ZetaX

The discussion continues¿ :-p All physical laws are symmetric in spacetime, i.e. invariant under rotation and translation. Thus if traveling one way moves you back in time, so does traveling in the other direction.

Well, he wanted a number with a 1 followed by g_64 0s. That defined the number (and is as good a description as 10^g_64). Lacking any good definition of what exactly "equation" should mean here, I would default to a "property" instead, and one is given by the previous sentence.

Graham's number, for example, is just a number for which his proof (regarding a Ramsey-type problem on hypercubes) works. The actual number he published it with is much smaller, g_64 was not published by himelf. And the optimal bound is even smaller, it might even be possible to write it down in decimals.

So is reality (by determinism) such an entity¿ If not, why¿

The reason: Pick some small number s. The derivative measures the increase of the area if the radius grows by a small number; thus the difference between the areas of a circle with radius r+s and one of radius r is approximately s times the derivative. On the other hand, the difference is just the area of a ring with inner radius r and thickness s. That ring has approximately an area of s times the perimeter of the circle. In total: s·derivative = s·perimeter. Thus derivative=perimeter. Note that nowhere you need to actually know a formula for the perimeter or the area of a circle. To make it formal, use the inequality s·permieter_1 < area_of_the_ring < s·perimeter_2, where the two perimeters are the inner and outer one, respectively. Then take the limit of s going to 0. This is by the same argument also true for spheres: the derivative of the volume is the surface area (add "hyper-" for higher dimensional analogues).

Naming numbers without good reason is worse than naming sand grains, and just as useless/random...

No you can't. Read up on it, or read the thread on FTL communications from some weeks ago.

Could you all please at least read the OP¿ The answers of DeepOdyssey and Albert VDS have nothing to do with it. Also, you can't communicate with entangled particles.

As soon as you are very close to c, any more thrust won't have a significant effect on the ships speed (from the "outside" frame of reference, or the bullet's). Thus your random changes have almost no effect.

It would in theory work, but there are many things you won't be able to find out. Seeing even large details like Saturn's rings from 1MLj away is somewhere between very hard and impossible. Albert VDS: you did not understand the original post. Also, the drive does not magically teleport you to your target but actually moves you (and a spacetime "bubble") to the destination, at a pretty high speed.

If done right, you won't have any reasonable reaction time against relativistic projectiles.

I am not convinced this will happen. Do you have a source¿

I am not convinced that buoyancy will help enough. It will lower the strain on your normal muscles because you only need to lift the effective weight, which will be close to zero (ignoring the water's resistance), but it won't help much to mitigate the strain on the body's inside, e.g. organs or the bloodstream/the heart.

He already explained that the parameter is well-suited to measure how much an object has cleaned it's neighbourhood. Are you disputing that, or are you disputing that cleaning the orbit is a good measure¿ The measure was definitely not just engineered to fit the data. And it works for many (every¿) solar systems.

The fly-by ideally leaves the planet's SOI with the momentum (relative to the planet) opposite to the one it entered with. That's twice the change in momentum.

No, a fly-by can create a greater change of momentum than an impact. Additionally, you do not want to make earth bigger, that would just be more mass to work with.

I think N_las now better understands my problems in a certain other thread Obviously not if you think that neptune is a historical planet.

Anyone why claims that "planet" was redefined to fit that ancient definition probably also does not know that there is no way Neptune was observed before the invention of telescopes. Ceres is 1.5 magnitudes brighter than Neptune, each under optimal conditions.

Your only standard seems to be some variations on "how it looks like"¿ The definition is pretty objective. A definition being objective has nothing to do with agreement or matching your version. The definition "a sphere is a round thing" is subjective, "a sphere is an object of constant curvature" is objective. You could now argue that a flat plane is no sphere, but that's only so because you project your expectation into it and/or because there is another possible definition. The given definition itself is still objective.

I would like to see that geologist definition of a planet.

Ganymede is orbiting Jupiter instead of the sun. And Mercury and Jupiter are not considered the same, we have the distinction between terrestrial planets and gas giants (with sometimes ice giants added in).

I see no use in doing that in the upper atmosphere when you can also do it on ground, where you will transfer more heat. And I am not convinded that this will actually cause thrust. Apart from it possibly being too weak, the gas might flow of in all direction instead of just one.

You just might want to use that huge ball of stone and iron called "earth" below the engine By the way, 4500m/s will not be enough. You need to overcome escape velocity to have an effect. Otherwise you just shovel earth in orbit around the earth (or it just comes back down).

But asteroids are "star-like". So like small balls of fusing plasma, except that they are not

They don't show that. They actually talk about the center being the only point where nothing is allowed to be for the cloaking to work. And if that does not convince you, I can even show you, using topology, that it is completely impossible to work as you say: The lense is a full circle from the front, which is a "simply connected" (it is a single undivided object with no "holes") shape. Going along the path of a (initially parallel) light bundle and looking at vertical sections (=when you shine light through it and hold paper in there) is a "homotopy" (a [continuous] deformation). Homotopies preserve the property of being simply connected. A ring is not simply connected as it has a hole. Therefore you can never get a ring.