J.C.MacSwell

I think this is the best "approach" if you will forgive the pun.

An idealized, perfectly rigid collision would result in an infinite force for an infinitesimal amount of time.There are no rules at this point. They "bounce off", destruct, pass right through each other, or do pretty much anything imaginary in this imaginary situation. Just my opinion and it's not even wrong.

However if you are trying to extract it for the purpose of heating rather than doing work, as with a heat pump, it can be well worthwhile. Greater than 100% efficiencies can/should be obtained (not thermodynamic efficiencies, no laws are broken and entropy increases overall ).

That's why they call it black.

Coast Guard? Center of gravity? Common ground? Creative garbage?

A contortionist's modulus of elasticity while relaxed would be much lower than mine and their strain to failure much higher. Basically mechanics and to some extent dynamics. Modelling with ideal elements would give a reasonable first approximation.

Fair enough, although I did not realize String Theory had made any predictions. My follow up question was with regard to the modelling stage. Prior to making predictions (while the model is not complete enough to form any, not merely noone actually making any) is that science? I apologise if this seems trivial, just if you had a definite idea of where you draw the line I would like to hear it. (I'm interested, not just trying to be a pain)

If they predict different outcomes, but present technology cannot differentiate them, is that science?

As Swansont pointed out speeds do not add linearly, however current theory says two particles can diverge at that rate: 1. wrt the observer, but in this case at 0.8C wrt each other 2. 1.0 C wrt each other due to the hubble expansion, although in this case the observer would measure their speeds as greater than 0.5 C

I think the object has more mass, more rest mass wrt it's rest frame, but it constituent particles or atoms or molecules do not wrt their rest frames.

The assumption is that you are shooting parralel to the ground or at a tangent to the "perfect surface" so ignoring air resistance if you shoot faster than orbit speed at that height your shot will rise, not fall. If you shoot exactly at orbit speed, don't forget to duck!

I have done the same with gasoline engines. My mistake was that I made subsequent improvements, the gas tank of course overflowed, and the damn thing caught fire and blew up as I was driving merrily down the highway. When I awoke in the hospital bed I could not remember how I got it to work!

It's the physical equivalent of one of those Aescher drawings where the water goes "downhill" in a continuous circuit.

In thermal equilibrium and no other sources/storages of energy(not exactly the case but close approximation), we would be taking low entropy energy from the sun and outputing an equal amount of higher entropy energy into space. I guess that makes us a big (junk quality) photon producing machine!

You can be quoted word for word to a limited extent without your authorization. Credit (or discredit) should of course be given toyou as the author.

The assumption is that he swam 72m directly across the flow (I would not call this directly across the river but that is what they mean-directly across the flow of the river) at 0.75m/s but was carried 54m downstream during the time it took to traverse the 72m.

Your now was posted at only 9:32 PM (Nova Scotia/Atlantic time) Probably will stay up for the New Year though

I will use it to sleep in! (and some people claim there is no God!)