ZetaX

In regard to those GMO claims, let me just drop this: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/07/are_gmos_safe_yes_the_case_against_them_is_full_of_fraud_lies_and_errors.html?wpsrc=sh_all_mob_tw_top No, that's what you interpret into it. Anyway, other doing bad thing does not allow you to do the same. While vaccines might have some unintended effects, those in our food are not relevant. They are simply digested. @WinkAllKerb: I have no idea what you actually want to convey. @lajoswinkler: well, it's the thread starter that is doing this...

Stop engaging in some kind of quote-mining. You at least gave the entire sentence, but the way you bolded it is very suggestive and changes the meaning. Apart from that, what is your point¿ That letting some people die is better than try experimental vaccines¿

No. That would send lots and lots of information, which is forbidden by the aforementioned theorem. It probably also violates the no-cloning-theorem. Also, there is no proper meaning of "same time" by relativity. It all depends on the observer, especially his relative speed and position.

Yes it is. But note that the other definition has the disadvantage of not satisfying the requirement in the first post (that we want to know north even if we have no clue where the sun or other things are).

Isn't it quite obvious that we are talking about objects ins space here¿ You are using a distinguished direction. In your example on earth this is the direction of gravity. That one is obviously useless for defining poles as its direction depends on where you are. Really, just try to write down an actual definition of "top" in space.

North and south can easily be defined by the axis of rotation. The axis meets the surface in two points, the poles, and we call the one where it rotates counterclockwise when looking from above "north", the other "south". There is no "top" or "bottom".

What does "next time he passes by our solar system" mean¿ It's eccentricity is still only 0.248 or so, which is not that far away from circular. And like the asteroid belt, the Kuiper belt is not as densely populated as bad SciFi movies suggest. Encounters are very rare, catching a new moon is really really rare, and loosing a moon as big as charon requires quite a massive object or much more time.

Nanotubes are stronger than kevlar and such, so your suggestion (which is just "build a space elevator from something else") makes no sense. The whole point of nanotubes is that we may one day find a carbon based structure (graphene, for example) that is strong enough. Also, you can't simply drop a cable from GSO.

That second pic looks suspiciously like ring transporters from Stargate How would that tower work¿ For it to be relevant, that tower would need to be hundreds of miles high (and probably needs a diameter in the hundreds of meters). That's not only absurdely large, but if you can build that, then you probably could build a space elevator, too (or simply a staircase into orbit). The lift-off helper would also only help at the point where least help is needed: at the beginning of ascent when the magnets are still close and thus strongly repelling each other.

Your human needs that huge magnetic device below his feet. And that device needs to create a magnetic field strong enough to push itself into orbit, with the other pole being hundreds of miles away. Think about the inverse square law (which is actually optimistic in the case of magnets).

You can't just magically transfer energy as microwaves: that will require excessive cooling and such. Anyway, I think you have a wrong understanding of the amount of power required... you might need Petawatts or more of power to get that thing into orbit, simply because of the scale of that magnet. Not speaking about the completely unsolved problem of how to turn that energy into a magnetic field (there is just so much a copper or superconductor coil can take, for both magnetic field density and power).

Yes, it would be completely unstable unless stabilized in some way. Also, there is no known magnetic monopole, so "charged with the same current" makes no sense. The field strength required would be enourmous. Well beyond what we can do, and well beyond what we should do (unless you want to fry every electronics on earth, and possibly some brains, too).

So what¿ Correlation is all we need to use IQ as a reliable way to judge how well a person will perform on a given task. Causation is competely irrelevant here. Also, some of the studies demonstrate causation (in the usual weak sense, as proving causation is near impossible; by the way, I recommend reading up on how this is actually done for a nice read). - - - Updated - - - Short of rare illnesses, intelligence is not that focused. If you are extraordinary in one area, then you are generally quite good overall, short of rare effects. Physics is already quite broad by itself, it requires good deductive skills and inductive reasoning; both and some other parts of it are useful in almost every field of research and everyday life. Well, that's a case in point that high IQ and success are correlated. But in regard to that and the independent "IQ correlates with morality" hypothesis this is just anecdotical evidence.

All those that just claim that IQ tests (the serious ones, not your usual web-based nonsense) are use-/point-/worthless are ignoring evidence on the contrary. The correlation between IQ values and many kinds of success is well established, for example (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Social_correlations for a small list).

From a mathematical point of view, those "continue the sequence" problems are nonsensical. A sequence can be continued any way you want, after all. There are some possible formalisations that essentially amount to "use the sequence that is most easily described", but there still are many different ones. One could go with an adaption of Solomonoff induction, for example, but that depends on choosing a universal turing machine and a prefix code.

If they cool the throat only, that's probably fine. But cooling the neck itself can cause severe neck pains.

Density is surely relevant for speed and efficiency. But it is not strictly necessary for fusion to occur. The density in a tokamak is very low, for example.

That's irrelevant. I am not even sure if it is actually called amber throughout all of the former commonwealth, but that would also be irrelevant. It is _not_ called amber in several european countries. Here, have the german one: https://dejure.org/gesetze/StVO/37.html. In case you don't speak german: they call it "gelb", which is simply yellow.

No. In Germany it is: Green -> Yellow -> Red -> Red+Yellow -> Green. That also answers Vanamonde's comment on how you know which one it is. But it wouldn't be a problem anyway because if you just came around a corner, the reaction on a yellow light should always be "drive there slowly/carefully".

K^2 gave you a formula and even how to turn that into a formula for a. There is also no need for numbers because all that adds is less clarity (you don't see what really happens, and all that simple short letters get replaced by long ugly numbers). So you only have to solve for a. After that, plugging in numbers is fine, but the formula will just be "multiply stuff, take third root".

That's not just Norway, but all over europe (maybe even further). It becomes worse by Hâ™­ being called "B" for no reason except tradition whatsoever. One could go further and doubt the entire system of 7/12 notes in an octave(=frequency doubling). There are some reasons for this specific choice, but that also applies to some more numbers. But any change to that will probably be met by public stoning or worse...

No, gravity's speed is probably c for all we know. General relativity has it move at the finite speed of c; please stop making this claim that it does otherwise, because it does definitely not. If it were instant, you would not have things such as gravitational waves. If someone right now stops the sun with a huge thruster, we would only feel the gravitational change in ~8 minutes, at the same time we see it happen. Claiming that it is faster because it curves spacetime is an unfounded claim; there is no reason the latter implies the former. Going further, any information transmission faster than c would allow to break causality using special relativity (has been posted so many times, please just search for elaborations); moving something and detecting that change in gravity is obviously a way to transmit information. So your proposal, which as I now repeat is not what general relativity says, has very severe implications and is probably wrong. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity#General_relativity. But for most purposes, gravity behaves as if it were instant ("no aberration"): up to a high accuracy, a force spreading at the speed of light and being proportional to 1/r² behaves like an instantaneous force. Accuracy becomes even higher for the specific properties gravity has (but the former also applies e.g. to electromagnetism). This does not mean it travels that fast. It only means that as long as gravity is just doing its thing, we won't see a notable difference to such behaviour. But as soon as other things come into play, e.g. a huge thruster on the sun, we will; or more accurately, we won't see the difference for 8 minutes as mentioned above. Funnily, this instantaneous-like behaviour is what keeps orbits stable, they would only last some hundreds to tens of thousands years otherwise. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity#Aberration_of_field_direction_in_general_relativity.2C_for_a_weakly_accelerated_observer for some further details. Sure, the "bulge" is always where the mass is. But the gravitational influence on objects further away can point to the old location, barring the effect I mentioned above.

Or the dot. Which causes another set of ridiculous effects.

No, read his post again.