theCPE

Again..... someone's design intentions are not always realized. I am sure designers never intend for anything to cause the demise of their creation but nothing is infallable. Further, like bascule's reference states steel loses 50% of its strength at only 1100 degrees, you see steel doesn't have to MELT before it loses strength, that is just a very silly notion. And I am eager for anyone that doesn't believe the WTC fell due to the fires to explain how iron work was done during the iron age.

alien.....you have way too much patience!

Right, point out one of my emotional responses please. I suppose my sarcasm about the stone age might come close but I have repeatedly stated why the document you presented was weak. Your inability to understand is not my fault, many people have CONTINUALLY stated why the whole "molten steel takes X temperature......" argument is wrong, weak, and only supported by the unobjective observer.

It might be helpful for you too read up on the iron age. That might quell your disbelief of the energy sources necessary and temperatures necessary to work with steel. Then again, W and his administration might have had operatives that staged the iron age with the WTC plot in mind for thousands of years later.

Right..... I would really like to hear your explanation of how the titanic example and the point about how a prop plane crashing into the sears tower is not equivalent to 747s hitting the WTC is even in the same ballpark as saying "your dumb". Further, I guess you completely skimmed over the point I made about how the document did not mention that steel weakens before it melts......but I was curious where your body of research was within your post. Gravity doesn't make objects accelerate? That is news to me....or is there a symantec game being played here......

Well sure the collapse was a sequential event that occurred after the plane crash, but the buildings did not collapse directly because of the plane impacts. They collapsed directly because of the inferno that resulted that weakened the steel structure. And the point being just because someone designs something with a specific intent doesn't mean the desired result is the outcome. After all I don't recall any tests where the engineers crashed 707s into a test WTC to verify their design, do you?

They collapsed as a result of the fires not the plane impacts. And these arguments always remind me of the Titanic.....I wonder what the conspiracy was there it obviously couldn't have sank, it was unsinkable.

I will ignore obvious logical flaws in the implications created by asserting explosives and not the airplanes caused the collapses and will only focus on the "science" this physicist used to prove that it couldn't have happend. First, there was not a single mention anywhere within his very informal looking paper (considering the context and his supposed status) that metal and steel alike is weakened by increased temperature FAR before it begins to melt. Anyone giving an honest, objective, and informed analysis of these events would realize that the strength of the steel infastructure would not remain unchanged until the exact moment it begun turning into a liquid and would therefore point this out in the paper. In order for the building to collapse the steel did not have to melt, it only had to weaken enough that it could no longer support the massive buildings. Second, any molten steel found onsite more than likely melted after the buildings collapsed. At that time the burning collapsed structure could act as a kiln and greatly increase the temperature of the inceneration. Finally, probably not included in this paper, but in most 911 conspiracy papers the comparison between the Sears Tower being crashed into by a plane during the 50s is made. Hopefully, the difference between the velocities of a prop plane and a 747, fuel capacities, and general "potential" energy is easy to understand between these two very different incidents. Anyone that assersts the energy from the jet fuel was insufficient to create the sustained temperatures necessary to melt the steel or cause it to collapse must be in denial of the iron age, but google could definitely help them out there.

With a star in the center of the ring you are going to have a hard time keeping objects on the inside of the ring. The gravity from the star would easily keep objects on the outside side of the ring, unless of course this ring you are talking about has some ridiculus radius. And then if you make the ring rotate so that artificial gravity is created for the inner side of the ring you are going to sling anything off the outer side.....unless of course the thickness from the inner side to outer side is ridiculus. But since this is a sci-fi book/story you really don't have to worry about the details so much. I would say rotate the ring and put the stuff on the inside and copy/paste some pictures of the rings from Halo and I'd say your book is set:)

Yeh, thats why I included the last paragraph, especially the last sentence...

mass curves space-time creating gravity

you can always make the ring spin to create artificial gravity, assuming the inner surface is where the people/stuff live.

True, the distribution of center of mass matters as well as radius, my mistake!

Ok, two scenarios: Getting there and stopping there. Getting there I will take to mean you accelerate toward vega till you pass it. Stopping there I will take to mean you accelerate toward vega, then decelerate and land on vega. If you are stopping there you have to start decelerating halfway there at the same acceleration amount. d = v*t + 1/2at^2 Getting there: 9256 days (25ish years) Stopping there: 12588 days (35ish years) All of these calculations are absurd though because the energy required to accelerate at 20m/s^2 for that length of time would be IMMENSE and the velocities reached would surpass that of the speed of light hence breaking laws of physics and requiring even more energy to accelerate the accumulating mass. Anyway, there are the two completely useless numbers:)

Mass creates space-time curvature which results in 'gravity'. The strength of the gravity is proportional to the inverse square law. Meaning, the further away an object is from the center of mass the weaker effects it feels from the gravity. If the same mass is distributed into a ring the center of mass is still in the center of the ring and thus the direction the gravitational force pulls you toward. However, the radius (distance) from the center of mass will most likely be changed and therefore the gravity will feel a different strength. If the radius from the center of gravity is kept the same it would be unchanged. Like with black holes and collapsing stars. The only reason a black hole has "stronger" gravity than the star it was created from is because the radius to 'surface' shrinks drastically. If our sun collapsed into a black hole we wouldn't feel any change in gravity.

Besides obvious implications from relativity that allow time travel FORWARD, I am unaware of what theories allow travel into the past. Aside from garden variety theories that have no emperical evidence such as "well if you rotate a massive cylinder fast"....or wormholes...etc. That being said, I think there is a difference between saying there is a natural law that would prevent travel into the past, as opposed to saying nature would stop the grandfather paradox if someone did travel into the past, the later sounding quite silly.

I don't think there was a moment that the OP thought there could be an actual observer in said environment, excellent answer.

Again...the point of the question is, is the speed of light relative to the observer. With the answer being no. We all know many physical impracticalities and impossibilities of the thought experiment, the point of thought experiments isn't to provide precise definitive calculations....they are too help visualize or comprehend concepts.

As he pointed out he knows that it is physically impossible for the boy to travel with such speed, thus he probably was wanting the theoritical answer. The thought experiment is what led Einstein to discover/determine that the speed of light is constant for all observers. Meaning if the boy or any object were traveling the speed of light with a mirror in front of them, they would still see their reflection as if they were standing still. Light still has the same speed of 3x10^8 m/s whether you are at rest or moving.

Ok, you sound like you are looking for change in energy which is work. Ke = .5mv^2 ke final - ke initial = work So if you or the horse initial is at rest (0 ke) and at the end of the distance x has reached 10ms the final ke is 50* mass of horse. Meaning the work (joules) or energy expended is 50*mass of horse Now if you throw in different accelerations of the horse over the distance the work doesn't change however the power does. Power depends on time, different accelerations over the same distance will provide different times. P = W/t Hopefully that helps some. However, keep in mind that the classical physics equations are for 'ideal' 'frictionless' situations and even though the equations suggest that it requires no energy for the horse to stay in motion that is obviously not true as it costs energy for it to continue to move its legs in stride.

Er. Not exactly. The bodies that cause curvature of spacetime don't just suddenly appear causing the shifts. Also, it isn't like molecules filling gaps either. The best way to look at it is that the actual dimension has been distorted.

NO!! I am not playing with words, symantecs, or definitions. PLEASE go read the definition provided by the EPA!!!! GW isn't warming that happends TODAY (today to always be the day of the discussion) GW is the total encompassing dynamic of all processes that warm the planet! That is why you can not say man causes 90% of current GW....that is what is wrong, and entirely different than saying man has caused the majority of temperature increases since 1975..... Really? That is very odd, considering my calculations involved 4% of water vapor being due to man....wait, did you see my calculations, or are you ignoring them like you are accusing me of ignoring things....

Oops, my apologies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming You can't only consider a portion of ghgs when determining contributions!! That makes no sense. If all ghgs are blocking radiation from escaping why would you consider only some of them, especially if the system is such a dynamic system with feedback loops???? Actually that is what you are saying...haha, don't you see!!! You are talking about the 'increases' or latest ghgs, which in your cute little paraphrasing is the last pint!!!! Exactly....which is what I have been showing! That is correct, whereas your next remark about being wholey responsible is incorrect, all prior pints were .111 responsible...like you were saying a sec agao before suddenly swinging around 180 and confusing me thoroughly Except not. Since the pints are sequential, and the water vapor and co2 are not sequential and contribute percentages of total 'inebreation' if you will. I think my head is going to explode........ Do you not realize that the temperature was measured.....and calculations done......and the increase found that TOTALLY encompasses everything you just listed was .6C.......the temperature doesn't continue to increase as the calculations are done..... Cheese and crackers.... I am not expressing the climate with a few calculations....im expressing the contributions of KNOWN ghgs to KNOWN radiation blocking capabilities to KNOWN increases in C. Oh thats classic haha, exactly why the ipcc is formed..... I'll have to keep that in mind.....if I don't publish articles agaisnt my position in my journal I created than that means scientifically I am right because there is no opposition. Haha that is so funny.

Wrong again for the .... probably 12th time..... I am not ignoring these magical feedback loops, I included them in the calculations that you are ignoring........ Oh, there is a physics book with GW equations? Relativity is easy to understand, just like GW, anyone that suggests otherwise is incapable of explaining them because they don't understand themselves. Just like you didn't understand the analogy. I have only gathered one thing by your coninuied posting.....you love the phrase straw man.... And what part of EPA's definition of GW don't you comprehend....I didn't redefine anything..... No, not since 1975 BUT I have't disagreed that the latest increases in GHG have resulted in temperature increases, this however is not equivalent to 90% of GW which someone was spouting a few pages back, hence my math to show man doesn't contribute 90%. Point out any rule I have created. And while you are at it, could you point out which of my premises is invalidated by whatever it is you keep telling me??? Holy shit. Not another one. Ok really people. This is pretty bad. When the measurement is done that shows temperature has increased by .6C, that value includes the temperature increases due to feedback from original increases..........it is very simple...... Give me a citation of these numbers and I will take upon myself the duty of explaining things on a much more simple level that some of you facing difficulties will then be able to understand.

Eh? Not sure what you mean. We have had nearly 50 years to create AI with simple binary logic. And the proponents of such AI still insist more speed and computational power is needed, which thought experiments can disprove. Further, the human brain doesn't work in binary, thus if we want to model the operation of our brain and create intelligence we probably wont be able to do so with binary logic. Hardware is always faster than software. Modeling something in software limits performance, scalability, and accuracy in this case. If we want to model the brain and create intelligence, there is no such thing as thinking on too low of a level. Can doesn't mean should. And yes, numenta is attempting to create intelligence/object recognition via modeling the neo cortex and creating HTMs. The aren't modeling an entire brain or on the level of neurons, but on the level of columns, this of course is a first step and not a culmination of years of modeling brains via electronics....