Janus

That's not what I said. 12 and 11 are dimensionless numbers. 1s and 1s2 involve units of dimension and are not equivalent, in the same way that 1ft and 1ft2 are not equivalent. 1s = 11s1 1s2 =12s2 While the 11 and12 parts of these equations are equal to each other, the s1 and s2 are not.

f=ma does not resolve to f=mv in one sec. Neither are force and momentum equivalent. Reducing to base units of KGS: f(Newtons) = kg-m/s^2, and momentum = kg-m/s. Even over one sec these these are not equivalent. 1kg-1m/1s^2 ≠ 1kg-1m/1s, because 1s^2 = (1s)^2 = 1s x 1s For the two to be equivalent, everything in one equation as to cancel out everything in the other, but this doesn't 1kg-1m/(1s x 1s) ≠ 1kg-1m/1s, or 1= 1/s one of the s's on the left side doesn't cancel out. What you are trying to do is like trying to argue that 1 linear foot is equivalent to one square foot, when one is a linear measure and the other a measure of area.

"Get your hands off me, you damn dirty ape!"

Electromagnetic radiation does not produce an Electromagnetic field, it carries information about changes in the field. Likewise gravitational waves do not produce a gravitational field, but carry information about changes in the field. While you can't have gravitational waves without a field, you can have a field without gravitational waves. The spiral arms of a galaxy have nothing to do with the SMBH at the center. The central BH has almost no effect beyond locally as it only represents a very small fraction of the total mass of a galaxy. It is the combined mass of the rest of the galaxy that dominates.

Again, I don't think you actually understand what gravitational waves are and what produces them. It might be that you are under the common misconception that it is gravitational waves that mediate gravitational attraction; that masses naturally radiate gravitational waves and these waves are the mechanism by which masses attract each other. This is not the case. Gravitational attraction is the result of a field that exists whether or not there are any gravitational waves produced. Gravitational waves represent ripples in that field that are produced under certain circumstances. They are very, very, very weak; much too weak to produce those kinds of visible effects in a ring system. And again, in order to produce wavelengths of that size, you would require a mass oscillating at a few thousand hz, at the very least. The spiral arms of galaxies are produced by waves, but not gravitational waves. They are compression waves passing through the galaxy and are more like sound waves passing through a medium. Also, these waves are not as intense as the visible appearance would lead you to believe. The bright spiral arms are not bright because they contain that much more material, it is because this is where most of the new stars are being born. The "gaps" between the arms aren't that devoid of matter, they just contain more older, dimmer stars than bright young ones.

There is nothing about Jupiter that would produce gravitational waves of a high enough frequency to have wavelengths that short. To generate gravitational waves you need an accelerating mass. In this case, the only acceleration would be due to Jupiter's rotation. Any gravitational waves produced by this would have a frequency equal to Jupiter's rotational rate on 1 cycle per 10 hrs. Traveling at c, this gives a wavelength of roughly 10^10 km.

"Speed" doesn't have negative or positive values, as it is just a measure of magnitude. "velocity" is magnitude and direction, and thus can take on negative and positive values. So, if you assume that Bob measures a velocity for Alice of +0.983c , then using the same velocity convention, Alice would measure a velocity of -0.983c for Bob. However, the +/- in these velocities have no bearing on gamma factor each measures effecting the other. This is because gamma contains v^2/c^2. and v^2 is v x v. so if v= +0.983c, you have (+0.983c) x (+0.983c)/c^2 = 0.966...* , and if v = -0.983, you have ( -0.983c) x (-0.983c)/c^2 = 0.996... , since a negative times a negative yields a positive. You get the same answer if v is positive or negative. * (+0.983c) x (+0.983c)/c^2 = (+0.983)x(+0.983) c^2/c^2. The c^2 cancels out.

You are assuming that there is such a thing as absolute motion, and that there is a way to tell who is really "moving" and who isn't. This is not the case. Motion is only relative. Thus, you can only say that something is moving relative to some chosen reference frame frame. In this case, there are two reference frames to choose from:* 1. The one Bob and the Planet are at rest with respect to 2. The One Alice is at rest with respect to. If you are working from the Bob/planet frame, then Alice is moving and this frame measures Alice as length contracted. If you are working from Alice's frame, then it is Bob and the Planet that are moving, and it is they and the distance between them that is measured as being length contracted.** * There are an infinite number of reference frames we could use, it is just that these two are the most convenient to work from in this scenario. ** in addition, Bob would measure Alice's clock as ticking slower than his own, while Alice would measure clocks on Earth and the Planet as ticking slow compared to hers.

While this "Wall of Fire: has a high temp, you have to understand the difference between temperature and heat content. Temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles. Heat content is the total of the KE of the particles in a given volume. Thus a volume that contains a lot of low temp particles can have a larger heat content than an equal volume with higher temp, but fewer particles. Now while articles have described this wall as being of a "high density", this is meant relative to the normal solar wind density of a few particles per cubic centimeter. This a much better vacuum that can be achieved by man on Earth by several magnitudes. This "thick wall" off plasma is a not that much less of a vacuum. To melt a comet you need to add a fair amount of heat energy to it, and even at such a high temperature, this plasma has nowhere near the total heat content per cubic meter to do this.

In d = vt, all three are measured by Bob. v = 0.986c and t = 5 y, so d = 4.93 LY Alice would measure 'd = vt', for her v = 0.986c and t' equals 0.833 y, so d' ( the distance between planets) is ~0.822 ly To use length contraction, Alice would use d/y = d' or 4.93/y = 0.822 LY, which is the same answer.

If you by this you mean that Bob can measure Alice as being length contracted, but Alice can't measure Bob as being length contracted, then you're wrong. Or let's put it this way: Assume there is a planet 4.93 ly from Bob as measured by Bob, to which Alice is traveling. Then, as measured by Alice, this planet and Bob are only ~0.822 ly apart. Bob and this planet is traveling at 0.986c relative to Alice, and thus Alice measures 0.822 ly/0.986 = ~0.834 yr between Bob passing and the planet passing.

But since the OP specifically used "BC" and "AD", which are not used in the Hindu calendar, that is not relevant here.

I went back and corrected the typo, that 1339 years should have be 4399 years . The Gregorian calendar wasn't introduced until 1582, so it wouldn't have been in effect over this time period. But even if you take the difference between 1399 Julian years and 1399 Gregorian years, it only works out to be ~34 days.

4399 years. As there is no year 0, there is only 1 year between the start of 1 BC and 1 AD, and between the start of 1AD and the start of 1400 AD, there are just 1399 full years.

No, you were not. You were told that posting a video alone, so that someone has to watch the video in order to participate in the thread is against the rules, as stated in this quote from the rules. "Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone." You weren't told that you can't post any videos, just that that you didn't follow the proper rules for posting videos.

Any pardon Pence issued could only cover federal crimes, It can't apply to cases being prosecuted at a state level such as those in New York. Oh, And I can make at least one prediction for the Biden Presidency - Obama will finally get his portrait hung in the White House.

I assume that the Dutch version is similar to the Finnish "salmiakki". I've tried two versions. One was soft, a bit salty and quite good. The other was harder and much stronger on the ammonium chloride taste. While I was taken back at first by the second one, and can see why many people wouldn't like it, I kept giving it a chance, ended up finding it oddly addictive, and finished the box.

Gravity is is a "curvature" of space-time. But this doesn't mean that anything is physically "bent". It is a term used to express that the geometry of space-time is non-Euclidean. Non-Euclidean geometry is often described as being like doing plane (2 dimensional) geometry on a 3 dimensional curved surface ( like a sphere), But this is just an easy way to visualize it. Non-Euclidean geometry doesn't require an added dimension.

Generally to create a paradox you would have two inertial frames in relative motion, each capable of instantaneous information transfer within themselves. Example: You are in a spacecraft which passes Earth at 0.8c as both your and the Earth clock reads the same. Trailing 1 ly behind you ( as measured by you) is another spacecraft. 1.25 yrs later, by your clock, you are 1 ly from Earth and the trailing craft is next to Earth. The time on earth is just 0.75 years later than when you passed it. (An Earth observer would also agree that the trailing craft passed the Earth 0.75 years after you passed. At that moment, you transmit an instantaneous message to the trailing craft, and that craft hands it off to the Earth as it passes. The Earth, in turn, send this message to a buoy floating in space which is 0.6 ly away and long your path. Because, in 0.75 yrs at 0.8 c, that is how far you have traveled from the Earth. So you will be right next to that buoy. Your clock will read 0.45 yrs past what it read when you passed Earth. You will also agree that you passed the buoy when you clock reads 0.45 yrs, As the 0.6 ly distance ( as measured by the Earth) is 0.36 ly as measured by you, and it take 0.45 yrs to travel that distance at 0.8 c. The buoy hands the message off to you as you pass it. Thus a message you sent 1.25 yrs after leaving Earth is received by you 0.8 yrs before you sent it!

When you arrive at point C, you will see the same light coming from both stars as someone who never moved from point C; Light that left both stars 5 yrs ago. You see both stars as they were 5 yrs ago.

1-v^2/c^2 is not the same as (1-v^2)/c^2 So for example, again using v= 0.6c 1- (0.6c)^2/c^2 = 1- 0.6^2 = 0.64 but (1-(0.6c)^2)/c^2 = 1/c^2- 0.6^2 = 1/c^2 - 0.36 1-v^2/c^2 = (1-v^2)/c^2 is like saying (1-1/2) = (1-1)/2 but solving the left side gives 0.5 and solving the right side gives 0

To start off. 1 / Gamma = √ 1 - v^2 c^2/ c^2 = c / Gamma = √ 1 - v^2 +v^2 You have to multiply all the factors under the radical by c^2 if you want to move c to the other side of the equation This leaves c/Gamma =√ (c^2 - v^2) And since c^2 ≠ 1+v^2 you can't get to where you got. And at the end, your answer is not a multiple of c, so that right there should have been a tip-off that you did something wrong along the way. To solve for v from 1 / Gamma = √ 1 - v^2/c^2 You first square both sides: 1/Gamma^2 = 1- v^2/c^2 (you square both the 1 and gamma, but since 1^2 = 1...) v^2/c^2 = 1-1/gamma^2 v^2 = c^2(1-1/gamma^2) take the square root of both sides: v= c√(1-1/gamma^2) Thus if v = 0.6c Then Gamma = 1/√(1- 0.6c^2/c^2) = 1.25 and v = c√(1-1/1.25^2) = 0.6c

TIL that a skilled scam-baiter can waste 36 hrs of a scam call center's time in an attempt to scam one person. I recently have been watching some you-tubes edited from the Twitch live-stream of a scam-baiter. They can be entertaining, while giving you a look into just how many these scams work. (he has done tech support, fake refund, IRS, social security, and immigration scams) One of the best was when he faked going to Best Buy to buy gift cards for the scammer, only to have his Uber driver drive off with them. ( this one required sound effects and a friend playing the part of the driver.) Generally, he can't waste their time for more than an hour or two at most before the scammer either gives up or the scam-baiter just reveals himself. In this case, in an attempt to scam someone, who they thought was an 87 yr old woman, this call center, over many, many phone calls spread out over weeks, spent 36 hrs on the phone with their intended victim. The edited you-tubes of this was broken up into 10 episode of ~ 3/4 - 1 hr long each, and I just watched the last one. It was interesting to see how the baiter kept them on the hook, always teasing with a big score that never came, and how more and more desperate the scammers got.* *And in this case, it lead them to revealing just a bit too much info, which the scam-baiter turned over to authorities.

That "Narrow band" is a lot wider than it looks to the naked eye. You are only seeing that part that is bright enough. As an example, consider the Andromeda galaxy. To the naked eye it looks like a small fuzzy spot, but if you could see it in full, it would appear like this in the sky. Several times wider than a full Moon. What we see by naked eye is just the nucleus of the galaxy. But just because we don't see the disk by naked eye doesn't mean that it doesn't hide the light from galaxies behind it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_of_Avoidance