swansont

An inertial frame has no acceleration. You can tell if you are accelerating, not if you are moving with constant velocity.

I have to concur with toastywombel here. Keep things civil.

You'll have to explain why you think there is a connection here. The OP said nothing about EM waves. I think these have been addressed. You can tell if you are in a non-inertial frame. Perhaps you need to reformulate the question.

Yes, you can, but you have to be very careful about it. That's the gist of it.

In the absence of EM radiation (and other sources of fields, like charges and currents), there are no fields.

CTD has been suspended for 1 week for repeated use of logical fallacies and creationist trolling

Some of us in the US use Joules.

In this case, it is thought that the GRB would also emit gravitational waves, but since LIGO detected nothing, the source must have been farther away than Andromeda, even though it came from that direction. But LIGO must eventually detect something to fully corroborate this. You detect nothing if the machine doesn't work, and you have to exclude that possibility. IOW, measuring a false null result is easy, and you need confirmation that it was a real null result.

I can't find anything that is comprehensive, but here are some collections http://www.rwc.uc.edu/koehler/biophys/symb.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variables_commonly_used_in_physics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_letters_used_in_mathematics Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_constant

This was a non-detection event, though. A GRB is not something LIGO detects, so LIGO provisionally ruled out the burst as having come from Andromeda, since there was no corresponding gravitational signal.

There are no calories in digesting water, but calories are a unit of energy, and adding energy will cause a temperature change (we "burn" calories to maintain our body temperature*) 1 calorie is the amount of energy it takes to raise the temperature of a gram of water by 1 ºC (assuming no phase change) 54 isn't right, since that's from multiplying 18 and 3, ignoring the magnitudes of the numbers, and the units won't work out. [math]\frac{18,000 cal}{300 g} 1 \frac{g ºC}{cal}[/math] gives a temperature increase of 60 ºC, for a final temperature of 80 ºC * to add to the confusion, a food Calorie is actually a kilocalorie, and is usually denoted by using a capital "C"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young's_modulus

"Something must know" is an example of the pathetic fallacy.

Lesson learned, then. That's why it's a good idea to go looking for citations beforehand, so you can avoid passing along unverified, possibly incorrect information.

In a closed system, nothing would change. But you generally don't have a closed system. Cool air enters and gets heated up, while some warm air escapes. The cool air contains little moisture, so it has a low RH by the time it reaches the target temperature. It's also possible you can get condensation in cold parts of the house, taking water out of the system.

I'm guessing it's because the system is 21,000 LY from earth, and any signal would be too faint to be detected. http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/relativity/binpulsar.html The null result was expected, and puts limits on some quantities/models. http://scienceblogs.com/catdynamics/2009/08/cosmological_gravitational_rad.php http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/090819-gravitational-waves.html

And if we put some numbers to this: air moving at 10 m/s (~22 mph), with an area of about 5,000 m^2 [math]P= \frac{1}{2}\rho v^3[/math] The density of air is a little more than 1 kg/m^3, so we have around 2.5 MW of kinetic energy in this wind Average US household energy use is about a kW (somewhat less in Europe)

Being difficult to understand is not necessarily correlated with it being true. The field inside is zero because the individual contributions to the field go in both directions and, being a vector, they cancel out.

The whole point of citing sources is to allow others to check the veracity of the information and credibility of the source. If you make a claim, it is incumbent upon you to provide the reference for it — that's the price of admission and you are not being singled out in that regard, you are just being asked to comply with the same rules and standards that everybody else is. Complaining about it is not apt to garner you any sympathy. Pointing out faulty links is neither an attack, nor is it unwarranted. Copy and paste is not an undue burden. Why are links being requested? The simple, unvarnished truth is you have little or no credibility. You have posted demonstrably wrong material before, and this has happened enough that people are not prone to giving you the benefit of doubt that what you say is accurate. Other posters get asked for links too, and some provide them before they are asked — it's a good habit to get into.

Ah, we went through that already. Your support for that notion was pretty much destroyed (classifying it as "a simple rewrite" is laughably wrong) and yet you cling to it. But that thread was locked, so we won't continue it here. Sources don't become credible simply because they agree with your point of view.

How does relative humidity vary with temperature?

If the turbine produces a MegaWatt of electricity, then you know for sure it takes more than a MegaWatt to turn it (under whatever set of conditions you have).

Why was your opinion of Einstein a negative one before this?

Yes and no. Gravitational near-misses look an awful lot like charged particle scattering, which are treated as collisions. Just not "physics-101" collisions. What would happen in the case of a black hole is that the earth would begin to move toward the black hole, the black hole (assuming it is "small") would pass through, and the earth would be dragged along with it, slowing it back down. You'd have to work out the details, as this is an inelastic collision, because of the mass transfer and other effects. But there's no "bounce" like for hard sphere scattering, where the target moves off at a speed greater than the incident particle.

If something can enter or leave the universe, it seems to me that you have misdefined "universe"