swansont

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"

There are scientific discussions on the asymmetry of time; these usually involve entropy. http://preposterousuniverse.com/eternitytohere/ Note the included link "Blog posts on Cosmic Variance related to the book and to the arrow of time"

1. The equivalence principle tells you that you can't tell the difference between acceleration and standing in a uniform gravitational field. 2. You can view it that way; none of those are inertial frames, so you can either change your geometry to explain the effects or you invent pseudoforces (like we often do with centrifugal force) to make it seem like we are in an inertial frame. 3. No. Gravitons are the proposed exchange particle used in quantum theories of gravity, but relativity is a classical theory. You use one explanation or the other, not both at the same time.

Note that these monopoles are a collective effect — they do not exist on their own, like electric charges. AFAICT they are a residual effect in a material under certain conditions, sort of like semiconductor "holes," i.e. they are not real, but are an artifact of the behavior of the material, and it's easier to model it that way, rather than a much more complex model of the "real" particles. In the case of magnetricity, it's a misalignment of the spins of electrons in the material; there are no physical monopoles, but the asymmetry in the spin orientation behaves like a monopole would. http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breaking/2009/01/29/making-magnetic-monopoles-and-other-exotica-in-the-lab/ The summary here explains why these aren't really monopoles http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2009/09/magnetic_monopoles_oh_dear.php What they did was create magnetic "strings", or very long, thin magnets on a lattice, where North and South poles are separated by great distances. If you only look at one side of this string, you only see one pole. But the other pole is still there, and so this isn't a monopole. If you tried to snap the string, you still wouldn't isolate one magnetic charge

A person rotating in such a fashion would feel like they were standing in a gravitational field. Do you notice that you are standing in a gravitational field, rather than floating weightless? Given other equipment, there are other ways one could tell that one was rotating. Your scenario is reminiscent of some ideas related to Mach's conjecture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach's_principle

No. There is no way you can tell what the charge on the exterior of a Faraday cage is if you are on the interior. The charges on the exterior contribute nothing to the field inside.

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.