imatfaal

Sorry Guys are you all forgetting all the green stuff on our planet. That green stuff takes energy in the form of radiation and uses it to make complex molecules out of a selection of less complex molecules. It is long wavelength - ie very cold - radiation that we cannot do much with; although Blackholes will be converting it to mass (or whatever is inside a blackhole) for many many times the current lifetime of the universe yet to come

Difficult to say really. Volume is a quantity which is normally measured in the rest frame - but in the rest frame the mass-energy is equal to the rest mass; in the moving frame viewed from a relative frame what is the volume? To make a black hole the entire mass must be inside the schwarzchild radius. [latex]r_{schwarzchild}=\frac{2GM}{c^2}[/latex] That would give a proton size black hole a mass in the order of 10^11 kg. So a speed that would be many many orders of magnitude faster than LHC BUT ALL THAT IS IMMATERIAL - a blackhole mass must be measured in its rest frame; ie the rest mass

Not a huge number of moving parts generating their own heat through friction, nor engines operating inefficiently, and the rest of the telescope (ie everything that may generate heat) is cooled to much lower by active systems so no bleed through from the rest. Any machinery on moon would be generating heat and that can only be radiated away or actively cooled by refrigerants

You cannot use special relativity for an inertial frame which is travelling at light speed - the physics doesn't work and you get a nonsense answer. Nothing with a mass is able to travel at the speed of light - so we cannot really envisage the "perspective" or "time flow" for something (massless) which does travel at c

You need high rest mass for a singularity and event horizon to form. Just realised that is not what you are asking. start again. The superfast objects we actually know of are things like neutrinos (within a few billionths of the speed of light) - but these thing are insanely small too. As a massive over estimate the maximum rest mass of a neutrino is an electronVolt. 1 eV boosted up to 0.999,999,997c would give a total mass-energy of about 13keV - which is still pretty tiny The protons in the LHC have a much higher mass-energy - they are travelling with a speed of the same magnitude but are about a billion times heavier; they have a mass-energy of around 10^-23 kg (from memory this should be around 4TeV so I think I am a little high). Which is huge for a proton but still tiny. Just gonna work out what the lead ions pack - a little less than a 100 times more (about 300TeV).

I am also pretty sure that the Global Consciousness Project is yet to identify a real data point. Mother Theresa's funeral, 9/11 etc all provided blips - but with no good correlation and no differentiation between blips when nothing happened. All a load of crackpottery at present til they pony up some significant data

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/103611-speed-of-light-and-action-at-a-distance-question/#entry974748

This is a mechanics thought experiment - air resistance,terminal velocity, friction etc do not come into the calcs. This cartoon perfectly sums up physicists' ideas of experiments

Just in case this is a confusion not a typo KE = 1/2 m v^2 Not KE = 1/2 m sqrt(v)

! Moderator Note OK - I have had enough of this. This is the Suggestions, Comments and Support Forum - not the Back and Forth with Juvenile Insults Forum. Everyone - either concentrate on the OP or do not bother posting. Might be best if this thread is left to rot in peace unless substantive and useful comments can be made.

! Moderator Note Hijack by quickquestion asking what energy is - and trying to understand equations for KE and PE moved to its own thread. Please stop hijacking stuff. here is new topic http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/105090-what-is-energy-split-fro-can-energy-move-faster-than-light/

! Moderator Note Hijack by quickquestion hidden. Members must not introduce their own speculative ideas into mainstream questions. Do not respond to this moderation within the thread.

! Moderator Note OK thread locked. I don't want the Philosophy forum to become a repository of poorly evidenced guesswork and nonsense - this topic if evidenced might fit into psychology; but without a factual base it belongs no where. I asked for evidence and the response was more assertion and the mention of a comic fictional character - not good enough. This forum is for philosophy not wild-assed guessery.

! Moderator Note quickquestion Some evidence required other than your own opinion is required. Even though this is Philosophy that does not mean we allow bald assertions of a claimed fact (or facts). If no form of evidence (we are expecting articles, studies etc.) is forthcoming the thread will be locked - not because we are disturbed talking about sex but because this is a science forum and an empirical base is essential to a discussion like this.

Similar triangles looks ok from first glance Not going to bother looking through that dreadful proof page - just grok the distances. CF is NOT 1.866 times longer than CE. You cannot uniquely (or even partially) determine triangles with just one angle. All you know is that angle ECF is 30 degrees - until you can bring some other constraints into your calculations you cannot determine a ratio of side lengths. Draw a DECENT diagram - with measured angles and lengths and this would be obvious. Better still spend time at Khan Academy and learn basic maths and geometry before trying to solve one of old problems in subject

Funny that ... I had a different, though equally valid, revelation on the infinite on a training ride this afternoon; "if I am honest - how much training is enough"

You ask that on a science forum? This is a community; act in an anti-social way and we will kick you out. We are social agents; man is a political animal and the polis is the city, the civilization, the state of being part of a community. Yes - Facebook is large; but how many (real) people of the untold millions (actually) read the posts of Joseph A Bloggs? It's about 26 on average if memory serves; far more people here read your posts. On some internet fora - the really busy ones - average post read is well into the hundreds. Facebook cannot be a community because it is near universal - smaller forums can be a community because there is a unity of purpose or interest

Cos those abroad don't have customs or aren't human?? The argument is more complex than that - to set up a presence on the net which is not constrained by rules is not trivial, but one which is constrained to a very small degree is a piece of cake. To join such a community is easy as pie. No it is like saying "make your own films" - and I think you will find an amazingly high proportion of creative beginnings are cued by someone thinking or saying "Damn - I can do better than that!" and then someone (often themselves) replying "Go On Then!" and they do. Either work within constraints which others have set in their own domains - or branch out and experiment with your own personal ideas. But coming into someone's house/domain/website/etc and immediately moaning that the rules are wrong, that one is being oppressed, that the system is biased, or any of a host of other moans is just anti-social.

Inertia reel on the wire he is pulling so that once the distance is crossed he is pulled to a stop steadily by the wire

Similar threads merged

Even being generous and ignoring the rubbish (remainder when divided by pi?) then this line is demonstrably wrong This would only be the case if triangle CEF were a right angled triangle. It cannot be a right angled triangle as CE is an irrational number (whole number minus Pi) and BC is a whole number; half a whole number cannot be an irrational This too.. Those triangles would only be similar if lines CE and CF were coincident. They are not by definition. This ruins your ratios. And even though it would be a huge abuse of power - and would be immediately reversed by the other moderators - I will be tempted to suspend you with extreme prejudice if you EVER EVER say that 1 radian equals 60 degrees again. This is just arrant nonsense. 60 degrees is one sixth of a circle - 1 radian is one (two*pi)th of a circle; surely you understand that this is not the same?

As I have explained above - if you wish the first person to receive Jacks, 2nd Queen 3rd Kings 4th Aces then you need to either reverse the cut (which cutting exactly in half is just one potential way), or even merely make sure that you always cut to an ace. However the OP has confirmed that he merely wanted everyone to receive four of the same card (no matter who got what set) so in that case any two cuts will do. No trick/sleight of hand is necessary

yes - as Raider said. The reverse cut means the first person gets Jacks etc.; but now I am not sure you actually specified that. if you do not require the first person dealt to gets jacks it works with random cuts: If you just cut (at random) you do this jqkajqkaj//qkajqka => qkajqkajqkajqkaj qkajqk//ajqkajqkaj => ajqkajqkajqkajqk Notice that whatever you do the first,fifth, ninth, thirteenth cards are the same! You have 16 cards in an order; the sequence would be continued by looping back to the beginning - ie the next card after the 4th ace would need to be a jack. So whenever you cut you do two things: 1. You add the first half of the pack to follow on from the back half - and you already know that the sequence will continue 2. The cut automatically creates a new situation where the follow on card in the sequence to the last card would be the first card

Why do you spend all this time asking questions just to partly ignore the answers? You do it in thread after thread; ask a question, pick part of the answer and ask a follow-up/alternative questions which makes it quite clear you have not invested the time in actually engaging with the perfect answer already given. Times, distances, and speeds do not behave in a way that we naive bald apes find natural when relative speeds get to a noticeable proportion of c. We have an entire ancestry who learned how to "get" speed, distance and time in an instinctive manner - and that instinct lets us down when the speeds get high. You cannot add velocity, length is not absolute, time is not absolute, simultaneity is a local construction - it is odd. Please please please - re-read the answers. You cannot just "get" this - it requires study, hard work, and falling back to experimental data (invariance of the speed of light) to understand