Delta1212

 

If by ''white land'' he means countries populated exclusively by white people with almost no other races, then of course there is.

The same way that many countries in Africa are ''black land''.

 

I'm not saying I support his point, I'm just wondering why you are saying that.

Now I'm wondering which countries those would actually be.

The average American pays 22.5%~ in taxes if you include state and local taxes which this flat tax does not. Those add up to between 9% and 10% on average.

So you need to take that 20.5% flat tax rate and add 9% to it. Bringing the total up from 22%-23% for the average American to nearly 30%.

That is not a tax break for anyone and would be a disproportionately large increase on the bottom tax brackets.

The most important thing is always how willing a person is to learn, not how much they have already learned.

Lets forget about the observers and relative velocities. My original intention for this thread was to find out how spacetime curves "around" rest mass and relativistic mass.

 

Just to be sure...Extremely high relativistic mass of an extremely fastly moving body of a small rest mass could not lead to the formation of a black hole or could it?

It could not. A black hole must be a black hole in all frames. If it isn't a black hole at rest, it cannot be a black hole in a frame moving very quickly with respect to it.

Phew...thats a relief. That stands in contradiction with Mordred's post #11 though doesn't it?

I assumed Mordred was talking about relativistic mass, which is not the same thing as rest mass in terms of how it interacts with gravity.

 

 

They won't. But, apparently, working out exactly what the gravitational effect of a moving object would be is non-trivial. Whenever this has come up on forums in the past the consensus view of those experts who could do the relevant math was always, "its complicated".

Noting also that which object is moving will depend on which frame you are in. If you are sitting on one of the objects traveling with it, you always calculate as if it is at rest.

 

 

Note that when MigL says "weigh" he is automatically referring to weight rather than mass. Which is entirely reasonable. But may be confusing.

 

But it might have been a bit clearer if the example had been the Moon, so you weigh 1/6th what you do on Earth (while it is in orbit). When the space-aliens steal the moon and accelerate it so the relativistic mass is the same as the Earth, you would still weigh 1/6th of your Earth weight. (For the reasons given by others.)

 

 

 

Yes.

Yeah, I was hoping merely asking the question would help.

In Case 2, the planetoid isn't moving at 0.5c then. The Earth is.

Assume an empty universe with earth, a planetoid travelling at 0,5 c which has an innertial mass of that of earth at that velocity and me with a rest mass of 200 pounds. Planetoid and earth have the same diameter and are far away from each other.

Is the planetoid traveling at 0.5c or is the Earth?

Okay, Im confused. Both frames (planetoid and earth) would have essentially same effect on spacetime curvature around them like Mordred said yet they would affect my mass differently? Lets assume that Im walking on a planetoid which is travelling at say 0.5 c.

Is the planetoid traveling at 0.5c or is it at rest, and it is the Earth that is traveling at 0.5c?

As far as I can tell Itoero is NOT making the argument that homosexuality is good or bad.

His argument is simply that hormonal changes in the womb play a factor ( pretty much accepted science ).

The 'stretch' is that premature birth cause hormonal changes, which seems to be like putting the cart ahead of the horse, to me.

Yeah, it seems like it would be more likely that hormonal changes in the womb could lead to both an increase in the likelihood of being gay and also an increased chance of premature a birth.

Depends what the gut instinct is used for. Playing the lottery, gut instinct rarely helps.

But this is a different kind of gut instinct.

 

We could be already dead, and we are just scrolling through memories, like scanning a database. And maybe this is just the maximum speed it can go.

But there is this deep sense that I am not repeating this day over and over. Like this sense is perhaps fundamental to our consciousness.

Why is this gut sense different from the lottery one?

Give a little help to the non whites who populate white land and advise homeward bound.

What about all the whites that populate non-white land as is the case with most of North America?

There are a few issues with a flat tax like this, but let's tackle the big one first:

A minimum wage job worked 40 hours per week every week gives you a total annual income of $15,080. The federal poverty level is $12,060 a year.

If you tax $15,080 at 20.5%, your net income falls to $11,988.60.

Taxing someone on minimum wage at that rate puts them under the federal poverty line even if they work full time.

Also, people's money generally gets spent in order of certain priorities. There are always people who are dumb with their money, but we're going to look at how this affects even people who are responsible.

People generally tackle very basic needs like food and shelter first.

Then then you get into things like transportation costs for work, and basic necessities for hygiene and clothing.

Once all of the basic needs are met, then you can start saving for things, and putting some money towards basic entertainment. Even if it's just an Internet connection, which may also be considered a semi-necessity in the modern age.

Then once that is covered and people are able to save they can start thinking about vacations, luxuries and investments.

Those groupings divide people into tiers based on how far along that chain of priorities their income stretches. Different people can stretch the same amount of money to different levels, but there are limits for even the most frugal.

Money taken from the top tier might decrease their vacation budget. Money from the tier below that may mean post-poning their retirement. Money from the tier below that may mean they have to walk to work or can't get their at all, and money from the bottom tier may mean they don't eat or lose their home.

What the same chunk of income represents to each group is very different. You don't want to tax the food out of anyone's mouth. Ideally, the best bucket of anyone's income to take money from is the luxury bucket. If you tax everyone at the exact same rate, you are failing to take into account the fact that one person may be capable of putting 50% of their income into the luxury bucket, while another person may have no money at all for the luxury bucket.

For the first person, losing 20% of their income is barely felt. For the latter person, 20% of their income being taken away may very well be crippling on a day to day basis.

A progressive tax rate allows for taxes to be taken from each bracket based on how much of a groups income likely falls in that disposable bucket. A flat tax shifts the burden so that the tax rate creates greater hardship at the bottom in order to lower the amount that the top bracket has to pay out of their vacation fund in order to achieve a balanced budget.

Theories are almost all mathematical models of some sort. In science "just a theory" does not make sense. Theories are the best, most finely detailed explanations of how things work. They are not guesses or conjectures or ideas that someone had.

The correct language to express a theory in is math. If you do not wish to express it in mathematical terms, then it is not really a theory. It is an idea that you have. That is something else entirely.

Sure. Kinetic energy from footfalls, heat energy from friction.

I'd say Cyanobacteria did more to fundamentally change the world than humans have so far.

 

 

Well, you can't know that. It is one of those unfalsifiable ideas like solipsism or "the universe was created 15 minutes ago but just made to look as if it were billions of years old".

 

You can't disprove this. Your gut instinct may be reassuring but is not evidence.

 

And as we know that gut instinct is very often wrong, then I would not rely on it as proof of anything.

Fun fact: The universe seems like its billions of years old, but it was just created to look that way. In reality, it's entire lifespan from start to finish will only be 30 seconds in duration.

Time's almost up.

Because I don't believe in "It's too obvious for a citation" here is a citation: http://www.people-press.org/2016/09/13/2-party-affiliation-among-voters-1992-2016/

Republicans win whites overall and white men by a lot. They also win white evangelical Protestants, white mainline Protestants, Mormons and white Catholics. They also win whites over 35.

They are approximately tied (within a point or two) with Democrats for white women, Catholics, and white Millenials.

Democrats win with women overall, blacks, black Protestants, Hispanics, Hispanic Catholics, non-whites over every age cohort, Jewish voters and the religiously unaffiliated.

I'm still not entirely clear on what you think sticking a mirror in the experiment actually does that's different from how it typically works.

Anything that oxidizes, really. You're replacing the heat source for ignition with psychically slamming the atoms together, essentially.

The digestive tract is intended for food

 

We all have lips, but only men have a shaft.

Nothing is "intended" for anything.

A small point, but to be pedantic... The absence of a 'feel' of acceleration isn't an absolute test that acceleration isn't occurring. For example, acceleration by gravity affects all the atoms in your body - free falling in space in a gravity field doesn't produce a feeling of acceleration.

 

 

If I am understanding this correctly...

 

IF space were to be expanding at a constant rate, then the amount of separation between two galaxies is irrelevant, for the rate of separation between the two galaxies would remain the same. [in the escalator example above, when you run, either you can always reach the other person, or you can never reach the other person. The starting distance between you and the other person is irrelevant.]

 

So, even when the distance between the two galaxies is very large, with a constant rate of separation, and assuming a rate of separation less than the speed of light, then light can always reach any other object. The only impact of two galaxies being a great distance apart, is that the light will take longer to reach the other galaxy.

 

Please can some one step through the explanation of how expansion (whether at a constant rate or increasing over time) is able to prevent light from reaching a distant galaxy? I do not understand how that is possible.

Because the escalator example was used to illustrate the principle of local speed limits vs separation rate. It's not a good analogy for every aspect of expansion.

In this case, the critical point is that space is expanding per unit of distance. So, to put it in manageable terms: After X amount of time, every mile gains an inch.

Someone who is one mile away will then recede at a rate of 1 inch per X. Someone two miles away at 2 inches per X. Three miles at 3 inches per X. And so on.

The farther away you get from something, the faster you will move away from it. There is more space between you to expand, and so you get a larger amount of distance between you being added due to expansion in the same amount of time.

Eventually you get so far away that, as explained above, the distance is increasing faster than the light is traversing that distance. Like a train with track being laid in front of it faster than the train is moving, it will never be able to reach the end of the line.

Have you ever been on one of those moving walkways that are basically like flat escalators that they have in some places, especially airports?

So let's imagine a top running speed of 30 mph. Absolutely no one can get any faster than that no matter how hard they try to run. Now let's imagine you try sprinting down one of those moving walkways.

You still can't run any faster, but as the walkway carries you along with it, you could certainly recede from someone standing at one end of the walkway faster than your top running speed wild take you. The speed at which you can run around on that walkway still has the same limit it always has had. You may now move away from someone at one end of the walkway at 45 mph, but you still can't run at 45 mph. You're still capped at your normal sprinting rate compared to someone riding along next to you.

Similarly, the speed at which anything can move through local space is still capped at c. However, the region of Spaxe you are moving through is growing more distance from the region of space on the opposite end of the universe because of the metric expansion of space. As they become more distance, the space may "carry you along" so that you recede from the other end of the universe faster than the speed of light.

You still can't move any faster than normal through space, but the space you are moving through is not restricted to the same speed limit, so to speak.

 

 

Words can have more than one meaning, you know.

 

Gas can mean an "air-like fluid" or "a shorthand term for gasoline" or "to chase" or ...

 

People have invented a new word ("gas") because they needed something shorter than the rather long-winded gasoline. (Why they couldn't just call it petrol, like the rest of us, I don't know.)

Why be so opaque and not just call it rock oil?