swansont

Gravity is gravity. What would happen if a black hole passed by is gravitationally the same as if a non-black-hole of equal mass passed by.

I'm not sure of the question. Time moves at 1 second per second in your frame, regardless of whether your clock is working. "What is time" is a metaphysical question, not a scientific one.

If the electron travel is outwards, why is the net charge negative? Are you talking about the surface, or the whole system? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged What positive core? The direction of the electric field of the atmosphere is inward.

Damned if I do, damned if I don't. Sheesh! Yes, you were right, but … one might not get the point that there is no absolute frame from your post, since you speak of the object moving and then the observer moving. That's what I was trying to clarify.

Cs-133 isn't radioactive. The interaction is a low-energy atomic transition, specifically a spin-flip of the electron in the ground state.

There is no such thing as an object moving at .99999999999 c. You can, however, have an object moving at .99999999999 c with respect to some other object. Motion is relative. So numerous black holes are moving at that speed as measured by some particle in an accelerator, or by a high-energy cosmic ray proton. There are zero problems.

Do you? Gold salts of monovalent gold (AU I) with a gold-sulfur ligand (aurothiolates) are the only form of gold currently in use for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) Gold salts. Not monoatomic gold, aka ORMUS, which is a bunch hooey.

The issue doesn't come up when the events are co-located. They arise when they are separated, and light travels (or could travel) between them.

I was thinking that there might have been a translation issue that led to the poor wording.

OK, I can see that, but "is coming at the moment" is terribly awkward, IMO. "On her way" is much better. Or "arriving." "The government inspector is arriving; she will be shown around the factory" is a reasonable sentence. "Coming" implies a future arrival.

A canister-style vacuum cleaner, the kind that has an exhaust connection, might be a good air source.

No, you can't. There is no accepted theory that allows FTL travel.

Ivan Gorelik, your discussion of the "magnetic collapse" has its own thread, which was locked because you refused to follow the rules of discussion. Hijacking other threads to discuss it is also against the rules. STOP IT.

Energy is conserved without the "pondering medium." There is no need for it. If you think energy is not conserved otherwise, you have done the calculation improperly.

The sentence makes little sense to me as written. It is poorly punctuated. "The government inspector ---- at the moment, …" doesn't work with any of the choices. "at the moment" makes more sense if it is applied to the latter part. It would make more sense as two sentences: The government inspector ----. At the moment, she ---- around the factory. (Or possibly as one, separated by a semicolon The government inspector ----; at the moment, she ---- around the factory.) Written like that, A is correct. In E, the subject and verb don't agree; "at the moment" is present, and "will be shown" is future.

If the atmosphere is a Faraday cage, how do we communicate with satellites, and how do we do radio astronomy? The sky would look opaque.

What does fair-weather current have to do with a Faraday cage?

Yes, we did. Please keep the posts on-topic.

How is it possible for something to enter (or leave) the universe?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=HAMP+program Home Affordable Modification program (HAMP)

Observing, in general, doesn't stop the electron from behaving like a wave; the implications are a little more subtle. The electrons will still diffract when going through a slit, for example. What you lose is the interference when you know that they went through a particular slit. That is wave function information, which is not the same thing.

Arg. Sorry, pet peeve: Energy is released in forming bonds, or in forming stronger bonds. The bond represents an energy deficit with respect to an unbound system. That's why it's a bound system — you have to add energy to break the bond. So I object to the commonly-used wording that energy is stored in bonds; I think it conveys a misconception. The final product has stronger bonds than the reactants. That's why energy is released.

We know you are not correct. This is not how the universe behaves. We have experimental confirmation of this. Discussion that blithely ignores empirical evidence is useless in this kind of setting. It seems that we are getting nowhere here. asprung, if you want to discuss relativity, you have to discard your mistaken notions of how the universe works. This is science — hypotheses that fail to match up with empirical data have to be abandoned. Insisting on making the discussion fit to a failed model is not science.

Sorry, but this seems to be just using some buzzwords to attempt to achieve legitimacy. Calling it quantum entanglement doesn't solve any real problems; QE does not transmit information instantly, and does not involve any new methods of interaction.

Length contraction and time dilation affect the dimensions of space and time. For time dilation, time itself runs slow for a moving frame, and by extension, all items in that frame experience the slowed time. It is not mechanical in nature — you cannot have something in that frame immune to the effects. Your view is "unaccepted" because it has been demonstrated that nature doesn't work that way. (BTW, it's dilation, not dilution)