Delbert

Yes there is. I think you will find in racing circles it's called 'leapfrogging'. It works because by slipstreaming vehicle A, vehicle B will gain speed. At the same time and because in physics nothing comes free, vehicle A will lose speed. Lose speed by the simple mechanism of the close proximity of vehicle B adversely upsetting the airflow around vehicle A. If that speed difference is sufficient for an overtake the vehicles will simply exchange places. The procedure will then repeat. Needless to say such requires skill and precise timing by the drivers. It will also require a long enough section of straight racetrack. P.S. it's easier to achieve with two motorcycles.

I think you are forgetting that the cat in a box is in the same state as you or me. The cat is in its (small) box universe, the same as you or me in our much larger universe. The cat is either dead or alive depending on a quantum effect of a radio active isotope. That's the same as you or me or the whole Earth being destroyed by some sequence of actions or catastrophe following a quantum effect. You me and the Earth being destroyed by such an event might be very rare, but a possibility nonetheless. So when BobCat views the box by whatever method containing a dead or alive cat, it is the same situation as you or me viewing said box by the same method. It's just that the box we're in is that much bigger.

Time dilation is part of Einstein's relativity and subsequently shown to be correct with GPS satellites, LHC and cosmic rays to mention a few. Time dilation is doubtless contrary to everyday experience, which might make it something, I for one, find difficult to get my head around. Taking it to extremes and extending it to what one might experience when approaching (say) a black hole (ignoring for one moment the crushing and stretching business); I understand our 'time' would be as we experience it now, but upon looking back at the universe we came from we would see it rushing around and shrinking, possibly to the point where we see the end and death of the universe as we get to touching distance of the event horizon. Whereas, those we left behind would see us getting ever slower to the point of motionlessness when at touching distance to the event horizon.

Very well described. Democracy is all about the voters accepting the outcome of their decision. Of course, the ones that voted the other way will be disappointed and the ones that voted for will be disappointed by promises not kept. And there will be promises not kept, especially if they are unrealistic or not financially viable. Unrealistic promises are the stock-in-trade of politicians; it is up to us as voters not to be taken in by unrealistic promises. One persons promise is doubtless someone else's financial burden. If we don't like the lot in power then we have to vote accordingly next time; if we want democracy that's what we have to accept. Following due process of time the outcome of such a process will be an acceptable level of duties and responsibilities. And yes, the luxury of a few rights.

It seems to be to be something more than a reasonable assumption. In that if we were in a special place in the universe (a special place in terms that it is different in like a particular place in a spherical object, for example) it would presumably place restrictions on the construction of the universe. Restrictions incompatible with observations, unless of course, the special place is we are at the centre of the universe. I think the idea of a particular or special place for us was dropped long ago when we abandoned the idea of Earth being at the centre of the solar system.

I think that's almost right. The rate at which things happen determines time, I think would be more profound. Take the GPS satellites for example. I understand because they are farther away from Earth in a lower gravity field their clocks run faster (things happen faster). But if you or me were sitting on said satellite we wouldn't feel different - we would feel time the same as we were back on Earth. But what we would notice upon looking down on Earth would be earthlings moving slow. In other words whatever time frame we're in, we would feel normal, because our 'normal' is the rate of our processes. Obviously the difference on a GPS satellite is miniscule, but the principle is whatever time frame we are in in the universe, we will experience the flow of time the same as we are now here on this good Earth - it's everywhere else in a different time frame that we would see to be different. I think if this apparent illusionary state of affairs weren't the case, then we would be in a special place in the universe, which I understand has been shown to be incorrect.

It seems to me that he got the last bit about 'levitation' wrong. Because if I take two magnets and try to place one on top of the other (like poles), the one on top will simply slide to the side and fall off. It is clear that the one on top not simply 'there' by the repulsion of two like poles, but rather it is 'locked' in position which is not a simple action of repulsion. From what I understand what happens is that each quantum of magnetic field from the magnet is locked, grabbed or whatever word you like, by quantum tubes or tunnels of supercurrents in the superconductor.

It's not levitation for the simple reason it was turned up side down and it remained in the same relative place to the magnet(s). But rather it is 'locked' in space relative to the magnets whereby each quantum of magnetic field is held by a quantum 'tube' of circulating supercurrent. I believe there is a name for this phenomenon.

It seems to me that nuclear fusion will always be ten years away.

I think Endercreeper01 is viewing it as a classical physics problem. But as we know classical physics is only good enough at everyday speeds and masses. Anyway. my maths is rubbish so I would appreciate to what p and E refers. I presume v, c and m refers to velocity, speed of light and mass.

It seems to me that it wasn't even there in the first place. There was an event at the source and an event at the destination. For some strange reason we call that an object or particle moving from source to destination. That's an assumption; and as we all know, making assumptions is a dangerous activity.

Small point, but does it not depend what is meant by centre? If it's anything other than a infinitely small point it'll hit the surface. And if there was a hole such that it could continue through to the other side the force of gravity would reduce to the point of weightlessness at the centre. Regarding that particular aspect: presumably there's no gravity at the centre of a black hole? But that's off subject so I shouldn't have posed the question. Anyway, back to the subject. I agree that it's no different than acceleration by any other means; it'll need an unlimited amount of energy.

Thanks for your concern, but it's static and nothing more. The cord is nylon and about 3.5 foot long, and depending on conditions the plastic knob at the end sometimes acquires a charge - perhaps just like those bits of polystyrene packaging that sometimes stick to things. What did someone once say: you can generate a voltage higher that you can generate by charging a capacitor to the voltage you can generate and then pulling it apart. Based on the formula: V = Q/C. Where V= volts, Q = charge in coulombs and C = capacitance in Farads. Pulling the capacitor apart reduces C, and with Q remaining the same, V must increase. This is the principle of static build up. i.e. one can start with virtually no voltage at all and when the distance between suitable objects increase a miniscule voltage can increase to something noticeable.

Anti static precautions should be taken when dealing with any item of modern electronic equipment. The distances between components and the components themselves within the those multi-legged components in most bits of kit these days, are absolutely miniscule. Such that any voltage above their normal operating limits are likely to cause stresses, if not breakdowns. Such voltages can be induced very easily by static if precautions are not taken. For example, my bathroom light switch pull cord is perhaps an example. Whereby it normally hangs about an inch from the tiled wall, but on numerous occasions I find it diverted from the vertical with the plastic knob at the end stuck to the wall! And sometimes upon approaching it with my hand to operate the switch, it moves away! Static being the reason.

As said, it looks like you're applying Newtonian physics. Newtonian physics are good enough for most things, but things change somewhat when relative speeds are very large. I say relative speed because I think that's all that matters; absolute speed being a meaningless concept - to the point that it doesn't exist. For example, ask yourself: what speed am I doing right now? Then there's time dilation whereby the faster you go relative to something else the slower you will age relative to the something else (or to put it another way, you will see the something else aging much faster). I understand that according to Einstein you will also get more massive than the something else - something I further understand they have to account for in the LHC. Conclusion must therefore be that since absolute speed doesn't exist, then presumably absolute time and mass don't exist either! Leaving both mass and time to be nothing more than relative as well! Just an illusion mayhap? Probably poses more questions than it answers.

Quite often when pondering situations, I try to put myself in the position of the other party. So perhaps putting yourself in the position of the lender might provide an answer. Similarly, put yourself in the position of the employer. Not quite sure what you're saying. But it sounds like the wrong voting choice was made in a democracy. Sounds similar to your first query above. It might seem unfair but I think what you describe is the result of a free market democracy. And as such we have to be very circumspect when casting our vote. Getting the wrong leader all full of presentation and no content or a lunatic, is our fault.

And I though it was the time datum that gets changed at appropriate moments.

If there's no drafts then it must be voluntary by default. And as for what it is now, have you considered what would happen if they didn't have enough recruits? It seems to me that for the defence of the realm there would then be a draft. So for the protection of what we all love and cherish there has to be conscription, even if it's in the background and only brought out or enacted when necessary. It cannot be any other way if we a serious about defending the country. I think I know what you mean by direct. I didn't reply directly because it seemed so impossible as not to warrant comment. Presumably individuals or parties would propose a set of rules which would then seek a plebiscite. The winning group or individual would then enact said rules. So what's different to what we have today, one might ask? I suppose the difference would be that following election said undertakings will be inscribed in law such that any diversion would be subject to due process of law - because that's deemed to be the will of the people. And any change or the need for new rules occasioned by the due process of time would require further plebiscites. But perhaps we just take a list of 'rights' like your list as a basis, but how they would deal with the unfolding events we see every day, I don't know. I think you're forgetting the house of commons (UK) whereby decisions and rules are debated by elected individuals, and voted on. I'm sorry, but this direct business is ridiculous and fraught with problems, governing with hands tied for starters possibly descending to the rule by mob. Unelected groups who shout long enough and loud enough get there way - perhaps something we see a bit of these days. No, a government has to be free to make decisions and rules from day-to-day during its period in power. And promised undertakings may well have to be dumped by new and unforeseen situations rearing their ugly head. The decisions made during this period of power will then be laid before the populous at the next election. It's up to us to see though any dross; if we elect the wrong one it is our fault.

So what happens when there are no volunteers? And you can't just volunteer the day - or the day before - the enemy is on your doorstep; an army has to organised, equipped and it's recruits trained. All that needs money, personnel and time. Simple question: do we need a defending force of army, air-force and navy? If you agree we do then why should it be that you have the luxury not to take part at the same time as apparently being quite happy for others to place their body parts on the line to protect your 'rights'? A limited democracy. What on earth is a limited democracy? Seems to me to be a contradiction in terms. Perhaps it simply means that said incumbent has limited powers as you appear to describe, so who decides what those limited powers are? Presumably some sort of supreme leader, mayhap. Unencumbered by plebiscite. But if you're thinking of it being a committee, I think we all know about committees. Makes me recall someone who likened a committee to a dog with four back legs.

That's not what he said. Free education for all was the clear implication. So everyone gets a free university education, so I'll do the road digging, road sweeping and all the other things including paying for said free education. Because that's the reality. Like a friend of mine who has a university education was asked by his boss to do the sweeping - he refused to do it because he's a graduate. Lets not beat about the bush, a university education is sought to obtain a better paid job. Yes, of course we need a cohort of suitably educated individuals to do certain jobs, but it is plain that we all can't have such jobs. So presumably there has to be some sort limitation. Yes, I know such might be controversial in todays politically correct society, but there has to be something. A limited democracy? How limited is limited one might ask, and who decides? Muddying the waters already. Perhaps you are thinking of Voltaire, who I understand said: The best form of government is democracy tempered with assassination. Anyway, how about number 14? Presumably that means not willing to defend all those 'rights' you list against the enemy on the doorstep with his guns brought to bear. If one is not willing to bear arms against to protect one's freedoms, then such freedoms are an illusion. If you want peace prepare for war - Aristotle.

All I could read was all about rights, I couldn't locate anything about duties and resposibilities. It seems to me you've just listed a number of wants. Selecting one or two. What would happen if you got the wrong individual for number 10? I think recent news reports a country where a percentage of the population has taken the view they've chosen the wrong one. Who pays for number 16? And why should they? I think you're forgetting we'll all be in different jobs, and that alone will create inequalities. Why should I be digging the road in the cold and frost while perhaps you're sitting in a comfortable air conditioned office pressing a few keys on a keyboard? And once you've got inequality you'll have discord and all the other things that will develop from that - in other words the system we have today.

In simple terms I think the reason is the craft spends more time approaching the planet and less time retreating. Presumably it's the change of direction which is instrumental in achieving this imbalance. Something to do with the solution to the three body problem, I understand. Just noticed that there's a few Three Body Problem game downloads on the jolly old interweb.

Seems the discussion is similar to Russell's china teapot. Which of course is an example of a misinterpretation and distortion of the principle of scientific theory.

I think an analogy is relating a particular process to different ingredients. And giving and not giving I'm convinced are two different processes.

I understand a photon doesn't travel from the source to the destination. I further understand what we call a photon leaving the source immediately dissolves into a probability field, which represents where we might say it might be found. But it seems that the might aspect is a human construct because that in itself perhaps wouldn't answer the paradox of it going through both slits. That presumably can only be answered by concluding that the 'energy' representing the photon is spread out as some sort of wave function and only 'comes together' at the destination. Trying to identify which slit it goes through by whatever method changes the experiment. Such that checking its path at the slits chances the experiment into two experiments. One from the source to a slit, and a second from the slit to the destination. And as such there's no slit mid path for either experiment, and so no interference pattern. But then again the conclusion from the above is: the damn thing doesn't exist anyway!