J.C.MacSwell

It might not change it, but does the thought have energy? I think it does, so if that's correct, it should affect gravity, though no more so than the energy it came from. OTOH I don't think the idea of the thought has energy.

That's probably a pretty reasonable guess, though it is less obvious for stamina "fitness" than strength/size. Anyone have a technical answer as to why stamina and endurance might be expensive to maintain at above average levels?

I think you would feel no force until the masses either hit you, or missed you whereas you would feel sudden and then increasing tidal forces leading to your spaghettification. I think you would see everything form as you describe, other than a increasing blueshift from the speed of the masses when the light leaves them. Nothing unusual would happen when the 1 light year radius was reached and as the black hole started to exist.

This is more likely. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=228x37398

Any heat it would create would decay the orbit. The net result would be a further increase in entropy.

That's the one really, stamina. I can understand the loss of muscle mass in unused muscles being of some advantage, but what have I possibly gained from having muscles that can do significantly less work before tiring out, and having a respiratory system that won't back them up. I have certainly done my part in eating enough and resting enough to maintain my previous condition. So why has my body chosen to revert to my present condition? What advantage is my present lack of stamina relative to last fall?

I'm wondering from an evolutionary point of view. I can think of a few advantages of the way my body has adapted to a number of sedentary months. I'm fitter in the sense that I can now last longer if I am isolated without food. Some of my muscles have atrophied somewhat. If I'm not going to use them, or don't require them to be that size/strength they might as well be lighter and more portable for the others. But overall, I just don't see myself as being as "fit", certainly not in athletic terms, but in Darwinian terms as well. So, how come I'm not lying on the couch looking more like Superman, ready to fight, flee, attract woman etc. etc.? Keep in mind I'm asking from an evolutionary point of view. If this has happened from my being a lazy slug, then why has this trait been apparently so successful? (I'm not in the minority)

Could the icicle have fallen into the tray of water at some point in the "ice cycle"? Perhaps having formed previously attached to something else. Then reformed in the way it looks in the photos?

You can't expect them to sit there typing away with nothing on but yesterdays underwear like the rest of us... there Moderators!

I think it would look just as you describe. A comforting thought while you are watching it all is the Darwin Award you will likely receive. (they will probably just jettison it into the black hole in your honour)

They may play a role in affecting what the forces are, but the forces are added as described by GDG.

You can't just multiply to change wt% to volume %. For example, by weight, if it was 99% water and 1% ethanol, you would need a very different multiplier than if it was 99% ethanol and 1% water. The density of ethanol is 0.789 and 1 divided by 0.789 = 1.26742712 so at 1% ethanol the 1.26 suggestion from above would be pretty close. At 99% ethanol this multiplier obviously wouldn't work.

Of course. He did this 13 Billion years ago. Verdict not in yet as to whether He can eat it anyway. (He seems to be waiting for it to cool. I suspect that is cheating, but who am I to question Him)

I was a lumberjack.

For starters, it was pointed out that an accelerating charge should radiate and therefore lead to a decaying orbit due to the energy loss. Somehow electrons don't do this when due to movement within the confines of an atom under normal circumstances. When they do, it is done in a "quantized" way, rather than continuously, losing a set amount of energy.

That's pretty interesting. I was unaware they could do that when "necessary"- I did a Qwiki. It must be triggered when a female can't find a mate.

Interestingly, I googled "a" and of the 21 billion the third on the list was about physics.

Always wondered why Swantsont had so many rep points. Now I know! My suspicion that it had something to do with Physics was way off base.

You mean like this: http://digg.com/d1ZOHO

I have traveled back in time, from June 14, 2019, on a machine designed from your very theories to say: Well done!

Einstein was given the Nobel Prize in 1921 for his work in theoretical Physics, especially for his description of the photoelectrical effect, but at that time they intentionally chose to avoid mentioning his work on relativity (SR or GR). At that time I think it was still controversial.

The magnitude of torque, may be constant, but the direction (axis) of that torque constantly changes. (compare it, say, at 180 degrees of precession) 2,3. None of Newton's laws are broken

Electromagnetic forces are electrostatic and electro-"nonstatic" forces. Coulombs law is for the forces between static charges.

Look carefully at the torque during precession. Is it constant?

I assumed upper side meant the side facing away from the wind since that would correspond to the upper side of a wing with a similar angle of attack. Not sure why you would call it "upper" otherwise. But if that is the case, your explanation in post 5 is incorrect.