BlueCosmology

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is irrelevant. The uncertainty principle would apply just the same before and after you teleported someone.

How in the world do you think that the angle made by putting our moon in contact with the surface of the Earth and drawing a triangle through the diameter of the earth with one vertex at the centre of the moon is a fundamental universal unit system? Also while it's clearly irrelevant because the system you're saying even if it was true is ridiculous, it's not even true. The angle in degrees made by that is 51 degrees and 47 minutes of arc, not 51 degrees and 51 minutes of arc, putting a spanner in your nonsense that is clearly just "Wow look it's the same number!"

It really is just a fact.

You're just not saying anything at all that has any meaning.

That's not at all what you've done, and we already have angles based upon À, it's called radians.

Both the second and meter are now defined in terms of fundamental physical constants, aliens most certainly would understand it. You then go on to say that we should replace these with arbitrary angles, in degrees rather than radians lol?

There has never, ever, been a macroscopic experiment (e.g. on a creature) that is even close to atomically identical.

What do you mean virtual units?

That's a lot more just the fact that in everyday life we use unit systems that are convenient for our scale of life (metres, seconds, etc). In fundamental physics things like the gravitational constant are integers because that is the unit system that is most convenient in that case.

Everyone here seems to have some weird belief that maths is just used to describe the natural world. Many people seem to think that a proof of a mathematical idea is that it can predict some natural phenomena. It isn't. A lot of maths ofcourse is used to describe the universe, but a hell of a lot of maths (certainly the majority of modern maths) is not at all and does not in any way describe anything in the universe. No mathematician would ever try to justify that their mathematics is correct through experimental evidence (much less claim that it is a proof).

Traversing a wormhole affects the energy of the wormhole, conserving energy. (For a wormhole just traversing space like you're talking about. If you start talking about ones that traverse time then no energy is not conserved, however this is not a problem as conservation of energy is a result of time symmetry, which a wormhole in time would violate)

No, relativistic mass is a very outdated concept (only a couple years after Einstein first introduced it did Einstein say that the concept should be avoided entirely as it is not useful) that is very very rarely used anymore except in popsci where they aren't intending the audience to actually understand. Relativistic mass is just a term that is used to make some newtonian functions still work relativistically, i.e. momentum is mass * velocity. However, relativistic mass is in no way at all 'mass', in that it does not have the properties of what mass is (i.e. inertia and gravitational charge). If you go to in a spaceship to a high velocity your ship does not appear to have more mass, nor does it appear to have any more energy in your frame of reference. Otherwise nothing would be consistent, you could just get energy by just considering yourself in a different frame of reference.

My mistake, misread.

Nah, it is much closer to a second, many orders of magnitude more than a nanosecond. Around 30microseconds per day, people have stayed on the iss for over a year, that's around 1% of a second (or 13 million times more than a nanosecond) - - - Updated - - - No, accelerating at 1g would take a year to get to the speed of light. (3*10^8)/10 =3*10^7 3*10^7/1E5=3*10^2=300 days.

General relativity is famously incredibly computationally demanding in general. It is only really possible to compute it in special cases, general relativity is a large set of coupled non linear partial differentials which are incredibly hard to solve numerically. What you have linked only simulates special relativity. Even 'simple' 2 body cases are still very hard to solve numerically in anything other than special cases.

Again, as you accept there is no absolute coordinate system. You pick your origin, I pick my origin moving relative to yours.

Yes it entirely does. A point is a location in a reference frame. You don't seem to understand what you're saying, you're saying that there is no absolute coordinate system (i.e. there is no such thing as a location, there are just locations between different objects) but you're saying there are just absolute locations. Ye syou would care about reference frames if you reported in front of a bus. If you teleport in front of it, and go at the speed of it, you will not get hit. If you teleport infront of it and it is travelling towards you at 50mph, you will.

You also just said you didn't pick a coordinate system, hence you have not chosen an origin.

That makes no sense. Again, you accept that there is no such thing as an absolute coordinate system, then you pick a point that is stationary absolutely. You can not "pick a point" without picking a coordinate system, as you entirely agree by accepting that there is no absolute coordinate system. Nor can you pick one that is absolutely stationary, again as you accept.

Absolutely everything you're saying is self contradictory. You accept that there is no absolute coordinate system but then say to pick a point that's not moving, but not relative to anything. All you're doing is picking a coordinate system where the average speed of galaxies is 200km/s.

None of that makes any sense. If you pick a point where galaxies are moving away from you at 200km/s, then pick another point that is moving relative to the first point the galaxies will not be moving 200km/s relative to the new point. The speed of galaxies is also very dependent on how far you are from them, and is dominated by peculiar velocities in near galaxies. There is no absolute coordinate system, you go on to demonstrate there is by making a completely relative coordinate system, picking points and specifying distances between them is clearly entirely relative, not absolute.

You're getting (r')² confused with r''. There is no cubic term in the effective gravitational force in orbit around a schwarzschild black hole in any reasonably defined metric. Here's a fairly nice basic intro to general relativity, the schwarzschild effective potential is derived on page 174. http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9712019.pdf

Not true, orbits below 3/2 are non-existent. The last unstable orbit is at 3/2, the effective potential of a schwarzschild black hole has a cubic term which causes a large decrease in the potential as the black hole is approached. Going past this potential barrier it is not possible to continue to orbit, or escape without applying a force as the energy barrier to escape is larger than the energy of the particle after crossing the potential barrier. Look up the effective potential for a schwarzschild black hole and it is very easy to understand why that is not possible. Past the potential barrier at 3/2, there is only an effective force radially towards the blackhole, never away.

Orbits, elliptical or not, with any point of the orbit that close to a black hole are not possible. For a non rotating blackhole if any point of any orbit is less than 3/2 * the event horizon from the center of the blackhole the orbit will spiral into the blackhole. For a rotating black hole this point is closer to the event horizon and is less simple but still does not allow orbits that close. - - - Updated - - - No, it does not hold true within the event horizon. Time dilation being as simple as going faster slows down time relative to another observer holds true only in flat spacetime, within a blackhole is as far from that as you can get. Though no, the structure of spacetime within a blackhole is still 4 dimensional.

That doesn't make any sense at all. By that logic nothing could get trapped in an event horizon because you could always consider it as a system with something else that has it's COM outside the blackhole. Also the event horizon is not the point where the orbital velocity is the speed of light, that is further away (for a schwarzschild black hole it is 3/2 times the event horizon) Once past the event horizon every direction in spacetime points towards the singularity of the blackhole, meaning any force you apply to it would just send it towards the singularity.