ydoaPs

Oh. I thought you meant threads like this

When you get deeper into physics, you'll learn about dimensional analysis. If we have an equation, the type of units have to match on each side. We can't have pounds equal to feet. Those sort of equations make no sense. So, we have to make sure things which are equal have the same type of units. 4 feet may equal 48 inches, but to say that it equals 18 pounds is wrong to the point of not meaning anything. Now, you said time has is 80000 mps. But we measure time in seconds and minutes. Where does the length in the units come from? That speed is very special, but it's not the speed of time. It is the speed of light and nothing with mass can travel at that speed and nothing can travel faster. Light, however, always travels at that speed for everyone. This has consequences for time and space itself. When we allow the speed of light to be the ultimate speed limit, let the speed of light be the same for everyone, and and keep in mind that all inertial frames of reference give equally valid answers, we find something amazing. The magnitude of length and duration both depend on how fast you're going relative to someone else. AND since the same is true of them, we get really cool situations like the twin paradox. In the twin paradox, we have two observers moving very quickly relative to each other. They each see the other as being thinner and having slower clocks. And they're both right.

Has it really been that long? Wow. I feel old now.

Doctor Who haiku! The best kind of haiku, yay! The bow tie is cool.

Indeed. Adding velocities works a bit different when the relative velocities are high; You can't "break the lightspeed barrier".

IIRC, the "jerk" bit came from the motion used to make the drinks.

It's a descriptive generalized abstraction of how the universe appears to behave created by philosophers. It, like all areas of philosophy, has changed since its creation. In this case, it's been generalized even more. It's all about the axioms. Adding or removing axioms is how we get different types of maths (what happens if we let parallel lines cross?). We can create various types of maths that have absolutely no relation to the universe at all. If your beef with philosophy is that it's not necessarily empirical, then doesn't that apply equally well to mathematics?

Transcendental ideas are useful, but not scientific. You can't observe cause and effect (for example) because it transcends each individual event which would be observed. The very tools science uses were given to us by philosophy: falsification, logic, mathematics, etc. Science itself is a branch of philosophy (once called "natural philosophy"), but it got all uppity decided that it was special. Contrary to what many people think (including certain posters here), good philosophy is empirical. Think about the structure of logical arguments: 1)Premise 2)Premise 2 3)Premise 3 4)Logical manipulation of premises 5)Conclusion In a valid argument, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. But, what about the premises? They're either observed, derived from other premises, or assumed. Assuming premises is generally bad (except for things like conditional proofs and indirect proofs). Modern philosophy and science (whether the philosophers and scientists want to admit it) are intimately intertwined.

This whole thread is a bit queer.

Let's look at the function y=1/x http://www3.wolframalpha.com/Calculate/MSP/MSP55191a0f629779g6514100005e7ifci0ai4dc90f?MSPStoreType=image/gif&s=23&w=299&h=121&cdf=RangeControl

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6R86SXL1pI

Another hoax?

How have bacteria gained the ability to metabolize nylon byproducts (chemicals that didn't exist until recently)?

Which is why you'll have to add energy with any design.

How do you plan to completely remove friction? Any friction will eventually make it stop. And, as Klaynos said, even reducing friction with magnets (which doesn't remove friction) requires energy input. Then if you want to actually do anything with it, you'll need to add even more energy.

They don't get rid of the friction. They just make it smaller. There will always be friction in any design.

You can't get rid of it. You will have to add energy to keep it from stopping.....in any design. It's a physics problem; not an engineering one.

Did it take friction into account?

Indeed. Notice how neither of the videos were of actual objects, but rather computer simulations.

Happy half-tau day, folks!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vY_Ry8J_jdw

We can take a look at the function as x gets bigger and bigger (taking the limit as x approaches infinity [which is just a fancy way of saying it increases without bound]). We can't, however, plug in the biggest number possible, because there is no such number.