Raider5678

Ready to be corrected.....? Anyways, this is true. But I also pointed this out in my post. "Additionally, you'd stop accelerating at 9.81 m/s within a hundred days, long before you reached even 1/3rd the speed of light because the exhaust from the engines would no longer be moving faster then you're moving away from it, resulting in less and less thrust the closer you got to exhaust velocity." I haven't gotten rusty on my rocket physics quite yet (this is technically my first time correcting someone on their physics that I'm aware of) However, now I'm really curious. Is there a formula for the curve generated by thrust deteriorating the closer you got to exhaust velocity? Because like you said, it wouldn't be linear, but there should be a mathematical formula for it. I kinda want to know if NASA has to take that into account for rockets reaching escape velocity.

Actually, no. Strange forgot something. You can only accelerate for so long before you reach the speed of light. At which point, you simply can't accelerate anymore. Additionally, you'd stop accelerating at 9.81 m/s within a hundred days, long before you reached even 1/3rd the speed of light because the exhaust from the engines would no longer be moving faster then you're moving away from it, resulting in less and less thrust the closer you got to exhaust velocity. If my math is right, even if you could accelerate constantly at the same speed, you'd reach the speed of light in a little under a year, at which point you've hit the speed limit and would stop accelerating. So, the use of acceleration as a gravity form is definitely a clever one and an interesting topic to discuss. However, you also have to note it's not a long-term solution to creating artificial gravity. This is actually a large argument in my opinion against flat earth's theory that disk is accelerating at 9.81 m/s and that's why we experience gravity. But that's a whole other topic. Best of luck!

I've always hated that phrase. However, in this context I like it.

I knew her face and fame. I didn't know much else. And I'm being honest. My parents can't afford cable or Satellite, so we don't have the TV hooked up. Typically we shop at discount grocery stores, like Hoovers which is a small grocery store owned by the Amish people in my community, so we don't have magazine isles either. Most of the kids at my school talk about pop singers and who's banging who behind whos back, so it's not like I'd hear it from them. And it's not exactly the type of thing I spend my free time looking up on youtube or anything. So. Yeah. It's not that hard to believe really.

True enough. For me, it is a religious one. However, that's a whole other debate. However, I do agree with this. I think the reason it got labeled a conservative standpoint is often because almost every issue has a side it's been assigned to. Conservative vs liberal. And like you said, often, the issue shouldn't be under either of them.

I love your faith in me. However, in all honesty, I replied first because I thought she actually was a pop singer like Beyonce. And with that, I wanted to make it adamant that I didn't believe a pop singer was qualified. I was just ignorant, not lying.

Apparently except for me? I literally thought she was a singer until I googled her. So 129,999,999 know who Winfrey is.

Perhaps in the future, but at the moment our technology is far from reaching that level of sophistication.

She is also a Christian by her own admission.

I can't really think of a good answer come to think of it. I get what you mean though now. Conservative and liberal are really loose. That said, I can come up with general viewpoints but even then it depends.

I pretty much meant what Ed's definition was.

I agree with this though. Yet when someone tries to take any standpoint, they're automatically labeled as supporting everything about the said party. Edit: Deleted most of what I said to abide by moderator note.

True enough. However I am looking to get into a possible political career.

Preaching stands around here. From "propaganda parrots" I can safely assume you don't really know all that much about Conservatives above anything more than "I hate them." From "America has sold out" I can safely assume you don't understand the cycle of politics, where only three times in the last 100 years as a single party held office for more than 4 terms. America didn't "sell out" it followed the same process it's been following for generations. From "You're not the boss of me" I can also safely assume you don't know the basic attitude of debate. You resort to name calling and childlike tantrums when you're pointed out to be wrong. Anyone looking through your posts can see that in the first 4 pages. This is what I got. Also note, this isn't even what I meant. But since you insisted. I still spend a lot of time learning science and such.

1. Yeah. To everyone else, this is an example of what I'm talking about. 2. So is this. I encourage you to go look at that thread. You can clearly see how far out of context posts are taken. 3. It was actually a generalized statement. Almost everyone has opinions on topics they know absolutely nothing about. Me, and you included. 4. That makes no sense. 5. Refer to point three. It was a generalized statement, which CANNOT be proven false. Neptune's teacup scenario. However, it's also highly likely. 6. This is your first post in this thread. Don't pretend like I'm ignoring you.

Case in point.

When you enter the inner circles of a political party, and you're selected as the political nomination, for Congress, Senate, or President, I believe that's where I'd consider mainstream. I'll be running as an independent, because I agree with this.

Fair enough. Liberals far outnumber conservatives on this site, and they definitely do it a lot more simply because there are more of them.

Exactly. Also, do you agree with RangerX that I'm trying to derail this thread? If so, I'll gladly leave. If two people with more then 50 posts agree with him.

Yet, you make so many opinions on topics you know absolutely nothing about, and it's okay for you. Anyways, please cut it with the "You(Your*?) deflection fails, miserably." crap. This is a debate, not an argument between my teenage peers. Additionally, upon further research, I haven't changed my mind on her. Just because someone is rich and famous, should not decide if they're qualified for office. Obama was only worth a mere 12 million dollars. I think he was qualified. Regardless of if I agree with everything he did or not. He. Was. Qualified.

It's not less of an accomplishment and I didn't say it was. If you read the post, you'll see that during the entire thing I only said that it was different, not that it was inferior. I made sure I did that on purpose so as not to discredit her accomplishment. However, which is the presidential office going to rely on more? The entertainment industry, or the retail industry? The entertainment industry is 720.38 billion dollars, at just over 2.2 million workers. The retail industry is 3.08 trillion dollars, at just over 15.8 million workers. Both industries are valuable. However, the retail industry employs 7 times as many people. So I'd say a president in the retail business is probably more helpful to the office of president than a president in the entertainment business. However, I'd also say that using a candidate business credentials as a reason for their suitability for office is a bad idea. Just because a candidate is rich, does not mean I think they'll make a good candidate for president. Also, you have to note. I do not consider Donal Trump fit for office. At all. However, I also don't consider her fit either. But just because I don't think she's fit doesn't mean I think he's fit for office. NOR AM I SAYING that Donald Trump is in the retail business. I'm saying his business is closer to the retail business then the entertainment business. She's written and sold 16 different books. She was an author. Regardless of the fact you don't trust me. She's been in 26 different movies. She was an actor. Regardless of the fact you don't trust me. Your facts are wrong, your argument is flawed, and this has proven nothing about my desperate attempt to appear correct. No, you're attempting to hijack this thread to twist it into an argument involving name-calling and Trump blaming, and I refuse to let you do so.

She's gotten rich by selling books, hosting a television show, and acting. I understand what you guy's are saying, but she's made her money out of the entertainment industry. And while I definitely agree golf is considered a form of entertainment, it's not quite the same. Ophra made her money by successfully running a network. Networks make money by selling ads. It's a different business entirely. And again, I understand she's made 3.8 billion dollars. However, you also have to take into account HOW she made that money. Granted, owning a network is a business. But surely you agree it's a totally different business then what most business models are correct? Hotels, retail, food, etc. They're massively different from Television, Sports, and Entertainment. Also, Ed, Ten Oz, and Zapatos are really in my opinion the only ones who offered debate above name calling and fingerpointing. I mean, look at Ranger. It's clear that he did not want to further debate, he wanted to antagonize someone.

Is it just me, or are most political threads just devolving into ridiculous childlike finger pointing and name calling? And I mean rapidly. A thread started about a potential presidential candidate devolved in just 1 page to complain about the failures and qualities of the current president. And moreover, there's a massive gap between two sides of the debate. If someone takes, and let us be real here it's usual conservatives vs liberals(not libertarians or something), a conservative standpoint they're immediately accused of supporting EVERYTHING that the conservative parties support. Likewise, if someone takes the liberal standpoint they're immediately accused of supporting everything the liberal parties support. Half the time, people read the post, get to a sentence they disagree with, and just quote the SINGLE sentence and take it out of context. I don't know. Is it just me or is debating politics becoming less and less debate and more and more namecalling?

Actually, for a few decades, a lot of them were eight 0's in a row.

And I'm done with this thread. I'm glad to see it went from talking about Ophra to complaining about Trump and his supporters in less than a single page.