🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@Zest

One added point, in the last part where we introduce a new ship. Time dilation has little to do with it, and its a perfect example of why.

The degree of time dilation is always proportional to the relative speed between two objects. Since you and the new ship are traveling at almost the same speed and direction and only differ slightly, therefore you appear to be traveling away from each other but at a very slow speed, time dilation between you and the other ship would be negligible.

Imagine the speed difference is so small you and the new ship appear to only be moving away from each other at about the speed of a car on the highway, 60 mph/kph. then the time dilation between you and that ship would be no different than the time dilation between your family you left at home and you in a car driving down the highway. In other words it would be imperceptibly small.

@Science

@anonymoose

For sure, and I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt here that is what happened.

@DudeNamedBen @icedquinn

@khird

Indeed, that is the intended meaning of course.. but often grossly misunderstood by people.

@Science

@icedquinn

I agree entirely. The bill is inexcusable and wrong.. But it still isnt a plot by congress and is limited to one state.

@DudeNamedBen

@Ademan

I try to always treat people in good faith until they prove they are not.

@icedquinn @DudeNamedBen

@trinsec yea it can be for sure. Takes some getting use to.

@Zest

> because intuitively if one thing is moving away from you and another thing is moving in the same direction, if you accelerate fast so that your relative speed is equal to the speed of light, is it possible to travel away from both of them at the same speed?

So this is your first mistake, the phrase "speed is equal to the speed of light" makes no sense. You can never have anything moving relative to you at the speed or light or faster (other than light of course or another massless particle).. You would have to rephrase this to say "near the speed of light" to make any sense.

If you and the object are moving at the same speed and direction and are moving at near the speed of light relative to the earth the earth would appear to be receding away from you at near the speed of light, lets say 98% of C.

Now if you left the object that is moving with you behind and now accelerated to 98% the speed of light relative to that object what you would see is that even though you increased your speed by 98% C relative to the object that was moving with you, relative to earth you only appear to have accelerated by 1.98% the speed of light. In other words after accelerating the object that was moving with you would now be receding away at 98% the speed of light and the earth would now be receding away at 99.98% the speed of light.

> is this a time dilation thing?

Well, no it isnt a time dilation thing exactly, though time dilation is occurring it isnt really relevant to the people in the ship (who would be unaware of any time dilation presumably. but not completely unrelated either (if they had a telescope and looked at earth thigns would appear to be moving slower in terms of the people and clocks the faster they go). With special relativity you cant really ignore any one aspect wholly.

> and would that only be from your perspective

Well not only from your perspective exactly, but only from certain perspectives. Obviously if a second ship were traveling along side you at the same speed and direction as you and accelerated along side you then they would see all the things you see from their perspective.

But yes that perspective is not shared by other observers necessarily. From your perspective (since you're not accelerating) it feels and looks like you are stationary and it is the object and the earth that are moving instead. So to you on the ship the object is moving 98% the speed of light and the earth is moving 99.98% the speed of light. From the perspective of the object the object is stationary and you are moving away from it in one direction at 98% the speed of light and the earth is moving away from it in the other direction at 98% the speed of light. Likewise from earth the object appear to be moving at 98% and you appear to be moving at 99.98%

> the relative speed by an observer who was traveling even faster than the other object you could be moving slower relative to all three things from their perspective because time would be going differently to them?

Direction matters here, but yes. If there was another object in the mix that was another ship and basically flew along side you and accelerated when you did, but lets say they stopped accelerating just a few moments before you stopped, so they are almost at the same speed and direction as you but not quite. From their perspective the object and earth would be moving marginally slower than from your perspective. However this new ship would appear to be moving very slowly away from you and in the direction you came from (towards the earth) while to the new ship you would appear to be moving very slowly away from them and in the direction away from earth.

@Science

@icedquinn

In what sense? Provide misinformation and lie about what it means? Yea its pretty common. Though until I hear a response I will give this person the benefit of the doubt that they just made a mistake and hopefully they post a correction.

@DudeNamedBen

@DudeNamedBen

> Congress set to pass bill ...

No that is a lie and the link you shared explicitly states as much.

Notice where it says "Washington **state**" at the top.. This is a state bill, it applies only to washington state and has absolutely nothing to do with congress which can neither vote on it or pass.

It is a troubling bill in general of course, but it is limited to a single state.

@M0YNG I think this was meant to be a reply on the original thread, can you make it there so my answer can be seen by others who are interested please?

@Science
Interesting fact of the day:

Despite popular belief it is not really correct to say the speed of light is a universal speed limit in the universe. It would be more correct to say one object can never go faster, relative to another object by the speed of light.

In other words, no matter what speed I am going relative to the earth (or anything else) doesn't matter; if there is some object going the same speed and direction as me I can still accelerate up to the speed of light faster than it.

All that matters is that nothing can go faster than the speed of light relative to me the observer.

#Science #Physics #Relativity #SpecialRelativity #Einstein #Space #astronomy #Astrophysics

@srwennekes Well unless you could actually cite something he did that could bring about the results we saw then there isnt much of an an argument there, particularly considering he dealt with a recession, had sketchy unemployment results at best, the rate at which we saw improvement in unemployment was middling from obama, and overall he wasted money on war and increased the deficit.. so not much he did would suggest he was on track for creating a 70 year record low in unemployement.

@srwennekes Which measure, specifically, do you feel wont take effect for 3 years, and would have increasingly stronger effects over those three years regardless of any decisions Trump could ? Do you even have specific examples?

@koherecoWatchdog

Ahh I see, then what were the factors that determined if they showed on one list or the other?

@kravietz @2ck

@koherecoWatchdog

So basically if i understand you:

* Y - they lobbied for CISPA (Bad because they lobbied, double bad because they supported CISPA)

* N - They were neutral and did not lobby in either direction (Good because they didnt lobby, doubly good because they didnt support CISPA)

* N for Mozilla specifically - They actively lobbies against CISPA (Bad because they lobbies at all, but better than companies with a Y because at least if they lobbied they lobbied for the ethical choice)..

Pressuming I understood you correct then the list still seems questionable as companies with a Y for "supported CISPA" (the worst of the three options) appear in the white list category, well, at least one broker does (E*Trade)

@2ck @kravietz

@koherecoWatchdog

We 100% agree on that point, yes.

@kravietz @2ck

@koherecoWatchdog

> Are you not an ethical consumer?

I am, and being an ethical consume means not letting money buy politics and being opposed to lobbying. If a see a company isnt lobbying that is a good thing, if they are it is a bad thing. I dont make exceptions just because the money is buying politics for the things I agree in, that isnt democracy.

> holding Dupont accountable for toxic waste dumping in the river by diluting w/enough water to be at a legal min.

If a company is dumping toxic waste in a river then I will not invest in them, and I will vote for laws that prevent them from doing it. I will not, however, accept others using money to buy that vote, and that means no lobbying.

> If you're an ethical consumer, then you're putting the ethical issues that matter to you above profits.

Correct, I am, and again, that means not standing for lobbying. That means that the fact that many of those brokers on taht list didnt engage in lobbying is a good thing, not a bad thing.

> These are companies that proactively spent money on political lobbying that works against the interest of natural humans.

If that is the case then that may be concerning.. So IB is listed as not having supporting CISPA, you suggest that is claiming they lobbied **against** CISPA (rather than simply not lobbying)... can you share the evidence specifically that shows IB lobbied against CISPA? If they lobbied then that would be an issue.

However you have CISPA backwards regardless. CISPA specifically would have given the US government the ability to spy on communications and share that information freely with ISPs.. The ethical thing is and was to be **against** CISPA not for it. So while I would not approve of IB lobbying in either direction for CISPA the truth is if someone is going to support CISPA or not the ethcial choice is to **not** support it.

All the more reason the list is bogus as one of the white listed companies actually actively supported CISPA.

@2ck @kravietz