J.C.MacSwell

Keep in mind the kinetic energy of the 3,000 lb weight at the end of the second. It is not an insignificant part of the energy in this case.

Which frame would that be? I personally use a number of them everyday and would find it very inconvenient not to switch.

1) 21,000 ft lb of energy 2) 1500 ft lb/hr

Sounds like potential energy. Power is rate of work or energy.

...and the bolded will be true for Betty and Fiona on Dock at rest in the original frame only. No synchronization of acceleration is possible for Bert or Frank.

A "perfect" vacuum would not even have photons in it. Nothing would remain that could define a temperature.

Frames generally speaking* do not have their own independent reality. We may shift around mathematically in the definitions of each, in both time and space...but we still exist...we are still "here" in the past, present or future of whichever frame you choose. (assuming the frame is physically legitimate) They are all real in that sense. *you can define a frame to exclude us, but in that sense the frame is just limited not our reality

I made it up to make a point as others were claiming that a set distance between 2 points (or an object of non zero dimension) could be maintained while accelerating and at the same time the 2 points could at all times share a rest frame. I'm sure there are a few similar paradox themes around that are similar though I don't recall one directly for that purpose. It's just the way simultaneity is broken with acceleration in SR-when one moves into the others past. Edit: I read the Wiki and interestingly it looks like it's the same Bell from Quantum physics that came up with "Bell's Inequality", so this could be "Bells Inequality II", although it originated earlier with someone else who was pointing out the actual physical contraction required to accelerate (or stresses produced as I mentioned earlier)

This is the first thing that I thought of, because I know of Doctors that went into Nursing first and did very well at Nursing, all of which was transferable to becoming an MD. The actually did an "end run" around the competition where they would not have otherwise been accepted. It did take them longer to get to the same point, but at that point they were more well rounded in many aspects and if I remember it correctly they had less debt from being able to work as a Nurse.

Think 3D. The upper airflow is almost always higher velocity (and typically somewhat veered, clockwise, in the Northern hemisphere) compared to the lower airflow. In gusty conditions there is mixing of the two flows. The upper flow comes down creating a gust cell that fans out displacing the lower slower moving air. The cell and shear line between the two can move slower than the air in either flow and can in fact sometimes stay fairly stationary or even retreat, while still being "fed" from above and to windward and exiting upwards again and to leeward. So that is why the gust seems slower than the air in it. Sometimes they die out fairly quickly and sometimes they persist. Often heating of the lower level air triggers the start of a gust, as it expands, becomes lighter, a pocket of air rises. The upper air fills in behind and begins the cycle. But you are correct, there is very little compressibility, and the mass flows must balance.

The cause is excess calories absorbed over calories used. The causes of the cause varies with every individual.

In common language usage, does anyone make the distinction?

Hi Random You know you did it. You've done your time...you don't want to go back... time to move on!

The Lord said unto Moses "come forth!"... ...but he came fifth...so they gave him a jackknife.

Tell that to the ship... as it takes off and leaves you bobbing in the ocean.

(just to stay consistent; Bert is in the back and Frank is in the front) They are at rest in the same inertial frame at the start and start to accelerate simultaneously in that frame. At that point they would agree on the time and distance. Immediately, as they accelerate, this agreement is lost. After both have finished accelerating (same time as measured in the original or Dock frame, different times in their new frame) they will again agree on simultaneity but will disagree on the passage of time (Frank will have aged more, having waited for Bert to finish accelerating) Their Ship will have stretched to approximately twice it's length in their new rest frame.(or most likely come apart, depending on it's physical properties) All "theoretically" possible. Staying the same length (one light year), in the frames of Bert or Frank while accelerating at that rate is not. It would require breaking the rules of SR.

So, eventually, presumably, Christ comes first, Satan ends up in second place, and you claim the Antichrist comes fourth. So who comes third?

...and the list of countries that have tried it "properly" is? ... ...??

Except while accelerating the observer will not be aware of any changes between the original inertial frame and the later one, unless he looks out the window and uses the same reference points. He/she will interpret light speed as being the same as it was.

So you are assuming no time dilation and have come upon a contradiction?

Have you accounted for time dilation?

I knew the lines had no resistance. The voltmeter is extraneous in the set up. It tells you nothing. I assumed it was a voltage source and the ammeter a current source. What you (and Hal) did looks correct...assuming no resistance at the ammeter and infinite resistance at the voltmeter.

OK, I assumed that was a voltage source also. So what do you make of the circuit connecting the top and bottom at the voltmeter? Is that actually part of the circuit? Or is it just the connections for the voltmeter? If it is part of the circuit with no resistance then what drives the 4A?

You do know that but the 4A is a current "source", not a meter reading. Correct? So it is a variable voltage source as well. (it will give a potential required to make it 4A)