J.C.MacSwell

This is not required although many designs are done this way.

I checked the link and it says in the first paragraph that it is assuming the escape of a mass that is negligible compared to that of the source. So is the escape velocity of a source mass independant of the mass of the object attempting to escape, but only negligibly small masses escape? (one and only one escape velocity for each source mass) Or is the definition incomplete and they are they only defining escape velocity for the limited (most common) case?

I will check out the link, but how can it not be obvious? It is the same case calculated differently. If the second calculation yields a different answer then the formula cannot be valid for that calculation. I therefore think that the formula only holds for a limited range of mass ratios as an approximation. I agree knowing would be better.

I think this formula assumes the smaller mass is "negligible" compared to the larger mass, but I don't think it completely "cancels out". If it did the escape velocity of the larger mass from the smaller one would be much smaller than the escape velocity of the smaller from the larger... and obviously they must be equal. So I think your point is valid.

Isn't that considered in the average albedo, given that you use frontal area and not surface area?

I think this is the best "approach" if you will forgive the pun.

An idealized, perfectly rigid collision would result in an infinite force for an infinitesimal amount of time.There are no rules at this point. They "bounce off", destruct, pass right through each other, or do pretty much anything imaginary in this imaginary situation. Just my opinion and it's not even wrong.

However if you are trying to extract it for the purpose of heating rather than doing work, as with a heat pump, it can be well worthwhile. Greater than 100% efficiencies can/should be obtained (not thermodynamic efficiencies, no laws are broken and entropy increases overall ).

That's why they call it black.

Coast Guard? Center of gravity? Common ground? Creative garbage?

A contortionist's modulus of elasticity while relaxed would be much lower than mine and their strain to failure much higher. Basically mechanics and to some extent dynamics. Modelling with ideal elements would give a reasonable first approximation.

Fair enough, although I did not realize String Theory had made any predictions. My follow up question was with regard to the modelling stage. Prior to making predictions (while the model is not complete enough to form any, not merely noone actually making any) is that science? I apologise if this seems trivial, just if you had a definite idea of where you draw the line I would like to hear it. (I'm interested, not just trying to be a pain)

If they predict different outcomes, but present technology cannot differentiate them, is that science?

As Swansont pointed out speeds do not add linearly, however current theory says two particles can diverge at that rate: 1. wrt the observer, but in this case at 0.8C wrt each other 2. 1.0 C wrt each other due to the hubble expansion, although in this case the observer would measure their speeds as greater than 0.5 C

I think the object has more mass, more rest mass wrt it's rest frame, but it constituent particles or atoms or molecules do not wrt their rest frames.

The assumption is that you are shooting parralel to the ground or at a tangent to the "perfect surface" so ignoring air resistance if you shoot faster than orbit speed at that height your shot will rise, not fall. If you shoot exactly at orbit speed, don't forget to duck!

I have done the same with gasoline engines. My mistake was that I made subsequent improvements, the gas tank of course overflowed, and the damn thing caught fire and blew up as I was driving merrily down the highway. When I awoke in the hospital bed I could not remember how I got it to work!

It's the physical equivalent of one of those Aescher drawings where the water goes "downhill" in a continuous circuit.