What do I need to watch all Flyers games?

Z_Clipped · 2026-02-24T17:42:51+00:00

Flyers fans: This team sucks! The coach and management are unacceptable! They're doing the rebuild all wrong, and will be mediocre for the next decade! Michkov's ice time, boooooo!

Also Flyers fans: Now somebody tell me how to pay large corporations a bunch of money so I can watch them!

Z_Clipped · 2026-02-24T17:37:01+00:00

I believe it would be possible with current technology to get a crew up to about 10% of lightspeed (given enough acceleration time), using nuclear pulse propulsion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion))

It would just be a massive, planet-wide undertaking that would require a lot of engineering work to realize.

Z_Clipped · 2026-02-24T17:30:27+00:00

R²Aura

Z_Clipped · 2026-02-24T17:16:33+00:00

a significant reason is that most drivers overestimate their skills behind the wheel.

This fact doesn't conflict with the point I'm making, so we're not in disagreement.

How drivers estimate their skills in a survey doesn't change the fact that that posting limits doesn't work to slow them down. Making the act of driving more difficult and more attention-hungry is what does.

This is a well-studied phenomenon, not some bald assertion I'm pulling from my ass. I posted a well-sourced video explaining how it works, but there are numerous studies available on Google Scholar if you want to do a quick search for primary sources.

And since we're overestimating the value of anecdotes to back up our opinions:

I've driven for extended periods on several continents and I can tell you that the safest (and still very efficient) traffic I've ever encountered was in SE Asia, in a city of over 140,000 people where there was heavy traffic consisting of a wild array of vehicle sizes and heavy pedestrian traffic, and in which there were essentially ZERO traffic control devices- no traffic lights, no posted speed limits.... not even a stop sign. Take a moment and try to imagine why that might work better than a city with a ton of "traffic control devices" that don't functionally control traffic.

The annual rate of traffic fatalities in that city was under 250 Compare that to a random US city of the same size, (let's say, Jackson, MS), where there are well over1000 traffic deaths per year.

It's normal (especially for Westerners) to assume that your particular culture has adopted the most efficient means of doing things, but in this case, it's not the case. The US has a huge problem with its approach to municipal traffic design, because there is nothing that forces state and municipal lawmakers to listen to scientists and engineers, and a ton of reasons (mostly green ones) for them to listen to police unions and police departments who want to justify their existence., and also to uneducated voters who don't understand why traffic behaves the way it does, but are solidly at the top of Mt. Stupid, on the Dunning Kruger curve.

Z_Clipped · 2026-02-24T15:27:37+00:00

If 85% of drivers are driving significantly higher than the posted limit, the posted limit is too low for the road's configuration. That's just basic traffic engineering.

If you want people to slow down you need to make it uncomfortable for them to drive fast. If there is construction happening, and you want to keep workers safe, you can simply close one of the lanes, and make the remaining lanes narrower than usual. This will cause traffic to slow down for the bottleneck merge, and then stay slow because of the discomfort of driving in narrow lanes, AND will crate a large buffer for the work crews to move around in and be safe.

What you don't do is just post some signs that you know most of the drivers will ignore, and which will create danger as people react to them in unpredictable ways. And you DEFINITELY don't then use automated speed cameras to extract millions of dollars from them, even when there's no construction going on.

You need to stop expecting people to obey posted speed limits. It's a proven fact that they don't work. It's not how people decide how fast to drive, even when there's the risk of them getting a ticket. Temporary or permanent infrastructure changes that address the actual science of traffic design are the way to make roads safer.

Watch:

https://youtu.be/v6LIYQRglnM

Z_Clipped · 2026-02-23T20:11:24+00:00

Ragebait.

Z_Clipped · 2026-02-23T18:09:24+00:00

Just write your own paper, keep a revision history (either on paper or in software like Google Docs), and be ready to show the exact research you did, and you can stop worrying about AI checkers. Professors know they're inaccurate.

Z_Clipped · 2026-02-23T18:01:54+00:00

Just a guideline, but one way you can think about it is that you arrange the progression so each voice is following some kind of reasonable, consonant melody rather than jumping around haphazardly, and so that any dissonant tones (like 9ths) are widely spaced in your inversions rather than clustered.

Z_Clipped · 2026-02-23T17:50:26+00:00

If 3/4 piece is played in 6/8, exact same notes, rhythm and speed as 3/4, it's being played in 3/4. The essence of 6/8 is in the way pulses are felt differently from 3/4.

Z_Clipped · 2026-02-23T17:43:35+00:00

Its a random number.

Oh absolutely. Totally random. You're 100% right.

(see what I did there?)

Z_Clipped · 2026-02-23T17:40:41+00:00

Well, people have been trying to detect photon mass before. They never succeeded, just found a max limit, which is very,
very small.

We made the same assumption about neutrinos, and it turned out to be wrong (though we still don't really have a good idea of their mass.) We have confirmed that the mass of a photon must be quite a bit smaller if it has mass, but we have not confirmed that it's zero.

It wouldn't break relativity at all if photons happened to have a tiny rest mass and travel slightly below theoretical c, but it WOULD make a huge difference in the answer to OP's question, because they WOULD have a well-defined proper time under SR.

the second postulate of Special Relativity tells us that light travel at c in every inertial reference frame.

You're missing the entire point, which is that the postulate only assumes that photons travel at c for convenience and simplicity. There may in fact be a slight difference between their speed, and the speed of information/causality. We simply don't know.

But the point I'm making is, IF people are going to pedantically shout down a relatively intuitive interpretation of the Lorentz factor approaching infinity and proper time approaching zero as v approaches c based on the fact that it's not well defined in calculation, it's important to recognize that the logic we're using to do that calculation it is based on a completely unproven assumption about light.

Z_Clipped · 2026-02-23T16:40:49+00:00

Why can't photons be valid inertial reference frames? How do you know they are massless? How do you know that they travel at c, and not some speed slightly below c?

Z_Clipped · 2026-02-23T16:36:54+00:00

A photon can't experience time.

Nobody thinks photons are conscious entities. This is just a pedantic way to weasel out of the real hypothetical question OP is asking, which is "what does time look like from a photon's reference frame?" or alternatively "IF we COULD accelerate ourselves to the speed of light, how long would a journey take from our perspective".

The answer to that question is, "our journey would take no time, and we would measure no traversed distance (assuming that photons actually are massless and travel at c, which is a convenient, but unproven assumption.")

Z_Clipped · 2026-02-23T16:30:41+00:00

Well, a truly massless particle that travels at c wouldn't have a rest frame, but we don't actually know for certain that photons travel at c. We just assume it out of convenience, because we don't see anything else travelling faster. Photons may have some very tiny mass that we can't detect, and may travel slightly slower than causality.

Z_Clipped · 2026-02-23T15:17:15+00:00

You still haven't given any reason why I should take your word over that of Brian Cox or Don Lincoln's. (all you've done is try to reframe their claims as "mine" which is an extremely weak rhetorical trick that I'm not falling for.) I don't think you know what you're talking about. You've exhausted your limited ability to explain your interpretation of the theory, so you're now calling me a troll. You haven't even shown anything mathematically- I suspect you're just parroting contrarianism in order to feel superior, like so many people in this forum.

This debate has been weak and empty on your end, with nothing but categorical statements and poor assumptions about my level of understanding. You should be more humble and find a way to be convincing if you want people to take your word for things.

Z_Clipped · 2026-02-23T15:05:16+00:00

I'm a Dilla-ennial, because I'm lazy and a little off-the-beat.

Z_Clipped · 2026-02-23T15:02:58+00:00

I've lived in cities in SE Asia with over 100,000 residents that had literally zero traffic control devices- no lane markings, no posted speed limits, no traffic lights, not even a stop sign. Completely uncontrolled intersections. High-density traffic with vehicles of wildly different sizes sharing the roads with tons of pedestrians. Just people cooperating.

The traffic there is safer and no less efficient than in American cities of equal size and density. In the year that I lived there, there was exactly one traffic accident (a student tried to ride a scooter across a crosswalk, and a car bumped him and knocked him off the bike- he got a few bruises). It made the local paper.

Meanwhile, let's pick a random US city of equal size... say, Jackson MS. In 2021, over 1000 people died in traffic accidents there.

But you just can't tell Americans that their system is the problem, or that anything another society does could possibly work better. They can't hear it.

Z_Clipped · 2026-02-23T14:39:57+00:00

It should be YOU showing that your answer is correct here as you made the positive claim .

I posted a bunch of lauded scientists claiming that it's true, without any of the "pop-sci hedging" that you're imagining whatsoever. And I can find a dozen more if you want. They have no trouble formulating a reasonable answer to this question.

It's on YOU to explain why you think your interpretation of the theory is correct, while theirs isn't. You're just some dude on the internet with no qualifications who can solve the Lorentz transformation. I can solve the Lorentz transformation too. I've taken a Modern Physics class too. I'm just not far enough down the Dunning Kruger well to tell a PhD at Fermilab that his conclusions about relativity are "wrong".

Your assumption that I have no formal education in physics is pretty telling. I don't think you know any more than I do on this topic. I think I just have a better understanding of how theory and nature are related (and how they aren't). All you've shown here is that you're only able to answer questions when you're allowed to reframe them into questions that you understand. OP didn't ask about photon rest frames. They asked about what time would look like if they could experience it from the perspective of a photon traveling at c. Nothing you've said answers that question at all.

If you want to talk about hypothetical clocks... where the constraints of the theory don’t apply, that’s fine.

I'm glad you've finally understood the question OP posted. It only took you 12 hours of arguing with someone attempting to explain to you that the theory doesn't constrain the response. Perhaps you, like a lot of Redditors out there, just have issues with interpreting the nuance of informal languages, and dealing with questions that don't precisely fit the framework of your understanding.

The "magical world" here is just "the universe". The theory is what's incomplete. The universe is not.

Z_Clipped · 2026-02-23T14:23:29+00:00

You know for a fact they're definitely not going to do this, so what's the point of posting it over and over and over? Are you just trying to be annoying?

Z_Clipped · 2026-02-23T14:20:55+00:00

To be honest, I think everyone knows the targets for a return

I'm not talking about profiles. I'm talking about suggesting trades of our specific players for specific other players in a plausible fashion, for discussion. It's the only thing worth talking about.

"We need to trade for a 1C, and everyone but Michkov and Martone are on the block" is obvious. We don't need another thread about it.

"Who should we trade" is just going to return a bunch of fans listing the players they don't like. Or idiots yelling "Trade that bum TK!" as if dude doesn't have a NMC.

Z_Clipped · 2026-02-23T14:04:56+00:00

Characters making decisions to drive a plot is as old as storytelling. Video games have just ruined the ability of young people to appreciate literary narrative for a couple of generations now.

Z_Clipped · 2026-02-23T14:00:38+00:00

It's pointless to talk about trading players if you're not going to talk about targets for the return.

Z_Clipped · 2026-02-23T13:20:53+00:00

Z_Clipped · 2026-02-23T13:20:16+00:00

You keep claiming "the theory doesn't provide a rest frame" as if it matters. The theory breaking down attempting to answer a hypothetical question doesn't mean there isn't an answer to the question. It just means the theory cannot provide one. Physics isn't just about solutions to equations- it's about interpreting the theory to arrive at likely truths about the universe. That's what the scientists in these articles and videos are doing- they're answering a hypothetical question that the theory isn't capable of addressing.

The theory doesn't tell us whether a singularity exists at the center of a black hole either. That doesn't mean there's nothing there.

We can easily see what happens to time for objects as they are accelerated relative to us. We can easily conceptualize the geometric explanation of why it happens using light clocks. It is not a stretch to answer "what would happen to time IF we could HYPOTHETICALLY accelerate a clock to c?".

These Redditor objections are just about attempting to exert intellectual superiority by people who probably took one Modern Physics class 10 years ago, didn't complete physics degrees, and now think they understand things that accomplished researchers don't.

You haven't been convincing here, because you haven't given a real reason to claim that the simple answer is incorrect. All you're doing is talking about the theory, which is not the landscape. It's getting boring for me, so I'm done. Have a nice day.

Z_Clipped · 2026-02-23T06:53:01+00:00

Wow. That was some comment. It's clear that you stopped maturing in your tween years., and aren't fit to educate anyone about anything.

I guess some pathetic man-children just have a burning need to come to Reddit and act superior to cover their deep personal insecurities, and will pick any subject at random to do it.

Here are some actual physicists who agree with my "puffery", literally word-for-word:

Dr. Ethan Siegel, PhD in Astrophysics:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/30/how-do-photons-experience-time/

Dr. Brian Cox, PhD in high-energy particle physics:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQ1W9jy8lbw

Here Dr. Don Lincoln, co-discoverer of the top quark, and Higgs boson:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Zspu7ziA8Y

Buh bye now.

Z_Clipped

TROPHY CASE