« on: Today at 15:19:09 »
I doubt they were the only ones.
I doubt they were the only ones.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
I want my resources back.It seems you have found the answer:
Maybe it's time to go back to Linux again.
I now added another time vector
As we have grown tired of telling you, Time is not a vector.
What things would or might happen?Whatever the writter of that bit of fiction wanted to happen.
That wheel on the ground will be a big drag and slow you down considerably.
Given contextThe context here is that the OP doesn't even know what question they are asking.
That's an understandable mistake to make.NopeI could certainly be wrong. My simple minded way of looking at this is; if the vehicle is powered by air movement and on average the relative air movement is 0 fps or negative fps, where is the force coming from to maintain the movement?
If there was a perfectly steady wind over a level course that is say a kilometer in length the vehicle will certainly...Your "certainty" seems unfounded.
With cosmology,Yes and no.
The expansing adds what could be modeled as a second time vector,As we have grown tired of telling you, Time is not a vector.
Objects that existed close to the start of BB, no longer exist,Essentially every hydrogen atom in your body- and that's most of the atoms- formed close to the BB.
A very distant planet, say 5 billion light years away, that was viewing the earth, would assume the earth, today, was an infant planet due to the time delay. It could not infer our last 5 billion years and what the present looked like on the earth. Looking for intelligent life on distant planets, outside our solar system, runs into the time delay problems. We see the past and but its present.An aspect which has been covered in a few sci fi stories. It's hardly a secret.
What we see today, is the most distant objects, appearing to move the fastest. However, since there is a time delay, the behavior of these most distant objects, are not from the present, but are a snapshot from their most distant past. The most distant past had the fastest objects. As we decrease the observational time delay, by looking at things that are closer and closer, the objects get slower; less red shift. This is consistent with an explosion of sorts. Upon detonation the matter expands quickly like a firework in the sky, then the debris slows with time. Based on signal time delay this is observed.If that was the reason for the Hubble constant then there would be two issues- firstly, it wouldn't give a simple proportional constant but more importantly, not everything would be moving directly away from us, but that's what we see.
I strongly suspect that the mode of that distribution is zero; most don't live long enough to breed.That seems to suggest an element of "choice" in how often they lay.Selective breeding?In a flock, and particularly with a few males around, they can ward off small predators and breed successfully, but the daily egg seems a bit extravagant - most hens only get broody and incubate their eggs once or twice in their lifetime.
What happens to domestic chickens if they're set free in the wild, can they still survive?
Conclusion: the farthest that even a 🦠 bacteria has traveled (as part of a test) is around the 🌒 Moon.
I think there are tortoises that are near 200 years old. About 6 billion seconds
The speed of the Sun through space is about 200 km/s
So that tortoise has travelled about 1.2E 15 metres
So, we can build a machine that ...As far as I can tell, that's a non sequitur.
When you mention "gravitational lensing", does this have to be a proof of Einstein's Relativity Theory?Notwithstanding the fact that this message shouldn't have been posted, it's easy enough to answer.
Couldn't it be explained by optical effects, resulting from the passage of light through the interstellar gas which surrounds a massive object, such as a distant star or galaxy.
The interstellar gas may be very thin. But it exists, and so may be supposed to influence the light passing through it.
So inducing refractive effects, just like a glass lens does, in the form of a terrestrial "magnifying glass".
Obviously no-one claims that the magnifying effects of glass lenses prove Relativity, so why claim it for Interstellar gas?