Leaderboard

The simple answer is that the universe works in such a way as to prevent your ever exceeding c relative to your starting point. You are essentially asking what prevents you from constantly accelerating at 1 m/s2 until you exceed the speed of light. If the Universe operated under the Rules of Newtonian physics, nothing. After 7 years, 21 days, 20 hrs, 47 min and 38 sec, you would be moving faster than light. However, we don't live in a universe that follows Newtonian rules, but follows Relativistic ones instead. And one of those differences in rules is in how velocities add together. Under Newton if you want to get the sum of two velocities, you simply add them together like this, w=u+v. Thus if you were moving at 1 m/s relative to some reference and then added 1m/s to your current speed, you would be moving at 1+1=2m/s relative to the initial reference. However, it turns out that this isn't correct. the right way to add the velocities is by w= (u+v)/(1+uv/c2) where c = the speed of light in a vacuum or 299,792,458 m/s Now when you add 1 m/s to 1m/s you get a resultant velocity of 1.9999999999999999777469988789276 m/s almost, but not quite 2 m/s At low speeds, this doesn't amount to much, but as the speed increase, the difference starts to mount up. If you were moving at 0.1c and increased your velocity by 0.1c, you would be moving at .198019802 c relative to the point you were initial moving at 0.1c relative to. If you boost you speed by another 0.1c, you will now be moving at .2922330097c relative to the initial frame. Do this 7 more times, and instead of moving at c relative to the initial frame like you would under Newton, you would be moving at 0.7629989373 c. Each time you add change your speed by 0.1 c relative to your current speed as measured by you, you add less than 0.1c total change in your velocity. And the closer you get to a total of c, the less change in total velocity you'll end up with, and no matter how you try and add up the velocities, the resultant velocity will always end up being less than c.

As far as I know, it only exists in spy fiction.

Take the energy content and divide by c^2 Batteries tell you how long they will run, and at what current, e.g. 1 amp-hour. You also have a voltage. E = Pt = IVT So 1 amp-hour at 1 V would be 3600 Joules. The mass difference would be 4 x 10^-14 kg

It is a sad day, the world lost a great mind. His sense of humor was a great addition to his work - his singing of the Monty Python "Galaxy Song", the poker scene on Star Trek The Next Generation, his appearance on episodes of "Big Bang Theory" and the Simpsons...countless interviews and comedy shows he appeared in. He had a great life considering that he made it to 76 when he was getting 2 years max at 22 years of age. On top of his work in physics he left 3 children, a major hollywood film was made as his biography - who could ask for a more fulfilling life.

A documentary is a poor place to get info, possibly a documentary might prompt you to start looking, but I can probably find a documentary that asserts the moon is a hollow alien spaceship..

In other words ... WAG

I prefer "Argumentum ad anus extractus"

Wild Assed Guess... one is talking out of ones bottom.

More evidence that Trump has no idea what he's talking about much of the time. Most economists don't worry over trade deficits, and they aren't the problem Trump thinks they are. They only SEEM unfair to someone looking only at the surface, with no understanding of the depth of economic complexities. IOW, they're mostly cable news fodder to get listeners outraged over nothing. Trump will bring that same shallow lack of understanding to talks with NK, and he's also ensured that his State Dept will now openly be seen as an extension of the CIA (which I'm told by DC folks has always been a problem, but now the gloves are off). I don't see this ending well for the US. Trump and Kim have competing goals since both need to be seen as the stronger. I see Trump giving away too much and then lying about how great a deal he made, OR he shuts the talks down by being too hardline, OR he becomes "impressed" with Kim (there's going to be TANKS, ffs!) and how he's handled things in the face of so much adversity and we end up with Trump convincing half the country that Kim, like Putin, is a strong leader to be admired.

This is nonsense, and I've see this before...

How is that selfish?

There's a sizable bunch of clever people doing woodwork. Some luthiers, to name one group, can talk science with the best of them.

Abercrombie is an American manufacturer of casual wear.

Another way to approach this is to use science as a litmus test. Would it to be good to lie in science, if the lying spares feelings and/or makes you more popular? The answer is no, because we all benefit, collectively, by truth in science, even if that truth means we may have to deal with some neurotic people. Science is converted to engineering which make consumer products, Lying in science can cause serious injuries; the new pill is safe so take it. White lies are a way for the ego, to avoid neurotic reactions, from those who may need to be deceived, so they will shut up. The mother may lie to the child about him being smart, so she does not feel bad, if he feels bad. She is lying for herself, to avoid the discomfort that might be induced by her child because the true may make him feel bad. This is short term thinking. Long term thinking, like in science, would think of the long term consequences of appeasing the neurotic, to avoid your own short term awkwardness. If the mother deceives the child into thinking he was smart, this may win the emotional battle, for both. However, there is no reason for the child to change behavior; study more. Mother may feel better, but her child may go down the road, dumb for life. The both lose the war. Truth is designed for long term thinking, whereas relative truth and white lies is about short term thinking. Truth is important to science since science has a long term vision often connected to consumer products. In politics, the scale is shorter in time, so lies and relative truth make more sense. The lie may only need to last until election time. If there is a negative long term consequences, the politician and fake news, can lie again and again, to buy additional time. If you compare the Conservative approach to the Liberal approach, in terms of time scale, Conservative is about long term values. Liberal is new and cutting edge and is shorter term ideas. Truth would be more useful to conservatives, while relative morality would serve Liberalism better; appeasement. If you look deeper, this breaks down to male and female or conditional and unconditional love. Conditional loves sets long term standards, unconditional changes with needs. We are more feminized in modern times, so relative morality seems to be as valid due to the practical needs of appeasement.

Yin and Yang

Because I am a philosopher, not a scientist, and this is a science forum, I did not feel any obligation to vote on the issue. Most people, who have read my posts already know my view on the "click-it squad". I would also like to say that I do not see much value in the vote, as the people who are in the forum are reasonably happy with the way the system works, and the people who are not happy with the system have mostly left. So I predict that the vote will be self-confirming and retain the system. The one point that was brought up in this thread, about people arguing with accepted Science, makes sense to me. I can see that it would be frustrating to have to repeat over and over something that has been well established in Science. In my recent thread, Consciousness and Evolution, I worked through seven pages, seven full pages, before I could get the other members to understand that all life is conscious. There are different levels of consciousness, sentience, awareness, sensing, perceiving, whatever, but it is all consciousness. Even after repeatedly telling them that Science confirms this, and explaining that a biologist, a micro-biologist, and a neurologist all confirmed this, there were still arguments. One might wonder why I bothered to work so hard on this. It's simple -- I can not demonstrate the possible connection between consciousness and evolution if the other members do not know WTF consciousness actually is, as they tend to confuse it with the rational aspect of mind. The new ideas don't start until page eight and go through to page ten. A ten page thread that, at most, has only three pages of worth. So I do sympathize with the arguing problem. On the other hand, in Philosophy, it is necessary to know how to make an argument. Telling a philosopher that they must work Philosophy without making an argument is like telling a scientist that they must work Science without using experiments. Absurd. A lot of people in this forum know how to argue, but few know how to make an argument -- with the exception of mathematical arguments. Would it help to post some instructions on how to make a philosophical argument? You did ask for opinions, and philosophers always have lots of opinions, so please consider. There are a lot of posts about new members having problems in the forum. The perception seems to be that new members do not know enough about Science, so they make mistakes until they learn, then their problems with down votes cease. Nonsense. This thinking assumes that new members are uneducated, that they are not professors, scientists, teachers, philosophers, or other educated people. It assumes that new members have nothing to contribute. It also assumes that the old members know more than the new members. I am pretty certain that I know more about consciousness than most members and did when I joined. There may be a few members, who know as much as I do, but I have seen no one who knows more. Of course, you could say that consciousness is not studied in Science as that topic is covered by Philosophy, but there are a surprising number of titles in the Science section with the word "consciousness" in them. It hasn't been that long since I was a new member, so I will tell you what I remember. Notes To Gee: 1. It is OK to insult Religion, Philosophy is just fluff, but do not say anything against Science or you get a down vote. 2. It is always important to be respectful, well mannered and proof your work, but in this forum be very careful how you word things because if it is possible to twist your meaning, someone will and you get a down vote. 3. Tell everyone that you are a scientist, not a philosopher, and deny any belief in "God". (I couldn't do this and got a lot of flack for being a philosopher.) 4. Never complain to a Moderator about a member who has a high rep -- no matter how they are acting. It will backfire. 5. Always agree with the popular opinion -- or DON'T POST. Posting opinions that are unpopular will earn you a down vote. 6. If you ever get three down votes on a post -- GET OUT OF THE THREAD. Tar never learned this one, got about 40 down votes in one thread and left the forum. I will miss him. 7. Avoid the Religion forum as they are all fanatics. Some hate religion, some love religion -- but they are all fanatical about it. 8. Avoid Ethics as that forum can be summed up as "If you would just think like me, act like me, or be like me, you would be ethical." (chuckle) I don't know what maggot in my brain caused me to recently write a thread there, but it didn't work out. I wrote a thread about power and entitled it Powerful Men, Beautiful Women, and Sex. Apparently I did not know that the Powerful Men were being mean to the Beautiful Women Sexually, so it was a thread about sexual harassment. By the bottom of the second page, I apparently was the cause of this harassment. Who knew? 9. Stay away from Politics unless you can think of it as a newspaper and not post. 10. If you ever need a few up votes, go to the Science section, look around for something that interests you, and then profusely thank whoever answered your questions. Sucking up in Science is always good for an up vote. 11. If you found Swansont in a thread in Philosophy, you could often be more open and honest in that thread because people tended to behave when he was around. In this thread, I learned why they behaved. (chuckle) One thing I will say is that Swansont apparently had a lot of power, but I never saw him abuse it and believe he possesses integrity. He is not the only one, and I don't mean to single him out as I see integrity in many members. I just noted early on that people behaved themselves around him. 12. Do not start your own thread. It is suicidal. It is OK to question, but if you start a thread with an idea in mind, you are going to be attacked. For some reason, members in this forum take an original idea as an assault on their authority, so they attack. If I followed these rules, my rep points went up. It did not have a damned thing to do with learning Science. Gee