J.C.MacSwell

That's not correct. For, say, the moon orbiting the Earth, the Earth is greater than the sum of it's parts...all the kinetic energy bound in the system (just like the runner on the oval track) adds to both the gravitational, and equally the inertial, mass of the Earth. Note how this is effectively different from a straight line kinetic energy. edit: essentially changed to effectively

If he could, somehow, go fast enough around the oval track of an Olympic Stadium, he would indeed create a blackhole. His own mass would not increase, but the mass of the system he is part of would.

In SR: As the clock reaches motionlessness in our frame, it measures the rate of time passage of our frame...we would observe/calculate it as having sped up to match our rate from a previously slower pace. Since it was previously slower, less time would have passed for it. The reading on it would show less time lapsed, since the time it had escaped from us, than any clock of our own that had remained stationary in our frame.

Each World would be a total re-creation/addition of every possible affected frame including all mass and energy in a consistent manner. What would be considered remote or very far away in a process such as this? Occam would very quickly need a chainsaw to shave with... Essentially, same way it "knows" locally, since it equates to the same thing

I think the same way it gets there in a one World interpretation. Both the new paths have common "ancestors" with exponential creation of Worlds. It is a very "busy" theory.

As per 7 years ago, my point is that there is nothing in principle that prevents it being done...

A fan on a boat can generate thrust. A sail or sails can be used to redirect the thrust, including reversing it 180 degrees. The fan without the sail has net thrust, and the fan/sail system can have net thrust. Momentum and energy are of course conserved. Think of a pump (fan) and a hose (arguably a "sail") you can get net thrust in any direction you wish...it is just a little trickier setting up actual sails in the right way but it can be done.

Hi Avner...this is an old thread! Particles carry momentum not force. For a boat and air particle initially at rest: If the force accelerating the particle is the same but opposite in each case, and for the same duration, the particle (and boat) will again be stationary...but the boat will be displaced to the left (not as much as the presumably lighter particle is displaced to the right) You may of course consider this displacement insignificant and ignore it If the force accelerating the particle is the same but opposite, but for more or less duration in each case, the boat will be in motion at some velocity, with momentum equal to but opposite that of the particle.

If it arrived at 1 foot up at 2s; from which direction would it arrive? If it arrived at the top at 60s; from which direction would it arrive?

A spring...to the degree that it is also a damper (almost insignificant for a good spring) . Only an ideal spring does not have any hysteresis. But I think you are after something else...

How do we know it's not reversing right now?

Espergalacanto

In a "perfect world" the perfect cosmological principal would hold: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_cosmological_principle The Perfect Cosmological Principle states that the Universe is homogeneous and isotropic in space and time. In this view the universe looks the same everywhere (on the large scale), the same as it always has and always will. It is the principle underpinning steady-state theory and emerging from Chaotic inflation theory.[1][2][3] The Perfect Cosmological Principle is an extension of the Cosmological Principle, which accepts that the universe changes its gross feature with time, but not across space.

The unbolded is what Jacques is getting at. The bolded contradicts what was just stated. If the natural rate of expansion (assuming there is one) is being retarded by gravity, but that effect is reduced over time from the expansion, then the expansion will increase over time (accelerate) as it approaches that natural rate. The rate of acceleration will diminish but always be positive. Edit: not sure if that actually fits the data just that it is based on Jacque's assumptions

I think they are after a proof that regardless of any differences in the masses

This would be true if, and only if, the balls had the same mass.

The problem with this is that we only have information that there are 2 children, and that the youngest is a girl. You have no information on the sex of the elder. It's still 50/50 If you knew at least one was a girl and you asked if the youngest was a girl, that would be different. Note your first post: It depends on how the information came out, but based on the fact that it was information on this girl, you still have nothing to indicate any change in possibility for the other. edit: I reread Litenoumjuq's post looks correct

I wasn't arguing against any correlation (not sure what "entanglement" might suggest if there was none at all), just thought your analogy was suggesting a fixed or classical correlation with preset but unknown results which has been experimentally proven not to be the case. I think(?) we all agree that there is no hidden variable without non locality, where Juanrga goes further suggesting that neither is necessarily required. I have not read the text ( http://quantum.phys.cmu.edu/CQT/ ) beyond briefly scanning it over but don't yet see how non locality can be avoided (or supported given SR, so I really don't have a consistent picture of what is going on...I didn't think anyone did)

Not necessarily. The force will be equal but opposite in any case. Whether the stroller accelerates or not is dependant on whether the external forces on it balance.

Hi MigL This might be the link?: http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/BellsTheorem/BellsTheorem.html Quoting from it (bolded by me): "Imagine we take a coin and carefully saw it in half so that one piece is a "heads" and the other is a "tails." We put each half in a separate envelope and carry them to different rooms. If we open one of the envelopes and see a heads, we know that the other envelope contains a tails. This correlation "experiment" corresponds to spin measurements when both polarisers have the same orientation. It is when we have the polarisers at different orientations that we see something weird." This is why I stated earlier that the analogy seemed reasonable but in fact it can be shown, by doing the experiment in a certain way, that it does not hold up.

I'll be the guy to say "don't quit your day job"... Unless you have a substantial amount of money, enough to sustain the lifestyle you would be comfortable with, you are better to keep a job, arguably one that does not drain you mentally, but allow you to pursue your dreams in your spare time with no undue pressure to accomplish something you feel would be of great significance...just putting that out there Best of luck in any case, and I hope you enjoy your pursuit

No part of it. David Griffith in the video referred to, not the author of your text. As for "absence of nonlocal influences", what exactly does that mean? Does it mean 1. the wave function cannot be collapsed non locally FTL(so no non locality at all?), or does it mean that, 2. when or if it does, it cannot effect information or causality FTL? I believe that the 2nd is the most commonly accepted. Is it not? Is your author suggesting the first? I am not familiar with his approach but will have to look into it.

I don't have that text (edit: found this on line: http://quantum.phys.cmu.edu/CQT/) , but here is a non technical lecture by the David Griffiths I found while looking for info on Robert Griffiths and thought it was interesting with regard to the collapse of the wave function. His entanglement analogy is frisbees thrown with both left and right hand (warning: it is 53 minutes long!) He seems to say that non local effects are in fact indicated (consistently) by experiment, though without information or causality, and "barely" (he holds his fingers barely apart) compatible with SR (personally I don't see the compatibility)

Observing one collapses the wave function of the other, not merely exposing a pre-existing condition, like in your envelope analogy. Did I take your analogy out of context? from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_Aspect : "Stated more simply, the experiment provides strong evidence that a quantum event at one location can affect an event at another location without any obvious mechanism for communication between the two locations. This has been called "spooky action at a distance" by Einstein (who doubted the physical reality of this effect). However, these experiments do not allow faster-than-light communication, as the events themselves appear to be inherently random."

You are making the same argument Einstein made (so you are in good company!), but real experiments trump thought experiments. Note that "vast" distances have not been proven and it is said that information is not transferred superluminally, but you may want to check out the Aspect details. They certainly indicate a non local effect and no prior fixed correlation or hidden variable.