiracy to cover up what ever happened since some soliders did die and their families deserve an explanation