Strange

That suggests you should (must) be able to uniquely determine whether every single statement is either true or false. If not, how do you know it is binary. What about things that are unknown? Or unknowable? Or partially true? Or provisionally true? Or conditionally true? If you look at Snopes and other fact-checking sites they don't have a binary distinction because they know reality is more nuanced than that. What about facts that are relative. Is it "true" that the Sun is stationary and we orbit around it? Or is it true that the Sun orbits the galaxy and we follow a complex path around that? All motion is relative so can you say that it is true that A is stationary and B is moving? Can you say it is true that two events happened at the same time when, from another frame of reference one could have happened before the other or vice versa?

If you click on the dot or star before the title of the thread, it takes you to the first unread post in the thread. Alternatively, you can click on the timestamp under the title and summary (e.e. "23 minutes ago") and that will take you to the last post.

Or is it ...

B'dum Tish

I don't think there is any such thing. But if there is, why should it be your god? Why not another one?

Everyone has been trying to explain that you cannot travel at or faster than the speed of light.

No. Obviously not. But you grabbing a few buzzwords from unrelated work and sticking them together without any understanding ...

Not one step in that (very sensible plan) corresponds to how Trump rolls. I would be willing to put money on that as a possible outcome.

As far as I know, it only exists in spy fiction.

In other words ... WAG

And I have seen a video of someone being sawn in half. I don't know how he did it, but there is an obvious edit every time his hand appears in the video after he has put the mercury in the bowl.

It is relative to the observer that you are moving at close to the speed of light. It is the same observer who sees you mass increasing (and your acceleration decreasing). Let's assume you accelerate at a more comfortable 1 g (9.8 m/s2) so you get artificial Earth-like gravity. Then it would take you just under 1 year to reach the speed of light, if you apply traditional kinematics (v = at). However, in relativity, it doesn't quite work like that. From the observer on Earth your rate of acceleration will gradually decrease and you will get closer and closer to the speed of light but never actually reach it (you will approach it asymptotically). You can analyse this in terms of your relativistic mass increasing so that, according to F=ma, the constant force produces a decreasing acceleration. Or you can say it is because of the increasing time dilation as seen from Earth. Either way, you can't reach the speed of light. It wouldn't be moving at the speed of light, because nothing can travel at the speed of light.

No it isn’t. But I will write more when I get home...

No one says that, because it is impossible to travel at the speed of light :)

The problem is that you appeared to equate gravitational force (or acceleration) with potential. Time dilation depends on the latter not the former.

I didn't realise we were talking about me. I thought it was about "people in general".

It looks a bit like a total solar eclipse - except the highlight should be right on the edge, rather than inside it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baily's_beads I suppose it could look a bit like gravitational lensing of a star behind a black hole but I don't think it is very accurate (you can probably find ray-traced images online for comparison).

Exactly. So the interpretation makes no measurable (scientific) difference. They all describe the same thing. The mathematics, predictions and results are the same in all cases. Some people find one preferable (simpler), others prefer another. I have seen people using Occam's razor to say the Many World's interpretation must be right, and others using it to say it must be wrong. <shrug> Choosing your favourite interpretation is not science.

Janus's post explains why your response was wrong ...

So are there different sorts of truth that can be more or less true?

Entropy is not conserved so I ... uhm ...

I don't think it is as simple as that. What about something that can never be known? Or that can never be proven to be true or false? What if I think hip-hop is the greatest form of music ever invented and you think it is opera? Is one of these statements true and one false? Is one of us right and one of us wrong? (I tried to google for some good examples, but all I found were religious websites saying, "truth is not relative because God".) Suffice it to say that philosophers have been debating (and disagreeing about) the nature of truth for millennia and have never agreed on the truth of the matter.

This isn't the one I was thinking of, but it includes an alternative description of what the math says: https://www.space.com/34281-do-black-holes-die.html (The math is about separating the positive and negative energy components of the vacuum as seen locally versus an observer at infinity. Although the virtual particle analogy is Hawking's own, a lot of people don't think it is a very accurate description of what the math says.) Here is a more detailed discussion of this: http://backreaction.blogspot.it/2015/12/hawking-radiation-is-not-produced-at.html

And apparently this is where nearly all of their money comes from. So people boycotting them will have a very limited effect (apart from the publicity). Maybe they should agree to limit the types of weapons that can be owned but say that they can only be kept for a year and then you have to buy a new one.

Abercrombie is an American manufacturer of casual wear.