Strange

Are you asking if it is possible to work in science with only a BSc? If so, I am sure it is (even though I don't work in science). I'm sure that most teams have people with a wide range of qualifications (and note that all modern science is done by teams, I am not aware of any significant work done by individuals - but I could be wrong). It is the same in my work: I have worked with people with PhD, MSc, BSc, BA, and no qualifications at all. They have all contributed in different ways. Yes, I am sure. This line: We do not doubt the technical quality of your work or that it may prove of interest to others working in cancer therapy. Is simply them being polite. I would not assume that they have read the paper in any detail. They have just read enough to determine that the subject is not relevant to them. I would translate this email as: "Please do not bother us on this subject again".

These people probably get hundreds, maybe thousands, of emails a month with enquiries about their organisation, journals, conferences, etc. Some of the people involved have full-time jobs elsewhere and only have limited time to work on this. So you can't always expect a quick response. Also, if you get a very short email saying "thank you but no" then that is probably a standard polite rejection email that they send out to very many people. In which case, there is no point replying. I would say it was neither a compliment nor an inconvenience. They were simply stating that it is not the sort of thing they publish. That's all there is to it.

A circuit is just the connection between the components (which includes the power supply). So all (electrical) machines require a circuit. For example, the connection from the battery to a motor is a circuit. But perhaps you mean something more specific by "circuit"?

"Double page" is quite an unusual term. It is, I think, most commonly used in the phrase "double page spread" which means a magazine/newspaper article which is printed across the two pages (i.e. treating the two pages as one).

I have never come across gravity used in the explanation. Do you have a reference? I suppose that because SR is a subset of GR, an explanation in GR could be in terms of gravitational effects, but I really don't know. Slower. Universally accepted. But (as noted in another thread about this) the approaching clock may be seen to run faster because of the Doppler effect. Is there any reason to think it could? This is the basis of the Lorentz transformation - see the recent thread on "objects and frames" for a great explanation from ajb. I am not aware of any controversy regarding any aspect of SR. (Or even GR.)

A very old idea that was abandoned a long time ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation

I think you would have to quote exactly what she said for us to understand what she meant. Your reporting of her reply is not very clear (e.g. I can't make any sense of "they had had no required protocols for proposal projects"). Presumably the content of the paper was relevant, even if the institution doesn't seem to be.

No. She is politely saying that they have not looked at the technical quality. The quality is irrelevant. They are not interested in the paper because it is not the sort of paper they publish.

No, but it is dependent on the "route" the object has taken through space time. If two people drive from New York to San Franciso but one drives via New Orleans and the other via Chicago, you wouldn't be surprised that their odometers read different distances.

There is another article here: http://www.space.com/33841-living-on-proxima-b.html

Murderer!

Or are they ...

Perhaps because they were German and idealism was a hot topic in Germany at the time.

Well, Newtonian gravity was suspect when it couldn't account for the precession of Mercury. That was part of the motivation behind GR.

That's right. It is purely philosophy.

As you are too lazy to provide a reference, I'll do it for you: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Max_Planck That appears to be a general philosophical position which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with quantum theory. This is a very old idea, known as idealism, that has been supported by many people. For example, Bishop Berkeley: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley In other words, long before quantum theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism

What exactly did they say?

Exactly. And to undertsand why the two frames are not symmetrical, the important point is that they will differ in when the moving clock started and stopped its acceleration (i.e. relativity of simultaneity) and hence how many ticks took place in the "moving" frame of reference versus the "non moving".

That seems to be a completely separate question. You can have a deterministic universe where things happen for a reason. You can have a non-deterministic universe where things happen for a reason. You can have a deterministic universe where things happen for no reason. You can have a non-deterministic universe where things happen for no reason. Although causality always applies. I assume you mean something more than that by "a reason" (e.g. karma, fate, god, whatver)

I'm not sure I understand the problem. The moving clock appears to run slower because it is moving (relative to the other observers). When it stops moving then it is observed to run at the same speed as the observer's (stationary) clocks. Because they are all in the same frame of reference. The equivalence of all frames of references doesn't seem relevant to that: you have one frame that is considered to be moving, and the clocks in that frame appear to be running slower. The equivalence comes in when we look at the frame of reference of the moving clock. While that clock is in an inertial frame moving relative to the other observers, the clock's owner will see the clocks on the space stations running slow. Equivalent! In other words, it makes no difference which inertial frame you consider to be moving and which to be stationary; each will observe the other's clock running slow. But... And it is is a big but... BUT, your example does not deal with inertial frames. The clock is not always in an inertial frame. It is accelerated and then slowed. That is why it accumulates less total time. (See the full "twin paradox" explanation for details.)

Not quite the same. I don't think there is any evidence that small amounts of sugar in the diet are dangerous.

It depends on the type (source) of the sugar, I think. But I say "impurities" because it is not extra nutritional stuff, just things like caramelised sugars and other organic compounds that give colour and flavour. But nothing, as far as I know, that is significant in terms of diet. And, of course, some brown sugar is simply refined white sugar that has been coloured brown! And apparently you are right: the brown colour is entirely due to molasses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_sugar Although that is true by definition as molasses is the brown stuff extracted from sugar! And I am wrong: molasses does contain things like vitamin B and minerals. So I guess a case could be made that brown sugar is (very slightly) healthier. In moderation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_sugar#Nutritional_value

I'm not sure why the old-fashioned idea of a "clockwork universe" is so counter-intuitive. It seems kind of obvious that if you knew the position and velocities of all particles you predict where they would end up - like a giant game of snooker.

Brown pasta is made with whole wheat flour which has some of the bran and wheatgerm in it. This probably means it is slightly more nutritious. Although, in a balanced diet I would expect this is not very significant. (I have never eaten it and the concept is almost as disgusting as brown rice, so I won't be trying it any time soon.) Brown sugar is discoloured by impurities and so is no healthier than white sugar.

How much did you have to pay? Reported as spam