koti

When the speed of a mass aproaches c, it becomes harder to acclelerate that mass, more and more energy is needed to achieve further acceleration: When the speed is c, the mass is infinite - which is a null statement because its impossible.

No. Mass aproaches infinity when speed aproaches c for a frame in which it is moving in.

Mass aproaches infinity when speed aproaches light speed. Think about it.

Tip for anyone having the same issue: Save the picture to your hard drive and drag&drop it into a google graphics search. It works wonders

It is a sad day, the world lost a great mind. His sense of humor was a great addition to his work - his singing of the Monty Python "Galaxy Song", the poker scene on Star Trek The Next Generation, his appearance on episodes of "Big Bang Theory" and the Simpsons...countless interviews and comedy shows he appeared in. He had a great life considering that he made it to 76 when he was getting 2 years max at 22 years of age. On top of his work in physics he left 3 children, a major hollywood film was made as his biography - who could ask for a more fulfilling life.

No, that one is an idiot. I’ve read his papers, nobody agrees with him, hes full of it.

Unless its an awful lot of PHD’s who produce a truth.

They haven’t confirmed their belief with evidence. When that happended the belief changed into a truth. I agree, that is how focused knowledge works, our lives are too short to know really a lot about really a lot of things. I dont see how this correlates though. Thats how I think the world works.

It doesn’t matter, the truth is out there regardless.

You skipped the vital part where I said “not on their own” Evidence confirmed by multiple sources is the key. Im sure Marcus Aurelius was aware of magic tricks and lying. In modern times it is even more apparent - you should not believe everything you see as it can be a special effect on TV or even your faulty sight or hearing perception. If multiple people confirm the same thing over a period of time again and again then we are closer to the truth. Which is always absolute on its own, regardless of circumstances.

With all due respect to my Grandfather’s favourate philosopher - Hear and see are not the best tools for determining the truth. At least not on their own.

No. Thats what Im trying to say all along, truth is binary and absolute despite the circumstances. If we encounter a situation in which the truth might look like its not absolute then we are dealing with a situation in which the concept of truth is not appropriate to use against. Like comparing apples and oranges, hiphop/opera example, etc.

If something can never be proven or known then the answer is really simple - we don’t know the truth. Hence I stated „people either know it (the truth) or don’t know it”. I might be wrong but I’m not convinced that we can be 100% sure that we can state that something will never be possible to prove true/false. As for your hiphop/opera example I think its flawed because it doesn’t deal with the concept of truth at least not in the academic sense that we are discussing here. Its opinion/preference and not truth/not truth. As for the nature of truth Im sure youre right that philosophers are tackling it for millenia thats why I wrote in my original post that „I think that this is one of those subjects which is so diversly subjective that its impossible to reach any decent consensus” But the truth itself is absolute despite the circumstanes, it is out there no matter what. The truth is not in some quantum state of probabilities, it can either be or not be. In my opinion there can be a debate only in circumstances where the concept of truth should not be applied (like your hiphop/opera for example)

Right. Truth is binary and people either don’t know it or do know it and do things with it for resons. But the truth is always there regardless of the situation, and its never subjective.

Funny, I was having a long conversation with myself yesterday on this while watching some insignificant movie. I agree with all the premises you layed out in your above post, I would add that however un-empathetic it sounds, the truth is also impractical in many life situations. It is the main reason that I get in trouble when I do when I should have lied or at least keep the truth to myself. I don’t know how somebody can say that the truth is subjective, that is a dead end logic in my opinion, I can agree that it is unreliable though. There is also so many shades of lying and tellig the truth, you can blatantly lie without remorse which is the sociopathic end of the scale or you can empathetically lie about something which saves someone pain which is at the other end of the scale - same with the truth. I think that this is one of those subjects which is so diversly subjective that its impossible to reach any decent consensus when trying to find objectivity which everyone can agree on. The never ending quest of not being an a**hole is on for everybody.

I was going to write that puppypower has never been seen in a lab but yours is less invasive, +1.

Good thing we have google now, this way I now know its „hazard analysis and critical control points” This only seems like useles information but I will use it in a conversation some day. If I don’t forget it that is

This is popscience, nothing makes sense in this article. Statements like „But earth and stardust can also be forged, arranged and ultimately 3D-printed to create life” and „After all, humans and their brains are mostly just meat” are just plain nonsense. Human body is not „just meat” human brain contains billions of neurons and is extremely complex. There is no technology currently to even think about 3D printing a working human brain. Edit: I have to add that "quantum archeology" is some nonsensical, religious thing. It's not even a thing.

I heard that Strange writes lines for Sheldon so theres no but

It’s the light that is visible, not the objects. I know some people are slow but this is borderline ridiculous.

Theres really no way of leading a coherent discussion with someone who yet again is incapable of using the quoting system on this site. Light is visible because it is required for the process of sight to take place.

I never claimed that detection is sight. This what you are doing here is a classic strawman argument - please stop doing that. What scares me is your asinine and infantile statements which lead to confusion like this one here: Light does not need to emit or reflect light in order for objects to emit or reflect light. Please read that as many times as you need untill it sinks in.

Anyone who has basic knowledge of the relevant subjects at hand (physics, human physiology, color perception) has decided long ago that this disussion is null. Not being able to reconcile useless semantics with physics is not an impasse.

Its exactly that, there is no contradiction. How much longer will it take you to understand that when we see an object, we only see light. We see objects only by perceiving light which bounces off of them or is being emitted by them. Oranges are invisible without light, you actually wrote something which makes sense, too bad you think its incorrect.

I think both of your statements are clear and ofcourse correct. I wonder how many more times this can be repeated then misinterpreted, rephrased and repeated over and over again in a loop of insanity.