swansont

Invalid conclusions.

I like the idea but I've gotten the impression that this problem is not something that can be solved locally — it's a software issue that does not have customization at this level. I could be wrong, though.

! Moderator Note matterdoc , you have been given ample opportunity to present evidence in support of your thesis, but have not only declined to do so, but admitted you cannot. Accordingly, this subject is now closed. http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=forums&module=forums&section=rules&f=29

It has to interact with something in order to lose energy.

Why would people start acting rationally, all of the sudden? Al Gore invented the internet and Obama's a Muslim. But in this one instance, everyone is going to get it right? It's not clear how much of the "larger controversy" is real. http://www.ksdk.com/news/watercooler/story.aspx?storyid=223108&catid=71

I'll reiterate what ydoaPs posted, only with emphasis: How is it hypocritical to not want to be perceived as a bunch of bigots? We've had a number of threads in politics where we discussed what someone said, and how it played out in the press. What they said, and what the context was, rarely mattered. Why is this different? Several times I've seen someone say "what he clearly meant was …" in some of those threads, even though there was dissent over the interpretation — so it's not so clear for everybody. Too many listeners (or viewers, in other cases) don't have the patience for context, and then there's source amnesia — all they'll remember is that he's a bigot because they remember the controversy rather than the facts. Perception is reality.

! Moderator Note Moved from "other science," since it has nothing to do with science

Impedance is like resistance, but includes the effects of capacitors and inductors, whose effect appear when there is time-dependent current. Inductive impedence varies with the frequency and capacitive impedance varies inversely with it.

At constant velocity it would emit no radiation.

I don't see how it can be both. If it shows their bias, it's not hypocritical. It's not like NPR was being mistaken for conservative talk radio. If this had been a commercial station and advertisers were upset, this would be a no-brainer. Google on radio host firing and see what gets people fired.

What's unfortunate about it? I don't know what his work agreement was, but there are many people who are at-will employees and can be fired for almost any reason. I suppose it's possible his contract said he can violate NPR's journalism rules, but somehow I doubt it. Whatever happend to our right to be paid by NPR to say whatever we want to?

Age is the accumulated time, so it's not right to look at it that way. The clock rates change when you undergo an acceleration — you lose the symmetry of having two inertial frames. So the space twin starts aging more slowly when he undergoes an acceleration, meaning his clock rate slows down. It's similar to (classical) kinematics, where time is the analog to distance. If you briefly accelerate toward something, you don't jump toward it and jump back when the acceleration reverses. You get there faster, i.e. the speed increases, and the distance gets smaller, at a rate given by your speed.

But you're the one who tagged it as "sounds conservative" and "conservative-like statement." Not that I disagree — if someone says something that exhibits a generic mistrust of someone who isn't a white heterosexual Christian, I'd bet that the person saying it is a conservative. —— I'm guessing that the people most upset by this are interpreting "if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they’re identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous" as "how dare they identify themselves as Muslims." And yet there really isn't an equivalent outcry for people who display a cross (or star of David, or even if they have a dot on their forehead) so in that interpretation it's bigoted. And if that's how NPR thinks their audience will interpret it, then that's a problem.

There is no electric field inside in electrostatics. Current flow means it's a dynamic, rather than static, situation. Undoubtedly. One could also investigate a frustum-shaped resistor, which would at least be physically realizable.

What about kinematic time dilation? The box is moving, owing to the oscillation, and must recoil when the photon is emitted.

Looks OK so far, with the caveat that the time for the pulses to reach will be reduced by whatever time passes. But the spacing would again be 1 year. The earth will not instantly age. 2 earth years will not have passed until the moving twin gets two light pulses. The wikipedia part is right. Don't get too down. This is not intuitive, which is why it is (incorrectly) called a paradox.

Falsifiability is not so much about the internal consistency of a model; if it contradicts itself it's DOA. No, what we mean by falsifiability is what experiments you could contrive to test your theory to make sure it describes how nature behaves. To do this you need to make specific predictions, and then see if these predictions are borne out. If there are no tests which would, in principle, show your model to be wrong, then what you're doing isn't science. The notion that a single-particle model isn't falsifiable is rubbish, and would be but one reason physicists would not bother to review your work.

Exactly. It's not government censorship, and yet he cast this as a first-amendment issue. Your right to free speech in the US is a right against government censorship. Anyone saying that this is a violation of free speech right has missed that point. Anyone calling it censorship is right. It is censorship, and there's nothing about it that violates your rights. You employer has the right to control what you say in front of a microphone when you are a face of their organization.

Solution 4. The amount of aging that manifests itself depends on the amount of travel prior to the frame switch, not the frame switch itself (the effects of which are often ignored, because they tend to be small). If we have one scenario where the moving twin ages X years and the earth twin ages Y, with only the acceleration at turnaround, we aren't going to change that if the moving twin undergoes other course-changing (but not speed changing) accelerations along the path. What will change is the rate of observed aging, (i.e how much happened, and when) but not the total amount. Changing speed will affect the amount of dilation that is observed, but that can be directly calculated. If the earthbound twin sends out a light pulse at regular intervals, there is nothing the other twin can do to make one pulse pass another, which is what would be required to have time going backwards.

This is not a first amendment issue at all, and Beck is wrong to spin it as one, as is everyone else who did. It isn't an example of the government censoring a private citizen, it's an employer firing an employee who represents them and failed to do in a manner acceptable to them. And then there's the spin of portraying this as an isolated incident; William has run afoul of NPR policies before. http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-juan-williams-20101022,0,4294425.story

Why is it true that a construct with a single fundamental particle should not be falsifiable? You have presented absolutely nothing to support that. It is only an assertion on your part.

I was debating whether I should have parenthetically included that caveat "classically" in my post. I should have. Conservation of energy is different in GR; in any locally flat frame, AFAIK, energy is conserved. The problem is in moving to other frames, since energy is not an invariant quantity. From a practical standpoint, gravity is not the stumbling block to creating perpetual motion. Nature conspires against anyone creating a system with multiple nondegenerate energy states.

Gravity is a conservative force, so that's not a problem.

You can, of course, make boatloads of money off of the unsuspecting if there's no way to tell if the phenomenon actually works. Which is why e.g. dowsing and homeopathy are still around. I believe Monty Python has covered this, with the police. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XY31P7sLJho —— The economic argument goes beyond straight pseudoscience. There are conflicting claims, for example, of whether ethanol is a net energy source. We subsidized it ($0.50 a gallon) when oil was at $30 a barrel and gas was $1 a gallon in the US. But a few years later, and gas prices have more than doubled, and it still isn't cost-effective unless it is subsidized. Why not?

I think you're thinking of the Pound-Rebka (and later Pound-Snider) experiment, which was a demonstration of GR. The Champeney experiment was for a source/detector on a rotor, at different radii, so it was a rotating coordinate system. The time dilation is v^2/2c^2, which you can get either by viewing it as a potential, and doing a GR-like analysis, or looking at the kinematic dilation of SR. (They all used Mössbauer spectroscopy of Fe-57) http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/1426 The bald assertion that these experiments (and myriad others) do not support relativity is laughable. A Google search will show that the user has been spamming the internets with this post today.