NowThatWeKnow

Solar sails come to mind so I think yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_sail

I back up everything important on a CD along with other methods. Not sure about Solar flare damage but a close lightning strike can damage an unplugged computer.

I will agree that a few episodes were lame but some were pretty good. My least favorite was "Sex in space" and "Parallel universes" was pure speculation. The Light speed episode along with a few others were pretty good IMO The Ned Wright calculator can answer your questions but it deals better with billions of light years, not thousands. http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/DlttCalc.html The numbers you are talking about are still in the Milky Way and the cosmological expansion does not apply.

Most of the experts around here will argue that light can not be slowed down but the average speed can be slowed down as it passes through different substances. The light is absorbed and then re-emitted with a delay coming while it is absorbed. That being said, here is how to stop or slow down light. http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2001/01.24/01-stoplight.html

Actually it takes over 8 minutes for light to reach us from the Sun.

I think calling THC "C R A P" ("The Universe" program in particular) is a little unfair. It was not designed to meet the physics experts expectations for continued education. It is for the amateur and attempts to convert the math into words so normal people can understand and enjoy cosmology and relativity to some degree. Just like her in SFN, the History channel "The Universe" program presents facts and speculation and I have no trouble separating them considering their presentation. I would like you or anyone else to point out something presented as fact during "The Universe" program that was not in the ball park. I think it does well in getting people interested so they can continue their education using different avenues if they choose. You can't call kindergarten "C R A P" just because it is below your level. Accept it for what it is. Those are my thoughts.

Yes, everything would have to be equal relative to an inertial frame. After reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment I see that GR was considered.

That video made it sound like only SR was considered and not GR because of altitude.

Gravity and speed (acceleration) cause clocks to to tick at different speeds so we are all traveling through time, but some at different rates. This could put you into someones future but not their past. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Yes, if the trips were the same as far as acceleration, speed and time.

Wouldn't [math]125,000m^3 = 125km^3 = 1,953,125km[/math] There is an energy conversion calculator that will convert Joules to just about anything at: http://www.cthreepo.com/cp_html/math1.htm

It seems most experts agree that space is just a metric but there are a few that think there may be an ether that has not been defined yet. Nobel Prize winner Frank Wilczek calls it a grid "But the Grid is highly evolved ether, ether on steroids if you like, with many new features."

It depends on what you call noticeable. (GPS satellite - Altitude 12,000 miles) Our Earth clocks are slower by 45 microseconds per day. It would take a black hole to be really noticeable. When Martin said "The pendulum clock at the top of a tall building would run slower than his brother on the ground floor because of less pull on his pendulum." He was referring to a pendulum clock only. Normally less gravity will cause a clock to run faster.

I agree.

You will see the light moving away from you at 186,000 miles per second. I think that what you are not considering is time dilatation. Relative to your starting point it will seem to you that the light is moving at 1.5c but your clock is running slower then the person it is pointed at. 1 second for you will be more then one second for the other person so relative to their time light is moving at c.

Yes, and a shorter trip could make you younger then your kids when you get back. It will seem as time is passing as usual for all concerned.

The right time on Earth but not your right time. I think.

The twin paradox http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module4_twin_paradox.htm Another example is that if you were in a rocket with 1 G continuous acceleration, your could cross the galaxy in about 12 years on your clock but on Earth well over 100,000 years will pass. Check out the "Long Relativistic Journeys" calculator at the bottom. http://www.cthreepo.com/cp_html/math1.htm

Point taken. My reply was also referencing post #9 "50% genetically determined is plenty for natural selection to work with." and my wording could have been different.

I present planet Earth as our laboratory. Watch a group of people in their original environment and then watch them over generations in the USA environment. The pecking order does not change.

Good science would have gone well beyond using just twins. I would like to see a chart something like in the "Bell Curve" book.

Regardless of their upbringing, there are some that have trouble making it past Chimpanzee intellect. It is important to consider the difference in one's ability to learn and one's ease of learning. You may be capable of learning by rote or by understanding. Your upbringing my help determine what you know but changing your intelligence by 50% is stretching it IMO.

Isn't "genetically determined" what makes evolution and natural selection possible? My observations tell me it plays a larger roll than many would think.

I was wondering how long it would take for "now" to show up. I think Swansont explained it well earlier in this thread. "The confounding thing about relativity is that it's not just a static offset of times, but that clocks run at different rates. We could agree on a universal time if we chose to, by picking a single reference frame and do the relativistic conversions, but there is no physics reason to prefer one over the other." Mod note: this and other recent posts moved from another thread

Sleeping works better then "twiddling your thumbs" for me.

A relativistic trip can take you to the future, as shown by the 'twin paradox'.