swansont

The Casimir force does not depend on interactions with particles in the atmosphere. It also does not depend on neutrinos, since it's an electromagnetic phenomenon.

And Jeane Dixon will remain dead.

And it can't be that the descriptions are different ways of looking at the same thing, much like phenomena that have both a classical and quantum description?

You are proceeding from a mistaken assumption. Nobody here is advocating that time is a force, AFAICT. Isn't the "space between them" also an "invention?"

I will quote from Rules, section 2, part 8. And the rulegiver spake, saying, "Preaching and "soap-boxing" (making topics or posts without inviting, or even rejecting, open discussion) are not allowed. This is a discussion forum, not your personal lecture hall. Discuss points, don't just repeat them." Here endeth the lesson.

You didn't properly bold the statement. the equivalent of 1 atmosphere of pressure (101.3 kPa) i.e. "1 atmosphere" is the magnitude of the pressure of the Casimir force under those conditions; this is merely a convenient reference — these experiments are done under vacuum, so the atmospheric pressure is reduced by a factor of perhaps a billion. There is no "atmospheric field" to worry about ——— froarty, you already have a thread on this, please do not hijack other discussions Other thread is here. Some posts have been moved

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_descriptions_of_the_electromagnetic_field#Vector_field_approach

So why don't we have magnetic holes here? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I've already pointed this out as incorrect. Take a Helium atom. We have two protons. Do we get the magnetic field which you describe here? The magnetic field affects the atomic spectrum, so this should be observable.

But spinning does not involve an inertial frame. i.e. you can tell if you are spinning, or if the room is (unless the spinning is because you're drunk)

froarty's post on cavity QED moved here

The second graph is probably looking at the electric field; the amplitude of the magnetic field is proportional to the electric field, so there's really no new information contained by representing it.

But in a classical system you can vary the amplitude continuously.

That's the dark secret of physics. There's always another layer that's more confusing, where you find that what you knew was only valid under some conditions.

Fixed

The problem with using a standard dictionary is that they do not usually use technical definitions that are very precise. Certainly the definitions are not written with relativity in mind. Length contraction is not a physical process. If I were to physically compress and object like a spring and then expand it, it would eventually fail and break. If I continually move from one frame of reference to another, to achieve differing amounts of length contraction, the object I am measuring will not undergo such a failure.

Why should I provide such evidence? I have not claimed that time was an energy or an influence, or a physical thing. In fact, I typically point out that inquiring about the essence of time is metaphysics, before moving the discussion to the Pseudoscience and Speculations section. I will now caution you not to hijack threads. Answers to science questions need to be answered with accepted science. Raising other issues, building strawman arguments and pontificating about your own view of relativity is hijacking.

The contraction doesn't occur in the object's frame; the energy or force it takes to compress foam vs iron is never an issue. The contraction is the difference in length itself between frames. All items 1 meter in length on one frame will be 0.5 meters in length according to an observer moving with a speed such that gamma=2. It is not a physical compression, it is the difference in observation, which is relative to the frame you are in. To say it appears to contract isn't correct; there is no "true length" of the object, since there is no absolute reference frame. Measurements will be relative to the frame of the observer, because c is constant.

The mass of He-4 is going to be less than the mass of the constituents, because the system is bound together, and energy must be released for this to happen. In the case of He-4, this is about 28.3 MeV, which has a mass equivalent of 0.0304 atomic mass units 1.673 x 10^-27kg is not the conversion factor between kg and atomic mass units; the proton (or Hydrogen atom) does not have a mass of exactly 1 amu. The conversion factor is the inverse of Avogadro's number (expressed in kg/mole) which you should be able to deduce from the definition of the atomic mass unit. If you convert 4.0026 amu, you get [math]\frac{4.0026}{6.022 x 10^{26}} = 6.647 x 10^{-27}kg[/math]

The image file is named "sn1987.jpg" making me think this is a picture of the remnants of supernova 1987a. Is there any objective evidence (i.e. not just your say-so) that this is a "magnetic hole" and not a supernova which conforms to standard physics? I was hoping for a citation rather than a picture, and for evidence closer by. Like on the earth; we are bombarded by high-energy particles all the time.

Physical travel at lightspeed is not an engineering barrier. There are people working on it, I'm sure, but there are people working on perpetual motion/free energy devices, too. The next step will have to be discovering new physics which allows such travel.

Nature is under no obligation to be understandable to you. You are not in a position to demand anything.

It depends on whether "X is bad" is an opinion or assertion. If B is saying that only as it relates to him/herself, then it's an opinion. But if B is claiming that X is generally bad, applying to other people without regard to their opinions, then it's an assertion.

As was alluded to earlier, a problem aside from the accuracy of the answer is that this is the HW help section. It's not an answer-providing service; the goal is to engage the poster in an effort to help them learn, rather than to just give them an answer to paste into their assignment. They need to at least make an attempt at answering the problem, which allows the interested members to guide them toward the correct answer.

I think more context is needed to answer this. Preaching/soapboxing is against the rules, but merely stating an opinion is not. I might have a hard time understanding why someone would state an opinion without being willing to discuss it on a discussion board, but that's not inherently against the rules that I can see. It depends on what is being discussed.

Must … fight urge … to mention … suppositories … Damn.