Yes, sort of, explained partially by the time until you actually get the cash.
Should have bought 3 months ago and you would have seen a 35% return, which ain't bad
Nasa budget/Fed budget=0.60%
personal tax/federal revenue=40%
Depending how you look at the deficit, what bucket Nasa funds come from, and how much tax you actually pay, you probably spend less per year on NASA than on watching science fiction movies, regardless of delivery. Personally, I vote for spending money on the real thing.
Wrong formula. With m as the RESTING mass, you get E=mc^2 / (sqrt(1-(v^2/c^2)) , which is infinite for v=c.
One way to look at this is that as an object approaches the speed of light, its mass becomes (almost) infinite. In order to accelerate more, you need (almost) infinite energy. The formula explodes into infinity exactly at the speed of light.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, sort of, explained partially by the time until you actually get the cash. Should have bought 3 months ago and you would have seen a 35% return, which ain't bad
Nasa budget/Fed budget=0.60% personal tax/federal revenue=40% Depending how you look at the deficit, what bucket Nasa funds come from, and how much tax you actually pay, you probably spend less per year on NASA than on watching science fiction movies, regardless of delivery. Personally, I vote for spending money on the real thing.
Wrong formula. With m as the RESTING mass, you get E=mc^2 / (sqrt(1-(v^2/c^2)) , which is infinite for v=c. One way to look at this is that as an object approaches the speed of light, its mass becomes (almost) infinite. In order to accelerate more, you need (almost) infinite energy. The formula explodes into infinity exactly at the speed of light.