(C) It may be excusable for people to follow through with these things, given the ignorance of the people of those times. Of course, spitting in someone's eye would most likely cause a myriad of nasty infections, but that is besides the point. What is not besides the point is that it is not excusable that these ridiculous myths are still believed by people who have access to much more information. This just shows the power of cognitive dissonance.

(A) This seems almost equivalent to saying the words "find" and "locate" in one phrase. It is redundant: Satan has been going all over the earth, why must it be said twice with slightly different words?

(C) This sentence sums up the the idea of the the entire passage. This is that Job is loyal to his God, and it doesn't matter if fortune or misfortune is upon him. This is, of course, the essence of sadomasochism; this seems to imply that one must love someone who one also fears.

This sounds like a source that would be very useful for my children's book, as it may provide some good analogies while explaining Einstein's thought experiment.

This is the clearest and most concise way I have ever seen this put. The diagrams make this even more effective.

After the first assertion, yes, this does become clear. But, as I said, it takes a lot of creativity to come up with ideas that generate postulates like this.

This is why I think Einstein was an intellectual anomaly. There were and still are many people in the world that are very proficient at mathematics, more so than Einstein. But, to do what Einstein did, not only was mathematical understanding required, but so was creativity. Do you think you would be able to come up with these ideas, even if you had the mathematical understanding?

Predictions sometimes take a long time to test, as the technology needed to do so is sometimes not available at the time.

The reason your sweat cools you off via evaporative cooling is a result of the fact that the fastest moving atoms are the ones that escape first. Thus, the net heat of your skin is decreased.

A lot of interesting ideas have come from science fiction, and many have turned out to be true.

This is important not to forget. I feel as if the emphasis on the constancy of light speed in the popularization of physics sometimes neglects or does not sufficiently stress that c stands for the speed of light in a vacuum.

This is the case for everything not just science. Like Newton said, "If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants."

This is much like gravity was assumed to travel instantaneously by Newton.

It is important to ask questions like this. Questions are what generate hypothesis, experiments, and scientific progress.

This article gave me many insights on light. However, for my children's book, I do not need all of these details. All I need is to find a way to explain the warping of space and time to keep the speed of light constant.

I need to find an example that a child can relate to for explaining just how fast this realy is. Perhaps the number of times around the earth you could travel in one second.

It is incredible that the measurements made in 1675 and 1849 were not that far off, conisidering the scale of the calculations and the inaccuracy of the tools being used to make them. This reminds me of Eratosthenes's calculation of the circumfirence of the earth which was incredibly close to the real number, and was made with a very simple experiment and some geometry.

Thunder could be used to picture the fact that light travels faster than sound, as the flash of light you see precedes the sound.

Overall, this article gave me ideas on the characteristics of light, and how to introduce them in my children's book.

I still however need to find other sources on how to explain the warping of spacetime.

even "empty" space is not actually empty, as virtual particles constantly pop into and out of existance.

The constant c is reffering to the speed of light in a vacuum.

It is incredible that with such rudimentary equipment and what seems like an exeriment set-up to fail, Galileo left the possibility open that perhaps light just travels incredibly fast.

I did not believe this to be possible, but this is how science works! New experimental data is always comming in and it could change the ideas we have about fundamental concepts that we thought were already established very well.

I will be sure to read this source.

Like anything else, advancements in science are built on top of prior ones.

Even if this prediction is verified, this does not mean that string theory is correct. String theory's problem is it is very heavily based on the mathematics, and it is very hard to devise a way to test its predictions.

Although this seems sensible when you read it, It is usually hard to actually design an experiment to test the designated hypothesis.

This is very true. Nothing in science is an absolute truth, it cannot be. We know that relativity is incomplete, much Newtonian gravity was. Although not likely, dark matter and energy may not exist, rather, our understanding of gravity via general relativity is wrong.

Regardless of this weird sentence, I disagree with this. Yes, google does produce a majority of garbage results, but who's fault is that really, the tool or the tool's user? If you know how to use google appropriately, then it will be just as adequate as any other search engine.

The appearance of a website plays a big role in whether I like it (I know not a very scientific reason). Virtual LRC just doesn't make the cut for me.

I attempted to use this search engine for the same search, to no avail, as no results cropped up.

In the past, when I used Google scholar, it has usually came up scholarly articles that require access to be granted (i.e. by buying them or requesting permission from the authors).

I used this (Refseek) engine to conduct the same search (Einstein's postulates basis + explained). I was able to find the same page at duke physics (https://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Class/phy319/phy319/node122.html) that I found using google. I also noticed that most of the search results were on .edu websites. However, there were many Wikipedia results (ones whom I do not particularly think of as reliable).

Something is off about this sentence, I have reread it and it still seems odd, perhaps an error in punctuation?

My research question is about what the basis for the second of the two postulates of special relativity was. I used the strategy of the plus operator (+) and my search looked like this; "basis for special relativity postulates + explained".

Although I would probably not research topics on forums, they do indeed come in handy when I have technical issues.

This is a bit similar to the site:[country code] method used to refine searches to a particular country. Doing site specific searches seems like it would be very useful, especially as one usually has reputable sources in mind.

This seems very handy! I wonder if it can be used along with an asterisk, resulting in in synonyms in all their forms being searched.

I used to think that it is much easier to come across that which you are not looking for in a library than on the internet. Although this still holds true to some extent in my mind, this point does make the issue less black and white.

One can also use an asterisk after a word to indicate all forms of said word (e.g. walk*=walk, walking, walked).

This is very useful, as refining the search results in more relevant results.