StringJunky

But all whites are.

What I've said previously alludes to your position. Both sides are complicit for getting into this situation but it's Big Oil that's putting the brakes on doing something about it, or have been. As individuals we need to realise that we are each not an island with no consequences to one another. Trump's talk of making "America great again" is pure islandism.

Well, I've stored it wrong in my brain for several decades as well then.

i've seen it with my eyes after having it pointed out by my boss at the time but it's mentioned in Wiki. It is distinctly noticeable. I've tried to find a photo but I can't find one on t'internet.

Has it got an invisible 'o'?

Yeah.

But... but... they're called 'vacuum cleaners'.

Humber Bridge UK - Centre span 4626ft and 7283ft total. It's the 8th longest between towers. I remember as an 18 year old crop inspecting a field which was situated some miles away, located in the middle between the two towers and you could see the the tops of the towers leaning outwards which was due to the curvature of the Earth.

If they'll lie about something so trivial, they''ll lie about anything.

Or lies are being told about Jeb Bush's height, so, he'd be about 6'6. I didn't think Trump was even a six-footer.

Not a chance.

That's what I'm trying to get at: whether relativistic effects will skew the results of the two observers. when they later compare.

How about this scenario: picture yourself orbiting a cylindrical mirror such that a light pulse emitted from the orbiter returns on the same path and the orbiter receives the returning light pulse at the same point, having done one orbit. Would there be an anomalous result in the measured distances, having calculated the radius (time taken on light path/2) vs circumference measured by the orbiter? The point of this is that when you calculate the circumference, working from the light signal measurement, it doesn't conform with the circumference measured by the orbiter i.e it will be contracted, so if the radius was calculated from the orbiter it won't match with the measured radius. Hope that makes sense. Which Idoubt it will. It's nearly frying my brain. Edit. Just thought, it can't be a light signal that's released but a massive body (another observer) that is released and returns at the same time as the orbiter.

I would say woo is sharing an untruth that you believe to be true, and lying is telling something you know not to be true. I think the presence or not of intent to deceive is the distinction.

What, lies?

Cheers. i thought it might be something like that. I only know that she's very famous in America and very rich.

That's a good point.

Such as?

How about: a vacuum is a volume absent of pressure.

...It's orange

Right. No doubt mordred will come along and shrivel my brain with his version of "a little bit of maths".

I thought you could calculate c with those equations.

My first thought would be that the load dictates a lot of it i.e. more gores to spread the load. I couldn't find any details regarding performance of the smooth vs bulbous forms.

Apparently, it falls out of Maxwell's equations which predict it. I originally thought it was limited by the properties of the vacuum (permittivity and permeability) but gravitational waves are limited to c as well, which are not influenced by properties of the vacuum. It seems that c is a fundamental, axiomatic value.

Short version of Strange's informative post: Dimensions, as used in science, are degrees of freedom (or parameters that are independently variable); there are four necessarily associated with motion or position in space,of which, time is one of them.