Questions of all sorts

Ask your own questions here if you want, and I will ask some too.

My first one is if you are going at 100 mph, about how long would it take you to reach Alpha Centauri? (Alpha Centauri is the closest star other than our Sun and it is about 4.4 light years away.)

Do your own research, but I believe a light year is about slightly under 5.9 trillion miles, or 5.9*10^15.

Crap, I got it wrong! I thought it would be about 30 billion years, but it seems it would be more like about 30 million. I wonder where I went wrong?

At 100 mph it would take 5.9 x10^13 hours. Dividing by 3600x365 gets 45 million years.

Thanks Jilan, but I sent a wrong number, as 5.9 trillion should be 5.9*10^12, not 15.

Here is then the more correct answer

5,900,000,000,000 miles in light yr  (what they say)
25,960,000,000,000 miles in 4.4 light yrs   (4.4* what they say)
8,766 hours in yr   (24 per day * 365.25 days per year)
876,600 miles traveled in yr   (100 * hours per year in our speedy little car/ship)
29,614,419.3474789 answer (total miles to travel/miles traveled per year)

This does NOT include a stop at any red dwarfs and may be scewed if we have stow aways - remember there are always dangers in space travel!

Courtesy of my open office spreadsheet.

i) Why do people in war-torn countries (and planets) continue to
have lots of children when there is clearly a terrible shortage of resources?

ii) What can be done about this?

Jonathan Ainsley Bain wrote:i) Why do people in war-torn countries (and planets) continue to
have lots of children when there is clearly a terrible shortage of resources?

ii) What can be done about this?

You can be different than this, but I know of no way to fix this for others.

Well I have the beginnings of a way.

The first point is to realize that such a way must exist
or else the 'others' are going to arrive on your doorstep
in ever increasing numbers. (See Europe).

Then it will not matter if one has not chosen to be part of
the problem, because the problem is that the problem does not
care - it will become everybody's problem. (See ww2).

The first step to the solution is that there is a profound difference
between analytical logic and popular opinion;
yet both have commandeered the title 'knowledge'.

Jonathan Ainsley Bain wrote:i) Why do people in war-torn countries (and planets) continue to
have lots of children when there is clearly a terrible shortage of resources?

ii) What can be done about this?

i.)  Why?  People like to fuck.  They would prefer fucking to dealing with problems.  E.g: U.S. presidents and congress-nits.  

ii.) Solutions?  
a.) The liberal atheists among us should send them condoms.  

b.) Our businessmen should find a way to sell them condoms.  

c.) The Christians and Jews should give them free Bibles, with inserts declaring that the use of condoms will offend God.  Alas.  This will confuse these nitwits.  But don't worry-- they are mostly Islamists and Christians, and are accustomed to being confused, so they will deal with it by making no changes whatsoever.  

d.) Ultimately, why not let Darwinism do its thing?   Death is both the only certainty and the solution to all personal complaints.  Death is natural, inevitable, and okay.  Even the deaths of children who would not have been born to more intelligent parents.  

"Doing something about this" will only prolong the glitch.  Why prolong it?  If you go to Mexico and are dumb enough to eat a salad and get dysentery, would you prefer to retain it within your festering bowels or take a dump?  Then another, and another-- until you either become accustomed to the infestation or find a way to kill it off.

Jonathan Ainsley Bain wrote:Well I have the beginnings of a way.

The first point is to realize that such a way must exist
or else the 'others' are going to arrive on your doorstep
in ever increasing numbers. (See Europe).

Then it will not matter if one has not chosen to be part of
the problem, because the problem is that the problem does not
care - it will become everybody's problem. (See ww2).

The first step to the solution is that there is a profound difference
between analytical logic and popular opinion;
yet both have commandeered the title 'knowledge'.

Humans commonly arrogate undeserved titles to themselves, but how is it that you figure "analytical logic" and "popular opinion" to have done the same?  Or did you just make something up, again?

Your title is "Forum Physicist."  Did you commandeer it, or was it bestowed by someone you've conned who is completely ignorant of what is required to be an honest physicist?