Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
3/20/2017 5:03:23 PM
Posted: 6/12/2002 10:31:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/12/2002 11:20:03 PM EDT by StormSurge]
Here we go, from "The Starflight Handbook" by Eugene Mallove and Gregory Matloff. This table shows you just how fast you have to go for relativity to be really felt...as you can see, even at 50% lightspeed the factor is only 15%! But, at 99% it is 7 times and at 9999% it is 70 times! G= gamma (relativity factor; more mass, slower time, etc.) Vc= velocity change (relative to observer)/ lightspeed Vc_______ G 0.0001___ 1.0000000 0.001____ 1.0000005 0.01_____ 1.000050 0.1______ 1.005038 0.2______ 1.020621 0.3______ 1.048285 0.4______ 1.091089 0.5______ 1.154701 0.6______ 1.250000 0.7______ 1.400280 0.8______ 1.666667 0.9______ 2.294157 0.99_____ 7.088812 0.999____ 22.366272 0.9999___ 70.712446
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 11:09:46 PM EDT
Absofuckinlutly UnbelibBbBable.
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 11:15:20 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 1GUNRUNNER: Absofuckinlutly UnbelibBbBable.
View Quote
Thanks! Now hand me a paper towel so I can clean the coke off my monitor! [:)]
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 11:16:44 PM EDT
At .9999 light the average person would mass over six tons! I think that works out to two Oprah Winfrys!
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 11:24:15 PM EDT
I must be stupid, I don't buy this stuff at all. Why the hell would you have more mass because you're moving at a certain speed? How the hell do we have the computations to compute this mass change when we have not even remotely come close to these speeds. It's all based off theory, adn I just don't buy it I guess... But I'm not Einstein or Wheelchair-Boy either.
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 11:25:39 PM EDT
This is more useful. [url]http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/timedial.html[/url]
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 11:27:27 PM EDT
AR15fan, relativity has been PROVEN! Two identical clocks were built; one went with the Apollo astronauts and one stayed on Earth...the Apollo clock was effected by relativity resulting from the seven mile per second delta vee and was slower on return than the earth clock...
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 11:34:55 PM EDT
Originally Posted By AR-15Fan: ...or Wheelchair-Boy either.
View Quote
Stephen Hawking? Read his book [b]A Brief History of Time[/b], It'll at least make partial sense of the theory of relativity. The man's a fricking genius, and deserves a little better than 'wheelchair-boy'.
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 11:37:01 PM EDT
Originally Posted By StormSurge: AR15fan, relativity has been PROVEN! Two identical clocks were built; one went with the Apollo astronauts and one stayed on Earth...the Apollo clock was effected by relativity resulting from the seven mile per second delta vee and was slower on return than the earth clock...
View Quote
Ya right! And next you're gonna tell me we put a man on the moon. 100% Pure Unadulterated Grade A Bullshit.
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 11:40:15 PM EDT
At the velocities people currently travel the effect of time dilation is small, but measurable with accurate instruments. Since time dilation affects the rate at which time passes, the total discrepancy between stationary and moving clocks increases throughout the voyage. Several Russian cosmonauts have spent a year or more in Earth orbit on the space station Mir. Their orbital velocity, about 7700 metres per second, is only 0.0000257 times the speed of light, yielding a time dilation factor of 1.00000000033; each second on board Mir, 1.00000000033 seconds pass on Earth. For every second you age on Earth, the cosmonaut in orbit ages 3 nanoseconds less. This doesn't seem like much, but it adds up; after a year the cosmonaut's watch will be 3.8 seconds behind your earthbound timepiece. You don't even have to go into orbit to measure time dilation. Modern-day atomic clocks are so accurate that when synchronising clocks between different observatories, the effect of time dilation due to transporting the reference clock on an airline flight must be taken into account.
View Quote
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 6:04:08 AM EDT
Thanks fo the corroberation, ArmdLbl! And for the chart...
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 6:10:42 AM EDT
Stephen Hawking? Read his book A Brief History of Time, It'll at least make partial sense of the theory of relativity. The man's a fricking genius, and deserves a little better than 'wheelchair-boy'.
View Quote
I don't know that this is true. But I have only read a couple of his works and they are over 14 years old.... Those were good... It is sad what happened to him...
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 6:17:19 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/13/2002 6:48:31 AM EDT by Benjamin0001]
Stephen Hawking? Read his book A Brief History of Time, It'll at least make partial sense of the theory of relativity. The man's a fricking genius, and deserves a little better than 'wheelchair-boy'.
View Quote
I don't know that this is true. But I have only read a couple of his works and they are over 14 years old.... Those were good... It is sad what happened to him... The only problem with a Brief History of Time, Cosmos and other books are they end up usually butchering the science to make it understandable. In other words, the presentation always either obscures or obiliterates certain aspects of the theories being discussed. My case in point: Newton's First Law(LAYMANS): An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion: Newtons First Law(Newtonian Mechanics Text):Every object continues in its state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line unless a net external force acts on it to change that state. See the difference the laymans definition does not even include the uses of Time (Continues) (or Force). So the unitiated would probably never find the first definition very useful. The reader of the Laymans text does not even begin to realize that these laws set up the framework for inertial systems and the rules governing their formulation,presentation and treatment. Most laymans texts don't delve into the other Mechanical systems, such as Hamiltonian or Lagrangian Dynamics, which are different in that Newtonian Mechanics is used when initial conditions and forces are known and Hamiltonian and Lagrangian Systems are used with the initial conditions and/ or forces are not known. But I guess you have to start somewhere. Sorry about the rant.... It is one of my pet peaves I once sat in class when my professor and another professor got into an argument right there in front of the class about whether or not the students in this particular school even needed pure mathematics in this particular case Calculus w/ proof, Or Calculus with graphing calculators and no proof. Well the latter got chosen and I felt cheated... I have since gone out of my way to create a very very deep library on Physics and Mathematics. This is the only thing about Oklahoma that is truly wrong..... The schools here are so damn backwards, I mean they work for Oklahoma because oklahoma doesn't really have any Technological base at all, but they can never really be expected to have one if they kill the students chances (although they will pretty much be ignorant about it) from the get go. In the East and California most Engineering and Hard Science schools have semi conductor labs, and are equipted for Advanced research, Oklahoma schools tend to be about half prepared at any one time. This may not be totally fair assessment but when I was attending it was a fair assessment. Rant over Ben EDITED TO ADD: If you want to see a problem that is a TRUE PROBLEM ON THE SCALE OF NATIONAL SECURITY Look at the schools. They are turning out graduates who are far inferior in Mathematics and Hard Sciences to almost all other nations... While the teachers are properly socialising all our children the nations of Germany and Japan and other Northern European nations, Russia are teaching Core classes and not worrying about whether the child got his/her daily dose of Religious Tolerance and Multi-Culturlism. Now the rant is over.
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 6:46:50 AM EDT
Originally Posted By AR-15Fan: I must be stupid, I don't buy this stuff at all. Why the hell would you have more mass because you're moving at a certain speed? How the hell do we have the computations to compute this mass change when we have not even remotely come close to these speeds. It's all based off theory, adn I just don't buy it I guess... But I'm not Einstein or Wheelchair-Boy either.
View Quote
No, it's not just based off theory. It's based on MANY experiments. We come close to light speed all the time with subatomic particles in particle accelerators. It takes much more energy to accelerate a proton from 0.9 to 0.99 times the speed of light than it does to go from 0 to 0.9 times the speed of light. That's what people mean when they say the "mass" of the object changes. They mean that it's resistance to changes in its momentum increases, i.e., it takes increasingly more energy to speed it up, not that it gains additional physical substance.
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 6:51:32 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Benjamin0001: Sorry about the rant.... It is one of my pet peaves I once sat in class when my professor and another professor got into an argument right there in front of the class about whether or not the students in this particular school even needed pure mathematics in this particular case Calculus w/ proof, Or Calculus with graphing calculators and no proof. Well the latter got chosen and I felt cheated... I have since gone out of my way to create a very very deep library on Physics and Mathematics. This is the only thing about Oklahoma that is truly wrong..... The schools here are so damn backwards, I mean they work for Oklahoma because oklahoma doesn't really have any Technological base at all, but they can never really be expected to have one if they kill the students chances (although they will pretty much be ignorant about it) from the get go. In the East and California most Engineering and Hard Science schools have semi conductor labs, and are equipted for Advanced research, Oklahoma schools tend to be about half prepared at any one time. This may not be totally fair assessment but when I was attending it was a fair assessment.
View Quote
That's interesting. To which school do you refer? I studied physics at the University of Oklahoma and came away with a fine education. I went to work out of college in Silicon Valley and my training was certainly on par with the students coming out of Berkeley and Stanford. It's true I didn't have all the fancy semiconductor labs they did, but I got the fundamentals very well, and from that I was able to learn all the lab stuff very quickly. I feel like I got a world class education in physics at OU.
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 6:54:34 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/13/2002 7:33:08 AM EDT by Benjamin0001]
Its called Relativistic Mass : R(M)= M(rest) _________ SQR[1-V^2/C^2] Relativistic Mass is the Rest Mass over the square root of 1 minus the velocity squared over c (the speed of light) squared. This is from memory so it may not be quit accurate. Any ways as velocity approaches (c) you should end up with smaller and smaller quantities in your denominator which in turn will give you higher and higher relativistic mass when divided into the rest mass. There is a vertical Asymptote at (c) in the domain with the result never being able to reach c. The short and skinny is this. As your velocity increases; mass also increases until close to c you have a situation where even a slight increase in velocity results in an absolutely huge increase in Mass which will require an even larger increase in force to overcome the added mass. Hence C is the speed limit. Ben
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 6:56:27 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/13/2002 6:59:15 AM EDT by Benjamin0001]
That's interesting. To which school do you refer? I studied physics at the University of Oklahoma and came away with a fine education. I went to work out of college in Silicon Valley and my training was certainly on par with the students coming out of Berkeley and Stanford. It's true I didn't have all the fancy semiconductor labs they did, but I got the fundamentals very well, and from that I was able to learn all the lab stuff very quickly. I feel like I got a world class education in physics at OU.
View Quote
Sorry Boston, I was talking about us, so called, stupid children in the college level, not the university level.
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 6:58:54 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 7:01:01 AM EDT
Well, okay, that I wouldn't know about. I must admit I was impressed with the engineering grads coming out of smaller schools in California like San Jose State and Santa Clara University and the resources they had available at that level.
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 7:03:50 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/13/2002 7:11:04 AM EDT by Benjamin0001]
When I was in school the physics lab was just a bunch of tables with crude experiments set up with each (it fit what they were teaching) truly, they had a far better chemistry lab which they were able to do upper level Organic stuff. I am sure that is has gotten better since.... I was just recalling my mindset at the time... over 10 years ago... EDITED TO ADD: The only reason I was even able to draw the comparison was by looking at a MIT Course schedule. SemiConductor Manufacturing, Advanced RF design, etc,etc.... I just got depressed when I saw how much we were not going to be tought. Anyways my now huge library owes its existence to the fact that I didn't want to be hamstrung by the fact that I was attending a college.
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 7:23:44 AM EDT
Leave it to us at AR15.com to get into arguments over the theory of relativity.
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 7:39:17 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 7:48:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/13/2002 7:49:00 AM EDT by BostonTeaParty]
Originally Posted By Sweep: BTW, would all this mean that if we could get a .223 rd to travel the speed of light that it's mass would increase so much it would just disintegrate the target?
View Quote
Sure. But I'd like to see you get the round going that fast. If they build mile long particle accelerators just to get a single proton going close to the speed of light, imagine what you'd have to do to get a .223 round going that fast. After all, the round contains baaaillions and baaaillions of protons.
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 7:52:50 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Sweep:
Originally Posted By Paul: I know - I've watched Cosmos more times than I would like to admit.
View Quote
Baaaillions and baaaillions....[:D] BTW, would all this mean that if we could get a .223 rd to travel the speed of light that it's mass would increase so much it would just disintegrate the target?
View Quote
Yes, but we couldn't use gunpowder. According to a piece in American Rifleman, the absolute maximum velocity gunpowder can [i]theoretically[/i] attain, ignoring all friction and air resistance, is ~35,000 fps.
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 7:54:55 AM EDT
I heard that gunpowder burns at 5600 fps... Ben
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 8:00:19 AM EDT
Is it true that Einstein had a fear of relatives?
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 8:06:44 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 8:27:36 AM EDT
Thomas Godfrey, a self-taught mathematician, great in his way . . . knew little out of his way, and was not a pleasing companion; as, like most great mathematicians I have met with, he expected universal precision in everything said, or was forever denying or distinguishing upon trifles, to the disturbance of all conversation. -- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), Autobiography
View Quote
Gauss, when asked how soon he expected to reach certain mathematical conclusions, that he had them long ago, all he was worrying about was how to reach them! [Karl F. Gauss (1777-1855), German mathematician
View Quote
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 8:28:47 AM EDT
As scientists and concerned citizens, we applaud the recent trend towards legislation which requires the prominent placing of warnings on products that present hazards to the general public. Yet we must also offer the cautionary thought that such warnings, however well-intentioned, merely scratch the surface of what is really necessary in this important area. This is especially true in light of the findings of 20th century physics. We are therefore proposing that, as responsible scientists, we join together in an intensive push for new laws that will mandate the conspicuous placement of suitably informative warnings on the packaging of every product offered for sale in the United States of America. Our suggested list of warnings appears below. WARNING: This Product Warps Space and Time in Its Vicinity. WARNING: This Product Attracts Every Other Piece of Matter in the Universe, Including the Products of Other Manufacturers, with a Force Proportional to the Product of the Masses and Inversely Proportional to the Distance Between Them. CAUTION: The Mass of This Product Contains the Energy Equivalent of 85 Million Tons of TNT per Net Ounce of Weight. HANDLE WITH EXTREME CARE: This Product Contains Minute Electrically Charged Particles Moving at Velocities in Excess of Five Hundred Million Miles Per Hour. CONSUMER NOTICE: Because of the "Uncertainty Principle," It Is Impossible for the Consumer to Find Out at the Same Time Both Precisely Where This Product Is and How Fast It Is Moving. (Note: This one is optional on the grounds that Heisenburg was never quite sure that his principle was correct) ADVISORY: There is an Extremely Small but Nonzero Chance That, Through a Process Know as "Tunneling," This Product May Spontaneously Disappear from Its Present Location and Reappear at Any Random Place in the Universe, Including Your Neighbor's Domicile. The Manufacturer Will Not Be Responsible for Any Damages or Inconvenience That May Result. READ THIS BEFORE OPENING PACKAGE: According to Certain Suggested Versions of the Grand Unified Theory, the Primary Particles Constituting this Product May Decay to Nothingness Within the Next Four Hundred Million Years. THIS IS A 100% MATTER PRODUCT: In the Unlikely Event That This Merchandise Should Contact Antimatter in Any Form, a Catastrophic Explosion Will Result.
View Quote
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 8:29:19 AM EDT
CONT:
PUBLIC NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY LAW: Any Use of This Product, in Any Manner Whatsoever, Will Increase the Amount of Disorder in the Universe. Although No Liability Is Implied Herein, the Consumer Is Warned That This Process Will Ultimately Lead to the Heat Death of the Universe. NOTE: The Most Fundamental Particles in This Product Are Held Together by a "Gluing" Force About Which Little is Currently Known and Whose Adhesive Power Can Therefore Not Be Permanently Guaranteed. ATTENTION: Despite Any Other Listing of Product Contents Found Hereon, the Consumer is Advised That, in Actuality, This Product Consists Of 99.9999999999% Empty Space. NEW GRAND UNIFIED THEORY DISCLAIMER: The Manufacturer May Technically Be Entitled to Claim That This Product Is Ten-Dimensional. However, the Consumer Is Reminded That This Confers No Legal Rights Above and Beyond Those Applicable to Three-Dimensional Objects, Since the Seven New Dimensions Are "Rolled Up" into Such a Small "Area" That They Cannot Be Detected. PLEASE NOTE: Some Quantum Physics Theories Suggest That When the Consumer Is Not Directly Observing This Product, It May Cease to Exist or Will Exist Only in a Vague and Undetermined State. COMPONENT EQUIVALENCY NOTICE: The Subatomic Particles (Electrons, Protons, etc.) Comprising This Product Are Exactly the Same in Every Measurable Respect as Those Used in the Products of Other Manufacturers, and No Claim to the Contrary May Legitimately Be Expressed or Implied. HEALTH WARNING: Care Should Be Taken When Lifting This Product, Since Its Mass, and Thus Its Weight, Is Dependent on Its Velocity Relative to the User. IMPORTANT NOTICE TO PURCHASERS: The Entire Physical Universe, Including This Product, May One Day Collapse Back into an Infinitesimally Small Space. Should Another Universe Subsequently Re-emerge, the Existence of This Product in That Universe Cannot Be Guaranteed
View Quote
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 8:43:12 AM EDT
MORE JOKES.
1] A shotgun shooting 12 pellets of 00 Buckshot weighing 4g leave the barrel at 1125 fps. Assuming the average infant will absorb 127.3 f/lbs before disintegrating, how many babies will the average blast cut through (rounding off to the nearest whole number)? eight. 2] A 100 kg man is being swung by his entrails in a circle 16'in radius at the rate of 1600 radians/sec. Find the tension in the man's entrails (ignoring the effects of gravity). 65,024 Newtons. 3] A pagan priest attempts to vaporize a young virgin by placing her in a flaming pit. Assuming the woman, weighing 120 lbs, is completely composed of water, how much energy will he have to use to completely vaporize her? 130,000 BTU 4] An infant has a tensile strength of 400 psi and has a cross sectional area of 23.4 sq. inches. Assuming it is 23" long and has an elongation percentage of .0036%/120psi at roomtemperature, how long will the baby be before it is dismembered? about 26.45 inches. 5] A 12 year old blind orphan girl is shot from a cannon at the speed of 1200 fps at a solid brick wall. Calculate the force of impact given that the brick wall is 3 feet away from the barrel. if she weighs 50 lbs, and all of her sticks to the wall, 3.3 million Newtons. 6] A large plane weighing 12.7 M tons carrying 12 tons of nuns and orphans travelling at 724.46 kph and at an altitude of 40,000 meters suffers explosive decompression above the center of a 30km diameter population. Assuming that one passenger is sucked out every second, how many passengers will land within the population center? about (give or take a torso or leg) 12. 7] A 1000 lb car is moving at 130 mph and two poodles whose combined weight is 82 lbs are thrown out the back at 3 mph. Calculate the velocity of the car. 140.91 happy mph. 8] Farmer Brown is selling apples for 12 cents a dozen in a room where a torch has a brightness of 120 candela is 12 ft froma 14.36 sq meter surface.Assuming a light bulb 17.3 cubits fromthe surface has a brightness of 129 candlepower and gives offheat of 1.27 BTU and the room is 423 degrees Kelvin; assuming thethe pressure in the room is 1100 millibar; assuming the lightbulb is rotating at 4 pi radians per half minute, with the power source of the bulb a battery giving off energy at a rate of 12000000 terajoules per exasecond; assuming the coefficient offriction at the base of the rotating lightbulb is 1.679 E9;assuming the room is being launched at 50 times escape velocity;assuming it collides with the moon in a perfectly elastic collision, when the room returns to the earth 6 days 4 hours 20 minutes 35 seconds and 12 nanoseconds later, how much does Farmer Brown sell one apple for
View Quote
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 8:47:06 AM EDT
I had a professor who said that "physicists have a knack for jumping into mathematical cesspools and coming out smelling like a rose"
View Quote
Furgeson and the Unified Field Theory In the beginning there was Aristotle And objects at rest tended to remain at rest And objects in motion tended to come to rest And God saw that it was boring, although very restful. Then God created Newton And objects at rest tended to remain at rest And objects in motion tended to remain in motion And energy was conserved, and momentum was conserved, And matter was conserved And God saw that it was conservative. Then God created Einstein And everything was relative And fast things became short And straight things became curved And the universe was filled with inertial frames And God saw that it was relatively general but some of it was especially relative. Then God created Bohr And there was the principle And the principle was quantum And all things were quantified But some things were still relative And God saw that it was confusing. Then God was going to create Furgeson And Furgeson would have unified And he would have fielded a theory And all would have been one. But it was the seventh day And God rested And objects at rest tend to remain at rest.
View Quote
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 8:48:45 AM EDT
IN CASE YOU THOUGHT THAT WE KNEW EVERYTHING AND THE REST WAS JUST DETAILS 1. In the beginning there was nothing, then something went wrong.[Murphy's Law] 2. The empty set contains and is contained within all other sets.[Fibonacci's Rule] 3. Universe has no plural. 4. Space is nothing. 5. Time is an abstraction. 6. Energy is the opposite of mass. 7. Energy is not effected by gravity. 8. In order for two points to exist, a third point must exist between them. 9. Less than enough is not sufficient, more than enough is not necessary. 10.Enough is a finite quantity. 11.That which has been done is not impossible. 12.Pythagoras trisected an angle. 13.Mathematics is a set of languages providing different ways to describe reality. 14.Statistical norms are not real integers even when they are whole numbers. 15.A line representing a continuous function contains no discrete elements. 16.A "Field" is a continuous static structure extending to infinity. 17."Field Lines" are mathematical constructs having no existence. 18.Reality is what it is irrespective of description. 19.Ptolomy was believed because his math was correct and it worked. 20.The "Plane of the Elliptic" is perpendicular to and centered upon the Barycenter of the Solar System (or any other system). 21.All orbits are planes of ecliptic. 22.The eccentricity of an orbit is proportional to the deviation from the perpendicular to the path of the center of mass. [Kepler's 4th Law] 23.The Earth does not revolve around the Sun, the Sun and the Earth revolve around the center of mass. 24.There is no error in the orbit of Mercury. 25.A measured value is the sum of its contributing elements. 26.The specific computed values of the elements do not change the measured sum. 27.The measured gravity of the Sun was the same after Einstein as before. 28.The bending of light observed near a star is thermal reflection, a mirage. 29.Velocity is measured at two different times, not on two different objects. 30.A zero based measurement is required to know the value of measured variables. 31.The "Aberration of Light" is the same in a column of water as it is in a column of air. 32. The velocity of light is constant in all media. 33. The aberration of light is a measure of the Earth's absolute velocity. 34. Light is a spherical wave containing no particles. 35. The outside of a wave has more degrees of freedom than the middle, the inside has fewer. 36. As a wave expands outward from its' source, it expands outward from its' middle, a red shift. 37. The further away it is, the greater the red shift, coming or going. 38. The energy required to operate a mechanism increases with velocity while the available energy decreases. 39. There is nothing new here, it's all old stuff. You must get the old stuff right before you can benefit from the new. D.MURPHY - HCEZJCIA
View Quote
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 8:51:31 AM EDT
TIME TRAVEL SEMINAR To whom it may concern, There will be a seminar given on the subject of time travel in the 21st century. It will be held on Thursday, January 1, 1920 at 12:00:01AM. Please to have marked your calendars.
View Quote
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 8:59:03 AM EDT
Ginsberg's Theorem (The modern statement of the three laws of thermodynamics) 1. You can't win. 2. You can't even break even. 3. You can't get out of the game. 4. THE LAW OF ENTROPY: The perversity of the universe tends towards a maximum. "Freeman's Commentary on Ginsberg's Theorem: "Every majoy philosophy that attempts to make life seem meaningful is based on the negation of one part of Ginsberg's Theorem. To wit: "1. Capitalism is based on the assumption that you can win. "2. Socialism is based on the assumption that you can break even. "3. Mysticism is based on the assumption that you can quit the game."
First Law: You can't bet unless you play. Second Law: The most you can hope for is to break even. Third Law: You can't break even. Fourth Law: Once you're born, you can't even get out of the game!
View Quote
THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS for Sanitation Engineers 0th: There is shit. 1st: You can't get rid of it. 2nd: It gets deeper. 3rd: A nice, empty trashcan is wishful thinking. KEEP SHOVELING!!
View Quote
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 9:36:11 AM EDT
Just a question. Does gravitational mass increase as well with velocity? or is it just inertial mass?
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 1:17:30 PM EDT
Originally Posted By jz02: Just a question. Does gravitational mass increase as well with velocity? or is it just inertial mass?
View Quote
I am thinking that it its just inertial mass.
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 1:21:24 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Paul:
Originally Posted By StormSurge: AR15fan, relativity has been PROVEN! Two identical clocks were built; one went with the Apollo astronauts and one stayed on Earth...the Apollo clock was effected by relativity resulting from the seven mile per second delta vee and was slower on return than the earth clock...
View Quote
But did they remember to wind them each morning? [;)] I know - I've watched Cosmos more times than I would like to admit.
View Quote
Or maybe one was a Timex and the other a Rolex?
Top Top