J.C.MacSwell

I think this interpretation has been consistently on the losing end of the argument for the last 70 years, at least in the eyes of most physicists.

Force equals Cd times Area times density/2 times velocity squared. Water is 1000 kg per cubic meter so you know everything except the Cd, the coefficient of drag. IIRC it should be about 1.2 if the plate is square and placed deep enough so that there is no significant surface effect. If the plate is rectangular it should be somewhat higher but less than 2.0

Remember this is different from an SR (twin "paradox") case, as the time dilation discrepancy or "disagreement" at any one time is almost non existant as it depends on their relative speeds at any given time and distance apart at that given time only and not the duration. So the slower clock agrees that it's running slower and bringing them back together will just confirm that.

LOL, as much as I agree with Sevarian, I agree with this more! My problem is with "other people's" crazy theories.

All the redshifts we observe cannot be due to the Earth's / solar system's current speed unless we are imploding pretty fast. p.s. I'm sure you are aware that time is not measured in light years.

In that case it's permanently a law... But if we are "fast" enough we can break it!

I think that in the strictest scientific sense it is not, although 400 years from now it will still be taught as Newton's Law of Gravity. Law or not, you still have to obey it here on Earth!

OK, I think what I have set up across each "face" is an example of a system in "steady state" and not an example of thermal equilibrium at all.

LOL, I am proving my points made in post 11 about my lack of grounding in this subject a little stronger and faster than expected! Thought experiment: We have a one cubic meter black body cube with a "sun" 93 million miles away and perpendicular to each face. (So we have 6 "suns") When equilibrium is reached (constant temperature for the cube) what will be the cube's temperature? And of course the follow up/more important question would be: Why would that temperature not be considered the temperature of the unobstructed sunlight at that point?

Then (if my thinking is correct) the idea I suggested in post 7 is wrong then and the temperature of unobstructed sunlight, as Martin said, is at the same temperature as the sun. So it's the same whether measured here or on Pluto? Obviously it is "diluted", but not in temperature?

Tell your wife's best friend you slept with her sister!

Do they live next door?

Another thought on this. Does focussed light gain temperature?

Martin, distance from the sun must have some effect. Like an inverse squared rule. Wouldn't we be in trouble otherwise? (atmosphere notwithstanding)

You have to admit though, it is "peer" reviewed!

Isn't it equivalent to an anti-particle moving forward in time?

Without doing any math, less than a billionth of a second. So a (very small) fraction of a billionth of a second.

1. agree, but no analogy is perfect 2. mostly wrong, you can throw it in still air further "away" than at right angles and have it arrive from behind more than right angles and have a net force "pulling" the boats together, and a symmetrical clockwise throw will balance an anti-clockwise throw. 3. This is good also and if you prefer it great even though it requires "intermediary 'fields', extra time, and relatively large volumes of space as well as matter/energy to work against.". Not that I have a problem with that and all analogies break down somewhere. A "perfect" analogy would not be an analogy, would it?

When you accelerate you are then moving wrt the rest frame you started in. You have also changed your rest frame and, with it, changed: Distances to various objects Time lapses to past and future events The accepted chronological order of events at various distances