Leaderboard

For the same reason lions do not spend much time hunting in water occupied by crocodiles nor do crocodiles hunt on land occupied by lions. Large carnivores do not fight, populations compete with each other over resources and habitats. Yes individuals occasionally interact but it's the overall competition between them over resources that limit their occupation of habitats. So far you have given no reason to think a T-Rex would would want to take up a lifestyle it is obviously not adapted to anymore than crocodiles would decide to take up hunting zebras on the grasslands. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinosuchus

For SC, they were concerned Justices' opinions could be swayed by pension concerns and didn't anticipate people living so long. https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-71-80#s-lg-box-wrapper-25493471 They really didn't think some things through. The loser of the Presidential election becoming the Vice President was another big one.

I would recommend you get a degree in environmental engineering . The pay is higher and the work is more interesting.

We agree. Decline occurs and generally quite rapidly as we age. I’m still thankful given the current happenings in the world that he’s the one helping us navigate it. He knows how this works and better than most.

There is no v in the problem you're setting up. The whole point of relativity is that S2 is not receding. No observer attached to the ship can measure any such v. There is no dragging of the speed of light. The measured speed for light inside the ship is c, not c-v, as you claim. You got everything wrong. This v is only in your mind. So the very first time you wrote an equation and you said you were going to hold it against relativity. Well... You wrote the wrong equation. S2 is not receding from the POV of anybody anchored to the ship --at rest relative to it. Nobody, repeat, nobody stuck to the ship has any right to even start talking about such v. What v? What are you talking about? What you are doing is using a quantity that only makes sense in the frame attached to a certain "rest observer" you're telling us nothing about in your calculations about another frame. And yes, according to your main line of reasoning, space within a ship is non-isotropic, which is a ludicrous claim, of course. (My emphasis.) What?! This is false. In the ship's inertial system such time is t=D/c, not what you say. The whole thing is ridiculous.

And you are making the classic(al) mistake. That of mixing values in two different frames. When you specify or calculate a value or ask a question about a quantity that result is meaningless unless you also specify the frame you are working in. This is true in both galilean and einstinian relativity. So I ask the question again In which frame are you measuring D. Note you also need to do this for time quantities.

If we’re in an inertial system, since v=0 (the relative speed), the times will be the same.

I’ve been grateful for his decades of experience and the experience of his hand picked leadership teams these last few years. A set of steady hands at the tiller. They’ve done a remarkable job returning us to normality in otherwise chaotic times. If congress wasn’t so dysfunctional and full of ignorant clowns, we’d surely be even better off than we already are.

The same could be said of anyone who says cutting off food, water and power, then bombing places occupied by children and the elderly is justified. It surprises me how many people feel comfortable calling one side barbaric while claiming the actions of their preferred side is justified.

Yes that is one hypothesis, thought some references would have been nice. Here are some A bit of a sensationalist site https://www.syfy.com/syfy-wire/ancient-terror-crocodile-deinosuchus-ate-dinosaurs and a more measure one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinosuchus Note that both refer only to supposition, not hard evidence. But both sites refer to older ideas about cretaceous environemntal conditions, although the central N. american shallow sea was mentioned. I suggest that the skin of a creature that spends most of its time largely submerged would need to have differences from that of a creature that spends most of its time in the open air. The most modern reconstructions by respectively Lascouara (Dakota) Attenborough (UK) and Packham (UK) suggest some differences including the intriguing question Were the flying dinosaurs beginning to dominate before the end , especially as it is known that sea levels were rising duting this period. These can all be seen from the BBC 'The Day the Dinosaurs Died' presented by Roberts and Garrod 'Earth' presented by Cchris Packham 'The Final Day' presented by David Attenborough

The Main impediment "IMHO" to a amphibious T-Rex is the carnivores it would have to compete with. The wetlands were not empty places just waiting to be exploited by a big predator. There were giant sized crocodilians that lived in those wetlands, crocodiles more than big enough to take down a T-Rex... in fact they probably were a big danger to a T-rex trying to take a drink from a waterway BITD (back in the day) You have to remember that Crocodiles are powerful predators, well adapted to their environment, exothermic, so their food intake was lower than a exothermic T-Rex. Unlike a T-Rex Crocodiles can go long periods without food and so can afford, metabolically, to sit and wait for food to come to them. A T-Rex with its bird like metabolism had to eat much more and to go out and hunt down large prey items on a regular basis. A T-Rex wes adapted to hunting down prey and was probably fast enough to do so with its huge muscular hind legs. T-Rex was not well suited to semi aquatic living in its body plan, it's metabolism, or its behaviors and was as vulnerable as any other land creature to the true dominating predators of the wetlands... Crocodiles.

Oh, It was 2 years ago

Time (the ages of time), is acting in the background in this world. We trust scientists so much and to be so correct. Weren't these the same species (homo sapiens) that once thought that the sun revolved around the earth?

Following on from my concept on Time, certain things "fall out" from the theory. For example early humans would have existed in time, evolving from the apes which I agree with. But I propose the evolution was quick helped along by a "substance" not yet discovered by scientists. This would explain why we have not been able to find fossils showing the GRADUAL changes which is absurd. My theory also tries to understand the present and takes a guess at humankind's future. For example, will we ever be able to conquer outer space??? The distances are just too far. Are people hoping for travel at light speed or teleportation???