swansont

It is absolutely necessary to recognize this, because otherwise you are prone to selection bias, i.e. "remembering the hits and forgetting the misses"

"Boat going at 10m/s" is relative to what? Is that the speed the boat is going relative to the sea, or relative to the ground?

But what would this be, and how could we not notice? Interactions involve the exchange of energy, and the basis of all of the exchanges are atomic/molecular interactions. These are electromagnetic in nature, and this is borne out by theory and experiment matching up. So any purported telepathic energy is living way down past the thirteenth decimal place of agreement (or wherever the experimental uncertainty appears) of QED. Otherwise we'd see a problem.

1. I fail to see the direct connection between this mini-rant and the OP. 2. Saying "I don't know" is not the same as saying "Nobody knows." The former is an honest admission of ignorance, while the latter is presumptuous for someone without expertise in the subject. I can easily imagine that there can be illnesses associated with eating raw Alaskan wild-caught Keta salmon, much like trichinosis is associated with eating raw pork. I'd prefer to hear details from someone with some expertise in the matter.

Any particle/antiparticle pair can do this. The vacuum does not have zero energy, it has [math]\frac{1}{2}\hbar\omega_n[/math] for each mode. However, this is generally ignored, since you can't tap into it. What is important is the difference in energy between states, and in most cases the zero-point terms all cancel out.

What do you mean "not applying a force?" Striking a baseball or tennis ball changes their direction of motion, so there is an acceleration. A force is most definitely applied.

Um, perhaps biologists familiar with the species?

The engine has merely become an entropy generator. All waste heat, no work.

We went over this already — there are many processes that depend on the speed of light. If c changed, without a scaled change in all other physical constants (if that's even possible), something would be different, such as the strength of atomic or nuclear forces.

cyberphlak, please take an opportunity to review the rules, specifically 2.5 and 2.10, regarding off-topic and non-mainstream posts.

Responses to posts should reflect mainstream science. "Alternative" explanations, even nudges, should only appear in the Speculations forum, and only in a thread dedicated to discussing them.

Conservation of energy stems from the time translation symmetry of the laws of physics.

People spend money studying Reikkei, acupuncture and homeopathy, too. Doesn't mean there's evidence showing that they work as advertised. The existence of telepathy is speculative, at best, given the lack of evidence for it. The mechanism for it is thus also speculative, since it can't be tested. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged If one can change it, then it isn't a law of nature.

If they could find them on a map, I think they'd not be too surprised to learn that they were more socialist than the US. They're still "furriners," so the American arrogance is all part of that. And it's been going on for a lot longer than 8 years, I think. The problem is on both sides; I think this is just another example of "I hate you and what you stand for, so I'll just make stuff up to justify that hatred"

D H is correct in pointing this out. A post which simply asks a question would remain in a science forum. However, a post which attempts to answer, outside of mainstream science, is speculation. If the supporting argument proves to be supported by mainstream science, a speculative thread can be moved back. Widdekind, please keep this in mind. Also, please review the rules, specifically rules 2.5, 2.8 and 2.10.

Telepathy is a logical thing to test, to see if the brain can do these things. But, as you and others have stated, there is no scientific evidence to support the claim. The reasoning used to support telepathy has been debunked. The claim that telepathy is real, despite the inability to measure the mechanism or the results, is illogical.

What's your point? As I posted earlier, the deification of Einstein is in popular writings, not within physics itself. Things are not accepted simply because Einstein said so. he is recognized because of some very important contributions; it's not just the equations, but also the concept underlying them. Nobody (within the science community) is claiming he was infallible. You have failed to convince anybody of your position because you start from a false premise, your reasoning is incorrect and supporting evidence is lacking. That dubious trifecta is the reason this thread is now closed

I'm not understanding what you mean by "how can I measure it?" You can measure a distance and an elapsed time. The ratio gives you the speed. If, hypothetically, all of the constants were scaling at the same rate, such that these measurements of any invariant didn't change, we wouldn't notice. But why would it matter? And I'm not familiar enough with all of the dimensionless constants — it may be that this cannot happen.

It sounds a lot more like philosophy than a scientific theory. Physics deals with some infinities. They aren't always problematic (e.g. renormalization)

D H has covered this extensively already, but incase it was missed: Yes, they are lying.

If it's invariant it makes it easier, because there are fewer conditions on has to meet. But I think you might be asking a different question. If it's invariant, no matter what you do, you are going to get the same answer, so in that sense it's like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Is that what you mean? The speed of light has units, so it's going to depend on the unit system you choose: meters and seconds. And because time and length change in similar fashions, they could change (as they do in a moving frame of reference) to give the same answer for c. However, there are other fundamental constants and invariant quantities. The fine structure constant, for example, is unitless — so it doesn't depend on your unit system. It depends on the electric charge, as well as c. So if c changes independently, then the fine structure constant has to change, and this has ramifications as to the wavelength of emitted light in atomic/molecular transitions and whether certain bonds can even form. So there are other measurements one can make to ensure that c is really invariant.

Einstein gets credit because he made important contributions. However, he is built up to deity status by the popular media, not by the physics community. If you are a physicist, you quickly realize that there are many incredibly smart people in the field, and that there are a lot of them occupying the highest levels. There are a number of them that are smart enough to win a Nobel, but are/were not fortunate enough to be in the right position at the right time to make the breakthrough discovery. The difference between Einstein and the average person who has just a bare intuitive grasp of Galilean-transform classical physics is large. The difference between Einstein and his contemporaries was much smaller, and possibly nonexistent. The same holds true today.

put the x term on the other side (it gains a - sign) take the square root of both sides subtract the constant from both sides

You forgot the part (emphasis added) in the beginning that says "Slipstring Drive is a hypothetical method of travelling faster than the speed of light without violating Einsteins theory of relativity.[clarification needed] It was proposed by the astronomer Andrew L.Bender who believes it could be possible within 50 years (2008). So far there is no experimental confirmation of the theory behind it and the theory hasn't been peer reviewed."

Government mandated and sponsored education is already socialist, but if course that point is lost on these people. They don't actually know what socialism is, they just know it's bad. The thing I think that bothers me most about this is that these people belong to a group that paint themselves as "real Americans" and wave the flag every chance they get. And they want to show disrespect to the president; I have a hard time reconciling that. It doesn't matter who the individual is — you show respect to the office. I had always though that the left had a harder time with that concept (there's a large overlap with military hierarchy in this concept, and liberals don't join the military, right?) Are there instances of liberals pulling their kids out of schools when Bush dropped in to read a book to them? So if these people complain about being called un-American backwards-ass hypocritical country farts, the can kiss my posterior, because they've already sent the message that I don't have to respect their position, or them.