J.C.MacSwell

The trick is to get something cooler than the dew point of the surrounding air so that moisture in the air condenses on the surface in a manner that it can then be collected. MigL's suggestion does all that (it can be as simple as a piece of plastic stretched between, say, four rocks weighted down by four more with a small pebble sitting in the middle to get a bit of slope, and a cup underneath the lowest point to catch the accumulating water.

True. So if "time lost" is elapsed time it reads correctly. But generally speaking time gained or lost on a clock due to relative effects is the discrepancy.

Right, but less time lost on a clock should equate to more time elapsed.

Are you sure that is what you meant to say?

Pretty much every or any Law is wrong if you give the words meanings that were not intended.

I would say that the inspirational one seems false, though there may be some contexts where it might fit to varying degrees.

Stated from a different reference frame to give you a different perspective: So you are saying a blackhole could not possibly enter a larger mass, and exit without absorbing the whole mass? (underlying assumption is that the relative velocities are very high, and the distant parts of the larger mass never get inside the event horizon) Or are you saying something else?

Assuming the larger mass is not a black hole but large enough, it could ingest the blackhole followed by the black hole ingesting it from inside, with parts of the larger mass possibly breaking off and escaping or orbiting depending on their relative momentum and of course never getting inside the increasing event horizon.

An absence of a push would be a pull?

Pleasant fellow.

They vary in direction with respect to the centre of mass, with the net forces small enough and close enough toward it to allow it to spin seemingly freely at times, and at other times applying enough torque to shift it to the next spinning mode. I hope that makes some sense.

Someone who knows for certain can correct me, but I think it is at least in part to isolate it from the science threads. Since scientific methodology is required in those (almost all others including Speculations) threads, it would be inappropriate to have faith based discussions in them.

It depends on what is meant. I would say that if you considered an object in the reference frame in which it is initially at rest, it would "become" shorter as it is accelerated.

It is shorter in any inertial reference frame that it is moving, along the direction of travel. In it's own reference frame it's not contracted.

I absolutely agree. I'm just surmising what the line of thought was.

Velocity and composition are factors but so is mass and shape. If it is big enough, it will have more mass for it's drag. It will have more mass to burn up and more mass to absorb the heat.

I assume it's with regard to getting from lesser to more complex organisms, however that might be measured. As in how did man evolve to the point he can say "adios amoebas!" (not a biologist either)

Maybe a flat plate that symmetrically divides the Universe into two identical halves? (stab in the dark)

Yeah. I don't think it holds for GR. Maybe approach it locally or where gravity has limited effect, but I can't see it over any distance under that definition of flat.

That's my favourite part right there. Made it worth the read.

In SR a flat plane in any inertial frame is a flat plane in all others, is it not?

I always thought it was both oral and anal sex, and did not equate it with homosexuality. (not that there's anything wrong with that...) I would think it would be advantageous for pair bonding and also for "playing around" which could lead to coitus and potentially fertilization by intent, experiment or accident. It is not like we are born with instincts to know exactly how to reproduce. (uneducated opinion only...not my field of expertise...more of a hobby LOL)

Copenhagen Convention? Is there another name for it? The fifth Solvay Conference in 1927 in Brussels was quite famous for discussions of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics by Bohr A. Piccard, E. Henriot, P. Ehrenfest, E. Herzen, Th. de Donder, E. Schrödinger, J.E. Verschaffelt, W. Pauli, W. Heisenberg, R.H. Fowler, L. Brillouin; P. Debye, M. Knudsen, W.L. Bragg, H.A. Kramers, P.A.M. Dirac, A.H. Compton, L. de Broglie, M. Born, N. Bohr; I. Langmuir, M. Planck, Marie Curie, H.A. Lorentz, A. Einstein, P. Langevin, Ch.-E. Guye, C.T.R. Wilson, O.W. Richardson Fifth conference participants, 1927. Institut International de Physique Solvay in Leopold Park.

If you could, somehow, control the sheet to get lift without full stall you would be going pretty fast but eventually approaching the ground at an angle. Last second you pull up hard, killing what speed you can and should hit the ground "running"..."running" being a euphemism for tumbling rapidly to your demise...but at least you tried.

Ouch! I thought I had something there...was just beaming. Now I feel like I've been punched in the solar plexus.