J.C.MacSwell

LOL, I am proving my points made in post 11 about my lack of grounding in this subject a little stronger and faster than expected! Thought experiment: We have a one cubic meter black body cube with a "sun" 93 million miles away and perpendicular to each face. (So we have 6 "suns") When equilibrium is reached (constant temperature for the cube) what will be the cube's temperature? And of course the follow up/more important question would be: Why would that temperature not be considered the temperature of the unobstructed sunlight at that point?

Then (if my thinking is correct) the idea I suggested in post 7 is wrong then and the temperature of unobstructed sunlight, as Martin said, is at the same temperature as the sun. So it's the same whether measured here or on Pluto? Obviously it is "diluted", but not in temperature?

Tell your wife's best friend you slept with her sister!

Do they live next door?

Another thought on this. Does focussed light gain temperature?

Martin, distance from the sun must have some effect. Like an inverse squared rule. Wouldn't we be in trouble otherwise? (atmosphere notwithstanding)

You have to admit though, it is "peer" reviewed!

Isn't it equivalent to an anti-particle moving forward in time?

Without doing any math, less than a billionth of a second. So a (very small) fraction of a billionth of a second.

1. agree, but no analogy is perfect 2. mostly wrong, you can throw it in still air further "away" than at right angles and have it arrive from behind more than right angles and have a net force "pulling" the boats together, and a symmetrical clockwise throw will balance an anti-clockwise throw. 3. This is good also and if you prefer it great even though it requires "intermediary 'fields', extra time, and relatively large volumes of space as well as matter/energy to work against.". Not that I have a problem with that and all analogies break down somewhere. A "perfect" analogy would not be an analogy, would it?

When you accelerate you are then moving wrt the rest frame you started in. You have also changed your rest frame and, with it, changed: Distances to various objects Time lapses to past and future events The accepted chronological order of events at various distances

Also if the Earth was somehow accelerated and caught up to the spaceship it would be in the spaceship's inertial frame and it (the Earth) would contain the younger twin.

The boomerang analogy is brilliant!

Personally I doubt it is possible although I know the theory says that it is. I will guess (someone more capable can do the math) theory says it should happen once every Billion to the billionth power Universe lifetimes if a billion humanoids constantly attempted it without stopping to eat. The successful humanoid should just barely beat out the winning chimp in the "Billion Chimps randomly hitting typewriter keys until one types the complete works of Shakespeare in order contest". I'm sure I have grossly (to the power of grossly) underestimated the time required though for either event.

Can this also be considered an endothermic/exothermic chemical reaction? Also, why does water have such a high specific heat?

There is no outward component to the velocity prior to release. This outward component will start at 0 and increase although this "pseudo acceleration" is not linear and this outward velocity will eventually approach the total velocity. The motion will be tangent (in a straight line) to the circle in any inertial frame, gravitational effects aside. How it appears to an observer at the origin of the inertial frame does not change this.

If it's frozen solid and 4 inches thick the odds are very close to 100% or 1 in 1.

Do this only between the poles or you end up with a "coriollis sunburn" from friction along the sides of the hole.

That's what you said last "Cycle"!

I think (?) if you used proximity alone then randomization of the parent will result from magnetization of the baby. Of course you can create parentless babies by producing magnetic fields and we seem to be discussing a mixture of the two processes. Of course this is not perpetual motion and I have no idea how YT got that idea. (just kidding YT )