Kyrisch

Yes they are present so much that I'm having trouble figuring out what you're trying to say. It is very important to be especially clear in math and science because of the general imprecision of language to begin with.

Too many spelling and grammatical errors to decipher...

That was enlightening...

Something else that should have been pointed out earlier. Everything in the direction of travel will be length contracted as observed by the rest frame, including each individual molecular bond-length, so there would obviously be no structural damage.

This is a common misconception. Black holes aren't like cosmic vacuum cleaners, they're just extremely massive bodies. The gravity of a black hole is no different than the gravity of the earth besides the obvious question of magnitude.

Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo!

(Fist makes pleasure)

I'm not sure if this is intimately related, but I suppose it is nominally. A common question on the high-school level of physics when learning about special relativity (especially velocity transforms) is given the following situation: two rockets traveling in opposite directions towards the earth at 0.9c relative to a stationary observer on the earth; what is the closing velocity of the rockets from the POV of the observer. The answer is, while students may find it uncomfortable to give 1.8c. There is no speed limit for the rate of shortening (or, as is relevant here, the rate of expanding) of space as there is for the velocities of specific objects. As such, since that integral part of SR fails to apply to lengths of space, I would dare say that length contraction and time dilation would not occur.

It would appear that you are assuming 100% packing efficiency. That would make for some very uncomfortable hippos...

That's an issue of the conceptualisation of the principle of relativity, and not any particular explanation in general is going to help you. It's all based on the idea that the speed of light is the same in all frames of reference, such that a light beam emitted from the headlight of a car will be going at the speed of light relative to an observer on the ground as well as relative to the driver of the car, unlike a classical object like a ball which would appear to be traveling faster relative to the observer at rest. All other aspects -- time dilation, length contraction -- are logical consequences of that single principle.

This isn't right. The reason light can't escape a black hole is not because the gravitons emitted are "traveling faster than light", but rather that the curvature of space within the event horizon of a black hole is so severe that the escape velocity (yep, just like that same velocity rockets need to exceed in order to launch into orbit) of the black hole exceeds the speed of light. Further, it is generally accepted that gravitons are massless and (therefore) move at the speed of light, although I don't know what experiments have been done to demonstrate this.

You still have not commented on the fact that magnetic forces are always perpendicular to the velocity of the charged particle and the direction of the field.

I love how asprung has insidiously gotten us all to adopt the word 'spaceman' into our lexicon...

Ahah! I think I understand where your confusion is coming from. A spaceman who leaves earth traveling at near light-speed will age slower relative to observers at rest on Earth, but the man himself will not experience any slowing of time in his own frame. He will, however, notice that his trip will take less time than it should, due to the length contraction caused by the apparent near light-speed velocity. The physical length of his trip will contract, and it therefore will take less time to complete it. As such, when he comes back, he will have aged less than he 'should have' because the trip was shorter than it 'should have' been. When he returns to earth, the observers at rest will tell him that he was gone the proper amount of time, as no length contraction was observed by them, resulting in the apparent age difference.

Either you are trolling or you're simply incredibly thick. Relativistic effects are not experienced in your own reference frame because you are at rest with respect to everything else. An observer will see the 'spaceman's' clock slow, while the spaceman will see the observer's clock slow. Neither one experiences length contraction or time dilation in their own frames.

I think someone's took the idea of 'building blocks' too far...

After two pages of repetition, the point is still not getting across... The measured distortion is only measured in other reference frames. You are at rest in your own reference frame, and therefore do not undergo any length contraction. This is evidenced by the fact that you are traveling at 99% the speed of light relative to any countless arbitrary frames of reference, and you are experiencing no contraction as measured in your own frame.

There are multiple things wrong with this post. The most glaring error is that 0.999... is greater than 0.1, irrefutably. Further, 0.999... isn't "going" anywhere, it is a single number with a single value. The reason that you cannot reconcile with your mathematical sense that 0.999... = 1 is because you cannot conceive of infinity.

This even has a name, and is a common phenomenon in psychological studies -- confirmation bias.

There's no real point in responding to A Childs Mind's posts anymore, he's left us...

If the "input" is "diagonal", the resulting force is still perpendicular with respect to the first vector, unconditionally.

One common way is grafting, which results in a chimaera (an individual whose somatic cells contain one of two different genomes).

I think you're trying to get at [math]\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{n+1}{n}[/math]. Unfortunately, you're wrong -- the value of that limit is in fact identically one, in a similar way that [math]\sum_{n=0}^{-\infty} (0.9)\cdot 10^n = 0.999... = 1[/math].

I've noticed that no justification is ever given for decisions to move threads, especially to the pseudoscience and speculations forum. It would seem to me that this is an important detail in the decision, and that the addition of this to such posts would surely relieve most of the authoritarian, personally-threatening connotation that many misguided minds glean from the terse post, hopefully overall conveying less of a sense of intimidation and more of a sense of rationality versus bias.

May I ask why?