Sayonara

Presumably he is alluding to some piece of literature.

The definition of anticipation refers to events in the future, so the word itself can't be used to define the word "future". Stop acting like an idiot and just say "yes, I should have chosen my words more carefully. My mistake." Seems to be your speciality. No, since I have no intention of addressing your original post at this time, irrespective of the fact that I will post whatever objections I see fit as and when you say something which is patently false.

You can't use "anticipated" in the definition of future, because its own definition is dependent on the concept already being available.

There is a similar concept which is that of a photon sail craft propelled by a laser beam. You might find that interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_sail

Is the IRC award the only one where staff are eligible, or are there others? I forget and I cba to find the thread explaining it all.

Then your dictionary does not account for the specialised vocabulary which is employed by sites such as this. That is not so much of a surprise, seeing as the web changes faster than dictionaries can be revised. This is an Appeal to Authority. Please avoid arguing by means of logical fallacies. Immaterial, and could be interpreted as flaming. Since you enjoy sharing reading recommendations, perhaps you will take your own advice and peruse our rules and etiquette guide.

Can I put "I enjoy Your Dad on a regular basis" without prejudicing the poll?

Trolling with a loaded question, after a thread like this one? Pantomime ended.

A pre-nup doesn't stop you from providing for your wife, while she is your wife.

Not doing it, because then you can claim that you would do it, if only you thought your audience were good enough for you to condescend to writing it down for them. As opposed to revealing your mental state by committing it to type from the word go.

No, I don't think so. Zarkov didn't even attempt maths, so he is clearly in the lead.

Has anyone else forgotten what we are trying to demonstrate?

You both seem to be going in different directions. I understand the problem we are discussing and I still found it confusing.

I have already clearly shown that the ball can simultaneously have two different velocities, which are both correct answers. The posts from about #104 onwards are making this problem less than clear.

Relative to what? The carriage, or the tracks?

Since Motor Daddy is considering the velocity of 20m/s, and not 0m/s, the implication is that the frame being considered is that of the tracks, and not the carriage. MD, if you state which frame/s you are considering as you go, it makes things easier to keep straight in your head. Is the implied frame the one you want to work with?

If it stays in his hand for the duration, then yes (let's ignore any motion of his hand relative to his body, because that would be uber-pedantry). That is, it has a velocity of 20m/s relative to the tracks. It has a velocity of about 0m/s relative to the man or the carriage. You can see that already, in this simple scenario, we have the same measurement yielding two different but equally correct answers. That reveals a core requirement of relative motion: be explicit in what you are describing.

YT, I suggest we stick to "relative to the tracks", since an outside observer could, for all we know, be flying overhead in a fighter jet. A person seated on a train which travels 200m in 10 seconds has a velocity of 20m/s relative to the tracks.

Assuming zero acceleration, 1 second.

Presumably, it is given relative to the rails.

If they are using Google Adwords, then it costs Scientology real money every time someone clicks their banner. Hint.

There is an ongoing issue in VBulletin in which postcounts can vary in different bits of the site. It's because some bits are produced dynamically, and others produced occasionally then saved as a "chunk". Usually it is resolved through normal page rebuilding, but occasionally an admin needs to re-synch all the stats, rebuild the indexes, and purge the flux capacitors. This is the first time I have heard of that particular symptom though. We shall name it "iNow's Phantom Pagination Syndrome", or IPPS for short.

Read around the links that have been posted. I am sure they explain it more concisely and effectively than I will; I will probably just make you more confused.

No, I am saying that when you repeat your proposals and the objections you receive are also repeated, that is your first clue that something is wrong. Your second clue is that all the people objecting to your proposals are in agreement. The most elegant solution to this problem is that your proposals need work, and the most reasonable place to look to decide what work they need is in the replies you have collected. You look like you might be inventing your own mischief here. Consider that your measurement has a duration of its own (for example, the period between a stopwatch being started and stopped). Such durations are themselves subject to frame differences. This is quite true. However, the definition of a second is a period based on arbitrarily selected events. If the measured view of those events changes, the period which defines a second changes with it within the same frame. The definition does not need to change. The practical result of this is that 102 seconds measured in one frame might be measured as 906,508 seconds in another frame, despite the definition of "second" being unchanged. This is can be a very troublesome concept if you are new to relativity, but rest assured that it has been one of the most rigorously and extensively tested observations in physics. It is not contingent on distance, but on relative velocities. Since we are in different places on the surface of the earth, we will have different velocities, and there will be a time dilation effect between your frame of reference and mine. However, due to the low velocity differences, it will be so infinitesimally small as to be - for all practical purposes - unrecordable. "Second" is an arbitrarily defined unit of time's passage. Rather than thinking of a second not being a second, think of time stretching or compressing in different viewpoints. If you superimpose start and end points for a "second" on that mental image, they will move as the time stretches or compresses, maintaining the internal consistency of that "second".

No. You are supposed to take on board what they say and adapt your thinking accordingly. The problem you are having is that your scenario in post 1 inherently involves different reference frames, and not one universal frame. Depends on the frames that are involved. You have to utilise relativistic methods to work out the differences.