J.C.MacSwell

I don't believe all people are equal in all respects. I think most of this would have to do with genetics, early environment and nutrition. As for Races, however you group them, that may be true as well, but how could you reasonably test it on that scale? You would have to factor out the early environment, nutrition and other significant factors. If you managed to do this in an unbiased manner I think any variances would be small enough that secondary factors would overwhelm them.

So it's smaller, less buoyant and attached to a weight that made it neutral buoyant when it was larger. With that weight included it now as a system is heavier than water. When I let it go, why would it rise?

If you take a ballon to the bottom of a pool will it: 1. stay the same size? 2. get bigger-increase in volume? 3. get smaller-decrease in volume?

I have to admit the light looks pretty heavy in that picture...especially the red stuff. I guess we better start physics all over again at square one.

Originally I thought it was going to be a trick question, where our up (for those of us on the opposite side of the Earth) is their down.

I assume this is a helium filled balloon in this case? Probably one that has lost some helium and absorbed some air? Or tuned to be just the right weight? Assuming that: Air is cooler and denser near the floor and the temperature gradient and resulting density gradiant is sufficient to give the balloon (which as a system is denser than the ceiling air yet lighter than air at the floor) a net buoyant force near the floor, and net sinking force near the ceiling. Unlike the situation with the balloon in the water the pressure gradient is not sufficient to change the balloon enough to overcome the difference and the balloon finds equilibrium at it's original height or position. When I say "unlike" I am comparing it to a typical case...a water balloon/stone set up could also do this in the right conditions as per your quote that I bolded and as I mentioned in an earlier post. But typically this water balloon/stone would not be a stable setup and any displacement up or down would send it in that direction. As the air resists the increased compression at greater depth, what happens to the volume? With less volume, what happens to the buoyant force?

B could be correct if the balloon was originally stably at the surface, by enough to keep the average density of the balloon/stone system above that of the water even after the "gentle" compression.

I see only two obvious stable positions for the system, stone on the bottom and balloon at the surface. In between I don't see how you can easily tune the weight/volume to a stable condition, though you could tune the temperature and temperature gradient of the water to get that affect.

Yeah, my thing on the scale gained mass...so of course it weighs more. At that point I'm not really weighing a photon though... Picture trying to chase one down with a scale. If you tried to time it so that you were at 99.9%c as it went by you would have redshifted most of the energy out of existence in your new frame...so by succeeding in doing this you would have lost most of what you were trying to weigh and still no further ahead!

Hi Janus I often don't understand it until I have it clear in my head from more than one frame and I'm not there yet but: At what point is it as high as 3.73? Past 2am here so the brain is a little foggy, but I see it as very close to 2 as described in your last line and never much above. Except with an acceleration involved I don't see it and with none specifically defined even at the turn around I don't see a point where it is 3.73. Thanks JC

...and if you take weight as force affected by gravitation, then photons could be considered to have "weight", again with blue being "heavier" than red, though I'm not sure if that would be considered "weight". If you had something on a scale, and it absorbed a photon it would weigh more...and more if it was blue than if it was red.

He had to have more than one son. There is no requirement that he reproduced with more than one woman. Polygamy and the fact that males can have more offspring does explain the 50,000 year gap, but you cannot necessarily "blame" the current Adam.

Yeah, might be better to add a few more invincible parts, just to keep it interesting...

According to who? Aristotle?...or Vilas Tamhane? (the one who wrote that no theory was sacrosanct!) Admittedly our former and more intuitive views of space, and especially time, took a beating as SR was established... but something had to give and SR seems to have held up quite nicely as it has yet to be proven wrong. Feel free to try to prove it wrong, but Vilas Tamhane believing it irrational or impossible does not count.

Then why do you, like a broken record, continue to base your objections on the same incorrect premises? Where is it that you are asking "what if I am wrong?" You have offered nothing where current theory fails to agree with experiment, and instead cling to ideas that are clearly wrong. What is so sacrosanct about your beliefs that they should hold up despite evidence to the contrary?

Sadly, it is not uncommon. You have to check the air (as well as have other safety procedures in place) before any tank or confined space and rusting certain depletes the oxygen.

I don't understand this statement, even if it's "own frame" is it's rest frame. I assume I am missing the context. When switching frames anything not invariant is still mathematically dependent. I assumed that was what Tar meant by "staying in tune" (I could be wrong but I hope he did not mean that no time dilation was possible)

If you cannot keep your own examples straight it is going to be pretty tough to learn anything.

Assuming they were the same age prior to becoming part of the Earth and Sun, then yes. The oldest (least accelerated in lowest gravitational field, spending it's "life" in the cmbr isotropy) defines the age of the Universe. (correct me if that is wrong) You are right that it is not easy to separate out SR and GR effects when doing experiments.

As long as "apparent" is understood in the context that your observation is apparent as well, then I think that is fine. If you think that your view is somehow "real" in a context that the others is not, then you cannot support this scientifically. As for whether the rod contracts (or expands, if the relative speed of the observer decreases), I would say it depends, again, on what is meant by "contract" or even "physically contract". It cannot mean precisely what we mean in our daily usage as the mechanism is different from that of any type of everyday usage. But the length or distance gets measured as shorter when applying a consistent set of physical laws.

No math: How can your measurement of the rod, which remains stationary in it's rest frame not contract if you accelerate in that direction? Please answer using accepted laws of physics, or at the very least assumptions that have not been proven to be incorrect.

Every process works in such a way that the exact same events take place in each frame, even non-inertial frames. Only the "look" and timing is different.

Any elementary physics text that includes Special Relativity. Sorry Tar, but it would only break your imaginary laws, your conjectures, not accepted physical laws. It is not simply a photon lag phenomena that physicists "forgot" to account for, or a 100 year old conspiracy to ignore it.

Keep in mind the kinetic energy of the 3,000 lb weight at the end of the second. It is not an insignificant part of the energy in this case.

Which frame would that be? I personally use a number of them everyday and would find it very inconvenient not to switch.