J.C.MacSwell

I agree. Howevever it explains a number of observations which seem best explained by the model. So it's a best bet, for now, but a lot of prominent physicists would say it's much more than that. But I agree with you. (except the "creationists only" part, you have to include all religions plus the Athiests, leaving only the Agnostics and any ones I can't think of )

Thanks, I was starting to second guess myself as to what it meant to be in an inertial frame. LOL

I know that gravitation and electrostatics follow the inverse square rule. But does a toroidal shaped magnetic field follow this rule? I picture it falling off faster (and that is my "perceived" experience, so I'm just asking) mostly due to a cancelling out effect, not because of a lack of inherent "inverse square rule" phenomenon.

Do you mean at rest in the same inertial frame? (with regards to the second paragragh)

Unless you mean Absolute time (which may not exist), time is not invariant. Could you explain your last sentence?

Hydrodynamics, pretty much Newtonian and yet it has to be pretty hard on it's "mathematical leading edge". Very difficult or simple depending on what simplifying assumptions are made. I think someone very good in mathematics (I'm pretty good in math, but I suck at "mathematics" which is a shame because it's the language of physics) would get equally overwhelmed at some point in Hydrodynamics, GR, or QM. I guess how they judged where that point came in each might determine what they thought was more difficult. And then there's string "theory"...or is there?

I think it could recirculate, so no energy or mass loss?

That's what I was thinking. "follow the money" comes to mind. They are both counterintuitive, especially when we are taught Newtonian physics first and told when young not to believe in magic.

On the trip "out" the spaceman would "appear"(my "calculated" assessment of how he functions in my "inertialesque" frame based on Earth) to have time very much slowed down for him. The video signal would seem even slower. On the trip "back" the spaceman would "appear"(my "calculated" assessment of how he functions in my "inertialesque" frame based on Earth) to have time very much slowed down for him. (same as trip "out") However, the video signal would seem much faster (look like fast forward)

The idea though is if you could do what losfomot suggests then you could communicate faster than light. If we set up a few (I think you need 3 but with more we could be closer, and at least keep it in our solar system) communications "corridors" with steady streams of these photons then I could tell you tommorrows race results or stock market results.

You cannot assume that. You must allow for the speed of light and the speed of the ship in your reference frame to make conclusions about what is happening in your reference frame.

Who is this big Jupiter guy, and do you think he intends to harm us? Oh wait... the planet Jupiter. Maybe we are safe (for now).

So you might randomly get sucked into the future just because some numbskull from the future trys to get into your present?

Interesting point to what 5614 said: sometimes they pump water upstream (above the hydroelectric dam) during non peak hours in some systems so that it (the energy) is available for peak time use. Obviously there is an energy cost involved in doing this but it allows for a smaller system.

Which is very fortunate for us or the bigger guys might get us! Then again, wasn't the asteroid belt a planet at one time...

Your right, it isn't the case in GR or SR.

Relative to the water/current there is a transfer of power through the anchor, chain etc.

The big bang?

What does wobble have to do with it? The axis orientation is very consistent.