Not really. We, just like everything else, are waves in space that moves and deforms. We cant be "transported" (and not change) unless everything else (all of space) is transported at the same time.

Or look at it this way: you cant displace one part of space with a copy of another part of the same space and hope to keep space intact. Not even on Discworld.

Actually, look at the other parts of the world that have begun using the revolution to make more production for themselves and trade. All those people that have been displaced from their jobs (Which were horrible pay/conditions) are still without ANY job. Crime is the result. I forget which deviance book for my classes had that information, but the stats of the newly unemployed who are committing violent acts was very...disturbing.

1)As if they DID know what the future would hold when they left? EDIT: Those things you mention had not happened when the Jewish people invaded Palestine in the 30's, and NO ONE KNEW what was coming 10 years later.
2)Yes. The European Jews invaded FIRST. Before that, the Arabs and Jews lived peacefully in the region from all history I can find. There was no 'civil war', it was a war against invaders coming from all over Europe in an effort to 'create' a nation.
3)The Jewish population was not growing in relation to the Arab population, so it was still <8% when the European Jewish invasion began, an invasion of foreigners, not a native population boom which the Arabs had. Duh.
4)'standing army' is hardly a measure of applicable force. If it were, we would be Iraqis today. They had far more men in their army when we walked over them with advanced technology, exactly like the Jews did. I've been over that. We (the US) supplied them advanced weapons making enlisted numbers meaningless...
...also, you ignore that ALL 'Israeli' are in the army, 100%. The 'standing army' number is only the professional soldiers, not the entire force by far.
...AND....The Jews didn't need to mount any defense if they had not invaded.
5)What should they have done? Much better minds than mine have failed on a solution that pleases everyone, but stealing another people's property using deadly force, and then subjugating the survivors for decades to the stone age in concentration camps is absolutely NOT the right answer.
That said....If they were truly 'refugees', they should go to refugee camps (as should the Syrians, I don't get why they are spreading all over Europe, but I digress) until they can either be assimilated in other cultures or return home. Period.

Once again...things being bad at home does not give one the right to just move in on someone else's land and push them off. That's what Israel is, a land theft by overwhelming force, and an expansion of that theft continuing to this day. EDIT: It's akin to me stating 'my brother abuses me at home, so I'm moving into your house and you're moving out, and my buddy's with big guns gave me some to force that to happen.' Is that OK? If so, what's your address?

6)Have you seen the stuff right wingers used to wright about Jews...how about the KKK? How about Palin and her cohorts? If some idiot spouting hatred is a reason to run, the entire planet would be on the run all the time.
Would you support blacks invading any European countries they choose because they are treated poorly here in the US? With money and arms? Displacing the current residents and subjugating any that stay as sub human non citizens? I doubt it. EDIT: Would you also make the argument then that it's OK because the invaders are a smaller military than the country they invade, even though they have far better weapons and more of them? What's the difference?

The one's in the 40's that were in line behind the last person allowed in each year based on the numbers they allow in per country were too late. Yes.
I think most Jews that illegally immigrated to Palestine in the 30's didn't come from Germany.
Yes. Those that fled in the 30's were only fleeing fear, not actual attack. Those that fled in the late 30's and 40's were mostly fleeing actual attack. It is somewhat shameful that we didn't recognize what was happening and let more in, but that has little to do with Israel.
Before the massive illegal immigration of the 30's, Arab and Jewish Palestinians treated each other equally well. After the influx of millions of Jews, illegally, against protest by the non Jewish populations, there were problems created by both sides, but the Jewish side was the invader side, the Palestinian side was the 'native' side. And, as you say, the Invading Jewish Palestinians were the minority, but took all the power in the area, by force. They had far more money than the Palestinian side, and more access to weapons, and took advantage of those advantages.
Again, Holocaust survivors are only owed something from GERMANY. The Palestinians did NOTHING to them, yet they are the one's who've had their land and autonomy taken, and have been forced to live in a walled off refugee camp for decades by the invaders.
Yes, the surrounding countries banded together because they saw the invaders would continue to invade and expand into their territory, they were 100% right. Sadly, the US supported Israel and made it a one sided fight in favor of the invaders.
The Nazis were not fighting invaders, they were invaders, fighting a 'race' (more than one really) at home and fighting an expansionist war of aggression...sounds familliar.
Not taking up arms and invading would have seen Jews still alive and well in the area, but not in absolute control, not expanding their control, and not in such numbers. They had been there for centuries. Only when the millions more invaded and seized power to create an exclusionary religious state and displace and subjugate the locals was there a problem.

If they stay and impose their own rule over the 'natives', they're invaders.
Nope, doesn't stretch my imagination at all, perhaps yours needs more exercise!
Perhaps if those Jews were still in Europe fighting against the Nazis, they wouldn't have made it out of Germany. The fact that they all immigrated to one place and stayed there makes it an invasion, not refugees fleeing to their neighbors for safety. If all Syrians rushed to, lets say only Denmark, displacing the inhabitants, replaced the government and army, and started deporting Danes and settling in Finland, I'll be right there calling them invaders. It's not the same thing by far. The Jews were not fleeing anything but fear in the 30s, the Syrians are fleeing certain death.
AND...the Jews were certainly allowed to immigrate just like anyone else. I don't know where you get this idea that they were persona non gratta, during the war German Jews were under stricter immigration rules, yes, but immigration being strictly illegal, not according to my education or research....unless you mean since EVERY Jew couldn't immigrate it was illegal for those that didn't pass inspection or came too late and missed the cutoff....but that applied to EVERYONE not just Jews, so no.

I think it's a matter of degree. Prior to WW1 (Or to say, around the turn of that century), the Jewish faithed presence was quite small. Roughly ~90% of the population was non-Jewish faithed. There was very little conflict prior to WW2, because prior to that, the immigrants purchased their land from the locals. As per the nature of humanity, the only conflict-free methods for transfer of property are : inheritance, trade/sale, or gift.

The League of Nations was inconsequential. As a result of WW1 Britain captured the territory of Palestine from its previous occupiers (Turks, by one title or another, dating back to the Roman empire), and by right of conquest could do as it pleases with it.

I refer to religious insularity, not genetic.
Yes, they are quite accepting of anyone with Jewish faith. Almost the entire Jewish faithed population in Israel, regarding this last century, is either immigrant, or born of said immigrants. The Jewish faithed population rose from around ~600k to ~7 million between 1947 and today. Even taking into account the rule of thumb 'population doubles every ~40 years', that would leave the population roughly 85% immigrant or children thereof.

Which in turn elucidates many of the issues at hand in modern times. Land prices are extreme, with more people than there is room for, so expanding for living room is a necessity. Hence colonial expansion into greater Palestine is inevitable. Further, the dramatic division in income equality puts a lot of social pressure on the government, which the government can further alleviate by expansion. A, because it can relocate those that can't afford to live in more expensive areas, and gives those people a place to busy themselves taking care of, and B, because the inevitable tensions that come from displacing the previous residents causes the government to serve as a protector from those unfortunates that were offended, which serves as a good distraction from other problems that the government isn't doing well to fix. Essentially, the same formula that nations have followed throughout history (Heck, Australia can thank its current existence for similar policies in Britain).

-scheherazade

You've almost certainly got it with that. Displacement is enough to give the ball initial inertia in the right direction, then the "Rayleigh jet" or "Worthington jet" boosts it. It's perfect timing combined with a near perfect cannonball.
Think of the speed a splash goes skyward. If you accelerate something with more mass, especially something aerodynamic like a mini football to the same speed, it's going to shoot up like a rocket...which is what happened here.

Possibly, but I can't think the small amount of displacement would launch it that far. Also, it would take perfect timing, like under a second.

In the opening question she blew it. What if the rock is lava rock, which is LIGHTER than water? That means you can't figure out the answer without knowing the density of the rock.
Archimedes equation is only useful in figuring out weight for things that are buoyant. Anything more dense than water (or whatever medium you're in) will only displace it's own volume in water, not it's mass.
That's why I think the wood block should weigh more in a vacuum. It displaced more air, so was more buoyant, and so had more buoyancy to lose. It seems to me she set it up poorly again, because if they weigh the same in air, but are different densities, they would seem to need to have different masses to achieve balance, but she said they have the same mass, but I think she should have said 'they weigh the same'....just as @Barbar and @Stormsinger indicated above.

Me neither, but here's the explanation from above:

Chickens raised wearing artificial tails, and consequently with more posteriorly located centre of mass, showed a more vertical orientation of the femur during standing and increased femoral displacement during locomotion. Our results support the hypothesis that gradual changes in the location of the centre of mass resulted in more crouched hindlimb postures and a shift from hip-driven to knee-driven limb movements through theropod evolution.

Extra info from YT : "Helpers were bubbling air from compressed air bottles into the pool to ease surface tension. Yet, he failed in hitting that spot but went away without injury. It is reported that at a first glance they suspected a pelvis displacement which luckly couldn't be confirmed."

BAKING SODA!

Water sinks in oil, then flashes to steam, violently displacing the oil, oil that's already near or beyond the vaporization temperature. The hot oil, flying in all directions in tiny droplets, vaporizes, and you then have a small fuel air bomb. Great if you want to be hairless, but otherwise a bad bad thing, especially indoors. See above about burn units.

Baking soda floats on the oil making a film that stops it from reacting with oxygen, and stops the fire fast. It works for most fires if you have enough to smother it.

Pretty pessimistic and defeatist attitude there.

With displacement from various global warming issues, genocides, wars, and extreemists, we're ALL going to see influx of immigrants to our countries. If we can't figure out how to get along, and prosper together, the species, or at the very least civilization, is doomed.
I don't think anyone thinks it's surprising that a near homogeneous society is having trouble integrating new cultures, but to say it's impossible (and imply it will never work in other situations) is not only not true, it's quite harmful and fosters xenophobia in the extremes.
This writer comes from that homogeneous culture, and apparently believes America has the same thing today, a homogeneous culture...not understanding that the USA is comprised nearly SOLELY (since natives often remain separate and essentially non-citizens on the reservations...another topic for another day) of immigrants from every country and culture in the world, if we could not deal with immigrants from other cultures, we would never have existed.

So the lesson to be learned for Denmark : this CAN and HAS been done, even with a country of more than 300 million armed opinionated inhabitants and a population mix that runs the entire spectrum in nearly every way.

To a certain extent, but when you look at the most radicalised Arab/Muslim countries, they share a common factor.

Destabilisation due to western, and to a lesser extent USSR, influence prior to radicalisation. Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine etc. Most of the Middle East has been a proxy battleground between the US and USSR, a target for "stabilisation" to ensure the oil can flow, or an incidental and unwilling participant in the establishment of Israel post the British ownership of Palestine stemming from WW1...

I'm not religious but the old adage "reap what you sow" comes to mind. You burn someones house to the ground with his wife and kids inside, how dafuq does he not become radicalised?? Religion offers the only succour in what is a horrible situation, it offers vengeance and the idea that you'll see your loved ones again in paradise. With nothing else to lose accept a painful life of loss, are we surprised that they strap on bombs and are willing to die?

Muslims killed 5k+ odd people in 911 and we haven't heard the end of it for over a decade. It was the trigger that caused at least 2 pointless and expensive wars, killed/displaced/destroyed the lives of hundreds of thousands of people including American and other countries armed forces personnel, led the US down the path of openly torturing people and breaking even more humane laws that it claims separates it from the terrorists. But they aren't allowed to be angry in return?

Their standard of living is a direct result of Western intervention. Western intervention is kryptonite to the high standards of living that would allow education and comfort, but it's the perfect fertiliser for radical religious types and discontent. I am not religious in the slightest, and deplore what mobs like ISIS are doing, but I can understand why these people have landed where they are.