Originally posted by ace00
View Post
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Big Bang day !!
Collapse
X
Collapse
-
-
Originally posted by expat View PostNot so, the results of Eddington's eclipse expedition of 1919 supported it.Work in the public sector? Read the IR35 FAQ hereComment
-
Originally posted by TimberWolf View PostI'm aware of his position at Cambridge, and I don't rate him against many of those greats. Look at the list yourself. Dirac, Newton, Babbage... Do you really think Hawking in the same league? What has he done aside from being in the right place at the right time in order to theorise on things that someone else would likely have done quite soon anyway?
I think he's done some very important research in his lifetime. I read the 'Theoretical Physics and Cosmology' book that they put out to celebrate his 60th birthday after I watched the 'Master of the Universe' on TV. I haven't read 'a Brief History of Time' so I can't comment on that. He’s far more intelligent than me and yes he’s far more intelligent than even you Sas, so that’s my yardstick (me, not Sas)."I hope Celtic realise that, if their team is good enough, they will win. If they're not good enough, they'll not win - and they can't look at anybody else, whether it is referees or any other influence." - Walter Smith
On them! On them! They fail!Comment
-
Originally posted by Incognito View PostI think Hawkings is a very intelligent man, I agree with you that he is one well known figure in a crowd of equally or more intelligent scientists, but I don't feel that is reason to denigrate him. I just feel it's a trait of the British to build someone up only to enjoy seeing them fall.
I think he's done some very important research in his lifetime. I read the 'Theoretical Physics and Cosmology' book that they put out to celebrate his 60th birthday after I watched the 'Master of the Universe' on TV. I haven't read 'a Brief History of Time' so I can't comment on that. He’s far more intelligent than me and yes he’s far more intelligent than even you Sas, so that’s my yardstick (me, not Sas).Comment
-
Originally posted by OwlHoot View Postand it exactly accounted for the precession of Mercury, which had already been known about for years and was previously unexplained. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_o...ral_relativity
The early accuracy, however, was poor. Dyson et al. quoted an optimistically low uncertainty in their measurement, which is argued by some to have been plagued by systematic error and possibly confirmation bias, although modern reanalysis of the dataset suggests that Eddington's analysis was accurate. Considerable uncertainty remained in these measurements for almost fifty years, until observations started being made at radio frequencies. It was not until the late 1960s that it was definitively shown that the amount of deflection was the full value predicted by general relativity, and not half that number. The Einstein ring is an example of the deflection of light from distant galaxies by more nearby objects."I hope Celtic realise that, if their team is good enough, they will win. If they're not good enough, they'll not win - and they can't look at anybody else, whether it is referees or any other influence." - Walter Smith
On them! On them! They fail!Comment
-
Originally posted by sasguru View PostIt's Ok. I don't really know what I'm talking about - just random googling and cut'n'paste"I hope Celtic realise that, if their team is good enough, they will win. If they're not good enough, they'll not win - and they can't look at anybody else, whether it is referees or any other influence." - Walter Smith
On them! On them! They fail!Comment
-
Originally posted by ace00 View PostBTW particles will be at 99.9999991 per cent of the speed of light.
That's really impressive.
What will happen to their mass at that velocity?
1 / ( SQRT ( 1 - 0.999999991^2 ) )
In the frame of reference of the proton, they'll be exactly as normal. Now, can anyone work out, in the frame of reference of the protons going anticlockwise, how fast with the clockwise ones be approaching, and what their relativistic mass will be?Down with racism. Long live miscegenation!Comment
-
Originally posted by Incognito View PostI think Hawkings is a very intelligent man, I agree with you that he is one well known figure in a crowd of equally or more intelligent scientists, but I don't feel that is reason to denigrate him. I just feel it's a trait of the British to build someone up only to enjoy seeing them fall.
I think he's done some very important research in his lifetime. I read the 'Theoretical Physics and Cosmology' book that they put out to celebrate his 60th birthday after I watched the 'Master of the Universe' on TV. I haven't read 'a Brief History of Time' so I can't comment on that. He’s far more intelligent than me and yes he’s far more intelligent than even you Sas, so that’s my yardstick (me, not Sas).Comment
-
Originally posted by expat View PostI think some of the talk comes from the fact that he is compared to Einstein. He's good, but he's not Einstein."I hope Celtic realise that, if their team is good enough, they will win. If they're not good enough, they'll not win - and they can't look at anybody else, whether it is referees or any other influence." - Walter Smith
On them! On them! They fail!Comment
-
Originally posted by TimberWolf View PostNothing. Not rest mass anyway. Increase in mass with speed is an old concept, one that Einstein himself initially used, but he knew what he was doing.
"Because the relativistic mass is just another name for the energy, it has gradually fallen into disuse [1].
........................................
In special relativity, as in Lorentz's ether theory, an object that has a mass cannot travel at the speed of light. As the object approaches the speed of light, the object's energy and momentum increase without bound."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity
I don't understand. And that's just the words, forget about the formulas.Bored.Comment
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Comment