posted
Ok I'm back with my discusting grammar and my odd theories about time and space. Question: Say we had trains that traveled at the speed of light.(humor me) If you stepped out onto the tracks and a train "hit you"(thats the only way I can think to describe it) would it actually hit you because its going the speed of light?
Posts: 110 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll humor you with an answer, but...a train couldn't accelerate all the way to light speed, relativity won't allow that. It would take infinite energy to do that.
So say your train is going at 0.9999 x c (c almost always equals the speed of light in physics equations.)
Well, that would circle the Earth in 1/7 of a second, it seems like overkill. But if you're on a Dyson sphere , you might need a magic train if your commute sucks.
So, you bumble onto the train tracks, and the train runs you over. Then you die, just like when a normal train does.
Although, a normal train wreck wouldn't completely vaporize you or cause a huge fireball with Gamma- and X-rays shooting out of it, visible on the other side of the solar system. So that's a plus. At least you'd finally be someone--you're name up in lights!
The collision would release collosal amounts of energy, enough to resemble a nuclear explosion. Just one reason interstellar travel is very difficult--when going at relatavistic speeds, a collision with a small pebble is a huge problem, unless you're craft is very, very tough.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
How many cars are in the train and what is the cargo? wouldn't the train form a solid wall around the world if it were going that fast? it would be impossible to get in front of it in order to be hit. you'd just kick the side of the train and be thrown into orbit around the world. or blasted to bits in a fancy light show as Morbo said. But he used fancy words and numbers, so he's probably closer to what could be considered right in this hypothetical situation.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why would it not hit you? Photons generally don't have difficulties with this - I should know, I'm dealing with a surplus of the damn things for my thesis, at the moment.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: The collision would release collosal amounts of energy, enough to resemble a nuclear explosion. Just one reason interstellar travel is very difficult--when going at relatavistic speeds, a collision with a small pebble is a huge problem, unless you're craft is very, very tough.
Come on Morbo, everyone knows that when you go faster than light speed you have your energy sheilds turned on. Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok so it kills you, thats what I'm reading? It will vaporize you instantaneously right? And the train would destroy a large chunk of the would along with it? So theres no delay between the train hitting you and you feeling it?
Posts: 110 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh dear, you are probably thinking of time dilation. Trust me on this, you are not prepared to tackle that subject with an American high-school education.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Oh dear, you are probably thinking of time dilation. Trust me on this, you are not prepared to tackle that subject with an American high-school education.
KOM, that may be true of the average high school kid (here and everywhere else on the planet), but there are young geniuses in our midst who may well be able to tackle this.
The problem I see with a train going near the speed of light is that you wouldn't see (and perceive) its warning lights until it'd already deconstructed you into your component atoms.
Also, judging from what high velocity dust specks do to our space craft periodically, I suspect that hitting you wouldn't do the train much good either.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Oh dear, you are probably thinking of time dilation. Trust me on this, you are not prepared to tackle that subject with an American high-school education.
That was not very nice, but the fact is that its true. I don't understand this and probably won't comprehend this unless you explain it to me in simple terms that even I can understand.
Posts: 110 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or, he could just explain it in the way that is most natural to him, and you could go and get a dictionary as you read it and work out the definitions of all the words you aren't familiar with. That's all there is to it really, when you're only being introduced to a subject. It takes a while learning things that way, but if you're memories good enough you usually end up learning all the basic vocabulary of the subject you'll need to study further from textbooks and whatnot.
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
What a weird question. I don't mean that in a bad way. But why on earth would anyone attempt such a thing?
Posts: 351 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speaking of American Battle prowess, one of my favorite quotes:
quote:The reason the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices it on a daily basis."
I've seen in attributed to various sources as well as versions that name the navy rather than the army but I would say that America in general practices chaos on a daily basis.
posted
Can you stand sit me? Or sit stand? Or even sit sit?
I do find 'America could obliterate your country' rather amusing as an argument. It reminds me of the kid saying 'my father can beat up yours'.
But to return to high school educations : Calculus optional. Physics optional. Mathematics taught as rote problems. (More accurately, arithmetic taught as rote problems.) The occasional bit of creationism, as evidenced by our own Ivygirl, though please let's not start that debate up again. And, of course, no special relativity.
Which is actually a rather interesting subject, in its own right, but does tend to require mathematical notation which the forum just doesn't support. However, waving my hands a bit, you will see people on board the train living in extreme slow motion, and they will see you living in extreme slow motion, since from their point of view, you're the one going at lightspeed. But since your nerves are the ones measuring the collision, that's irrelevant : You will see the impulse travelling along your nerves at their usual speed, which IIRC is around the speed of sound. That means that by the time the impulse reaches your brain, your grey matter has been splattered all over the continent - the train got there first. As ways to die go, it should be one of the more painless ones around.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I agree with KoM on this one. If the train going at lightspeed isn't taking up all the mass in the universe, and if there is a way to stand in front of it and by hit by it, then who cares what speed the train is going at? A train hitting you is a train hitting you. Splat!
Still, he greatly underestimates the quality of an American high school education -- not suprising, since he's never experienced it himself.
Posts: 44 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I admit the argument of obliteration is not the strongest argument it does bring up the point that despite our lack of a "first class" education system we have managed to become the only remaining superpower, built the largest economy in the world (if only because of our massive consumption), established the English language as the international language (don't try to convince me that the Brits did this) and even managed to be among the more innovative countries in the world.
So maybe all that math isn't really that important!
And if our education system is so broke why does the rest of the world come here to study? (Of course not in high school, I know).
posted
People, you have got to stop feeding the troll. Of course King of Men is going to say something derogatory about Americans. That's what he does. He bashes Americans, anyone with a modicum of religious faith, and, well, basically anyone who isn't him. That's what he does, and nothing we say is going to convince him to stop. When he goes into troll mode, the only thing to do is ignore it.
And by the way, when you make asinine statements like "America could obliterate your country in nothing flat," you're really not helping. First of all, the question of whom America could defeat in a major war is not relevant to the discussion at hand. It is possible to have a reasoned and intelligent discussion on whether the American public education system is up to the standards it ought to be, and whether other countries are farther ahead in this area. But when you break out the "My dad can beat up your dad" level of discourse, the only thing you contribute is to feed the flames of the arrogant trolls who delight in viewing us as subhuman.
You see, KoM already believes that we Americans are, by our very natures, a bunch of stupid, ineducable, nasty brutes. I'm not saying we have some obligation to convince him he's wrong. You'd have an easier time trying to convince Joseph McCarthy that maybe there's something to this communism business after all. But that doesn't mean we have to prove him right, either, which is all gems like "America could obliterate your country in nothing flat" could ever accomplish.
My fellow Americans, I beg you to keep the following guideline in mind: Any time you are tempted to make the argument that America could defeat some country in a war, stop and ask yourself, "Is the conversation we are already having about the relative military strengths of the nations of the world?" If the answer is no, then keep the "America could beat your country" business to yourself. It's irrelevant, it's puerile, and it gives arrogant non-Americans something to point to as proof that we are the nasty brutes they already assume we are. In other words, don't feed the trolls!
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, slighting remarks about an American high school education are always appropriate - I know, because I teach the products of that education. Generally speaking, any college student I meet who has even a rudimentary understanding of geography, history, or grammar got it on their own (or, in the case of grammar, from a foreign language class, NOT from English). Few literature teachers even teach poetry anymore; and nobody demands they learn rhetoric or logic. Stuff that I had out the wazoo before I graduated back in 68 are all alien territory to most of the college students I see; and most of the college graduates, too.
In our constant infatuation with new, unproved, and ineffective educational theories, and our insistance on turning to the very people who screwed up the system when we want someone to fix it, an American high school education is almost inevitably a joke, compared to what is POSSIBLE.
And, in case anyone wondered, piling on more homework and adding more days of school each year won't make any difference when you don't even have the vital subject matter in the curriculum ...
Posts: 2005 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
And, by the way, America could not pound any other country into the ground because it would not be politically possible. Very few Americans actually approve of into-the-ground-pounding, and an American army that indulged in it today would quickly be recalled and repudiated.
Posts: 2005 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I figuratively knew that and delighted in preemptively pounding your observation into the ground.
Posts: 2005 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seriously though USA couldn't wage war on just about anybody else. Maybe and prolly could get the UN on its side (iran) but otherwise the public wouldn't like it and the US couldn't get wage war without getting past big UN countries like China.... and we all know that if it came down to china vs. usa, china would win Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
What OSC says about American high schools are true. I go to one. It's not even that don't teach you important things like geography, history, logic, etc. It's that they don't even bother to teach anything even they think is important. To me, it seems like school isn't about learning anymore. It's about judging the students so they can figure out where we belong in the world. And they judge us by their standards of what they think is important.
And there's nothing we can do about it.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
GaalDornick, there's ONE thing you can do about it: You can read your brains out. Newspapers, books, magazines. You can educate yourself, and do it superbly. It's not that the information isn't available - it just isn't available IN SCHOOL.
China would likely win a war with the US fought on CHINESE soil, should anyone be stupid enough to launch one; but China does not remotely have the ability to project serious power onto US soil, short of nuclear power, which would provoke hideous retaliation and therefore would be suicidal.
But remember, when the Korean War ended in armistice and stalemate, we had, in fact, beaten back a strong Chinese invasion. But it was NOT a war on Chinese soil; and the Chinese entered it precisely when we got too close to the Chinese border. Worth considering.
There are plenty of Chinese with no love for their current government and no stomach for wars on foreign soil. But tread on soil they consider Chinese, and you may find that the Chinese don't CARE who their government is, ain't nobody going to conquer Han China. Back when the Chinese were all peasants except a very thin crust of overclass, it didn't matter who the overclass was. But those days are over. The Chinese people are now functionally middle class (the irony of Communism is that it made whole countries of peasants into bourgeouisie) and susceptible to patriotism.
Posts: 2005 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"GaalDornick, there's ONE thing you can do about it: You can read your brains out. Newspapers, books, magazines. You can educate yourself, and do it superbly. It's not that the information isn't available - it just isn't available IN SCHOOL."
Yeah, that's true, and I do my best to do that. I just get mad that I have to spend 40 hours a week learning about nothing, when, if we had a good education system, I could be spending that time learning useful things and getting good grades for it, also.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why would China win? The U.S. has enough military power to wage war on the next 17 most powerful countries. And then, it would be an equal fight.
I am quite sure that no nation would be dumb enough to launch a full scale invasion on American soil, as they would have to to deal with the most powerful nations on Earth. Us ON Cinese soil?
Our military is about... a lot stronger, and more advanced and updated. The American military is dominant in about everyaspect. Except snipers, that title goes to Britain.
I can find no reason why it wouldn't work. Even if china nuked New York say? D.C.? They would either have MAD on their hands, or inevitiably, the US would nuke eveyr major Chinese city.
Search a database. You know it too be true.
Ahhhhh, good old, ignorant, arrogant, rude, fat, stupid, and mean America. I love it...
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: Why would China win? The U.S. has enough military power to wage war on the next 17 most powerful countries. And then, it would be an equal fight. Iam quite sure that no nation would be dumb enough to attack a full scale invasion on American soil, as would have powerful nation on Earth. Us and Cinese soil?Our military is about... alot stronger, and more advanced and updated. I can find no reason why it wouldn't work. Even if china nuked New York say? D.C.? They would either have MAD on their hands, or inevitiably, the US would nuke eveyr major chinese city.
Search a database. You know it too be true.
Ahhhhh, good old, ignorant, arrogant, rude, fat, stupid, and mean America. I love it...
Dude China could easily win. It doesn't always come down to military power, that was one of the points in Ender's Game. It comes down to resources and how well you use them. And frankly, China has a lot of resources.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course it does. More people means more numbers on the battlefied. It means more chances of finding better generals to lead those men. It means that while the USA is initiating the drafting of young men to join their army, China still has enough men to counter the USA's army w.o denting their workforce. It doesn't really matter though because China and USA won't be going to war anytime soon. Hopefully...
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay then. That is the most illogical thing I have ever heard. The U.S. army is marginally LARGER then China's, or marginally smaller. It all depends on what database you look.
Numbers in today's military, mean almost nothing. And without denting their workforce? Do you think America would continue to trade with a country it is at war with? NO.
We would try to destroy them in everyway possible, and if that would mean, not buying, we would go somewhere else.
The Chinese economy would plummet, and they would lose MANY of their trading allies, for they would pull out along with the U.S.
You realise, if the U.S. fell, tens of nations would go with it?
I am not being arrogant here, I am simply telling what has a likely chance of happening.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Before going off all half-cocked, let's define our terms, shall we? 'To win a war' can mean any of several things :
To put young men with rifles in the cities of the opposing nation, and impose your own administration for your own purposes - whether to build a stable ally, or suck the wealth out of the region.
To force the opposing government to make concessions, whether of tribute, trading rights, ceasing to support regimes you dislike, or stopping a particular artist from making music.
To reduce the enemy country to a radioactive wasteland haunted by cancerous ghosts, while your own remains a viable industrial nation.
The United States has, I believe, the power to 'win' in the third sense; whether it has the will to apply its power is not clear. It probably has the power to win in the second sense; the US navy is good enough to impose a blockade of the Chinese coast, which would cripple their economy - they are even more dependent on imported oil than the US is. (This might not be a good idea, though. The last time the US imposed a strategic-material embargo on an Asian nation with an authoritarian government, it got Pearl Harbour. Doing that to a nation with nukes might not be terribly bright, even if the US would 'win' the exchange.)
Finally, the US certainly does not have the power to win in the first sense. (Neither does China, of course.) Certainly, the US army can defeat any number of Chinese divisions; but they cannot control anything but the ground they stand on, and that tenuously. China is just too large, as the Japanese found out in their time.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dude lets look at it like this. You're saying that USA has better military equipment than China. I won't argue there. However, all you have to do is look at the war going on now to see how the US handles their military. They simply dont have the MacArthurs anymore do they?? I believe KoM was right about USA successfully blockading the China seaborder. But look at it this way if it was just China vs. USA i believe China would win because: China has a ton of people. Even if they draft or w.e it is they do over there, they still are gonna be able to produce enough money, steel, and ammunition required by the war. China is quite capable of fending for itself. Otherwise how would it have lasted this long? I mean sure they might run low. But the Chinese Navy isnt that bad. They proved that with their war on Russia. So they could just win those resources back. It all comes down to who has the better people up top.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, their economy would not allow for them do all of this. You claim that having more men, would guarentee vicotory. Producing steel, and ammunition, and other goods for war. Their economy is SMALL compared to the US's. They could not afford this.
So, when the U.S. destroys their trade are they going to be able to produce all of this? They would plow themslelves into the ground. The U.S., however, has the largest economy in the world, and COULD afford this. The U.S. would plow China into the ground, their economy along with it. Having a huge population means nothing. The U.S. has the 3rd highest population.
But, I do have to agree with KoM, on this. Niether could win on each other's soils.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, apart from the constant border skirmishing that's been going on since the Russian colonisers reached Siberia, anyway. But we were speaking of navies. Perhaps comrade Soap is thinking of the Russo-Japanese war?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Japanese still want their islands back though
As for winning a war in the traditional sense of occupying and such, we do not have the political will or stomach for the atrocities that it would take to really assimilate any country let alone one of China's size. I do think that we could bomb, invade and leave, knocking their economy back a couple of decades. But once again, there would have to be some sort of aggression from China's side for us to get involved. Simply the do not really have anything we want besides cheap goods which we evidently want way too bad.
Back to the high school question, I think there are some aspects of an American high school education that are superior to those of other countries. (of course I only experienced an American high school) My high school education was lacking everything that KoM and OSC mentioned. As a matter of fact the I learned very little academically (sp) from high school because I was an avid reader. But aside from this I was afforded the opportunity to participate in 2 sports (could have done 3 but I didn't like basketball or wrestling), sing in the choir, play in the band, participate in Future Business Leaders of America, Academic decatholon as well as several other activites. Of course my school was very small so you were almost forced to participate in at least 3 activities in order to have enough people for them all to function. I think the extracurriculars taught me more than class did.
Of course, with education funding as it is, these are the programs that get cut and schools are so large now that most kids probably don't have an opportunity to do any extracurricular. But as my mom told me as a kid, you get the kind of education that you take.
Sergeant
(sorry for the lack of parrallel structures in my lists.)
Posts: 278 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now can we please drop the "my dad could beat your dad" thing? If you want to discuss China v America, or really any countries at war, make a new thread.
I have little to say in regard to formal schooling. It's horrible and I hate it. Of course I'm talking about Australia. I have no opinion on the American formal schooling system, obviously.
[ February 06, 2006, 04:31 AM: Message edited by: cheiros do ender ]
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I was to make a China v America thread, the hardest I'm willing to try to stop this thread derailing, I think you'd be pleasantly surprised.
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I cana agree sergeant, that America does not really have the stomach for it a war like that. As for the cheap goods, that's true, but I think another thing that America would go to war for is probably that we want to stop China from becoming a superpower.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
