Recent content by LBrandt

I do thank all who replied. I had assumed that this physics forum would be able to provide a quick and definitive answer. I have always enjoyed this forum and will continue to do so.

Thanks again. I noted your answer, and I agree with it. It's just that others have made comments to the effect that the question cannot be answered. That's why I continued to post on the issue.

Thanks. Well, I'm not sure what else I could specify about the batteries. They are both manufactured by the same company. They are both Lithium-ion 18 volt batteries, and one has a 2.4 amp hour rating, whereas the other has a 1.5 amp hour rating. They are both designed to fit the same tool...

Ok, 256bits, I accept your statement that both of my statements are incorrect. Then please, in a single sentence, tell me (assuming that both batteries are used in the same tool) whether I will experience more initial power using the 2.4 amp hour battery or the same initial power as the 1.5 amp...

Ok, so two of you (Khashishi and Gordianus) say that both will have the same initial power, and one of you (Kugan) says that the higher amp-hour battery will have greater initial power. Hmmm. To ask the question in a different way, does 2.4 amp hours mean (1) that I can produce 1 amp of power...

Thanks. Yes, the "initially" part is what concerns me. But my instinct (and of course I humbly realize that I could be wrong) is that both will have equal power, but one will last longer than the other. In the case of the specific batteries that I am concerned with, they are both 18 volt...

Thanks. Well, I might be overstating the question, since I really didn't intend for it to get into quite that technical a direction. I merely want to know (in general) whether the lower amp-hour battery would (initially) provide the same power as the higher amp-hour battery. My assumption is...

Question about battery amp hours Hello, A particular manufacturer has two Lithium-ion batteries available for use in a cordless tool. One battery is rated at 2.4 amp hours, and the other is rated at 1.5 amp hours. Given that both batteries are brand new and fully charged, is the...

First, the OP was correct with his original number. 13,200 million light years IS 13 billion! Secondly, the OP was incorrect with his statement about the diameter of the Milky Way. The Milky Way is more like 100,000 light years in diameter, NOT 100 light years!

Maybe I'm just missing something, but if the Earth twin has to wait for the images of the remote twin to travel to him at the speed of light, why doesn't the moving twin have to wait for the images of the Earth twin to travel to him at the speed of light?

That is correct, and it is what I stated above. Special Relativity does not prohibit two moving objects from having a relative speed > C as long as they are viewed from a third frame of reference.

The two ships WILL move apart faster than light, relative to an observer in a third frame of reference, but this does not violate Special Relativity, since no mass is actually moving at C.

Again, I'm not representing myself as a relativity expert, but I've never heard any discussion or seen any textbook on relativity that uses the concept of an axis of relative motion to determine whether two events can be simultaneous in more than one frame of reference. Here is a quote from...

I don't consider myself to be an expert on relativity, but my understanding is that for two events to be able to be viewed as simultaneous in all frames of reference, they must occur at the same point, not merely on a given axis. You can always draw a straight line between two points in space...

I don't usually "chime in" on these posts, but I thought that I'd chime in here on this one. The OP's question involved the rocket passing "close" to the sun, but the center of mass of the rocket won't be in the same "place" as the center of mass of the sun. In every other thread on the...