swansont

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.

One way is called a capacitor. You use an electric field to move electrons from one piece of metal to another. Another way is thermionic emission — you"boil" electrons off of a metal, and send them somewhere with an electric field. Useful in cathode-ray tubes.

You do not have freedom of speech; that's a right some people have with respect to government censorship. We aren't the government. Your speech here must abide by the rules. You are free to say whatever you wish on your own website.

Whatever color you got from the mixture, the individual wavelengths would separate when sent through a prism.

If you don't see the sky as being blue, it's not because of physics. And this is the physics section.

The second one is better IMO. Short answer; EM radiation drives currents in a conductor, which give you potential differences. Sharp points are areas from which charge can more easily arc. Aluminum foil is more likely to have sharp points, since it crinkles easily.

You could define dark instead of light, you could define cold flow instead of heat flow. But the models work better with light and heat. Describing stuff works better than describing the absence of it.

sananda has been suspended three days for repeated thread hijacking with his speculation, in violation of rules 2.5 and 2.10. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedGasparri has been banned at his own request

Light can be slowed down, photons cannot. "Stopped light" is absorption, albeit under specially crafted circumstances.

I invite you to review the rules of this forum, which you agreed to follow when you registered. Specifically, 2.5 and 2.10 (emphasis added) 2.5 Stay on topic. Posts should be relevant to the discussion at hand. This means that you shouldn't use scientific threads to advertise your own personal theory, or post only to incite a hostile argument. 2.10 Keep alternative science and your own personal conjecture to the appropriate forum (Speculations). Threads in the ordinary science forums should be answered with ordinary science, not your own personal hypothesis. Posting pet "theories" in mainstream science forums is considered thread hijacking. This is not to be construed as an invitation to discuss your views on the matter in this thread.

My guess is that this is another weird condensed matter/collective system behavior, similar on spirit to fractional charge and charge/spin separation that has been observed; Dirac predicted monopole behavior in some systems. "magnetic monoples don't exist" refers to bare monopole particles in conditions where Maxwell's equations apply; I imagine that these are quantum systems where those classical rules must be modified. But condensed matter gets out of my physics comfort zone very quickly.

More photons will look brighter.

The annihilation never gives one photon, because that violates conservation of momentum. If you have the singlet state (antiparallel spins), you get two photons. The triplet state (parallel spins) gives you three photons.

"Many waves" isn't a well-defined term. There is a minimum amount of energy you can have, and that can be green light. You can have many of these, which we call photons, and have brighter green light. If you look at the wave aspect, the wave will have a higher amplitude.

That's not what you asked. You asked for the explanation of the double slit, and it's interference. And we still see it with a single photon. Asking how a photon interferes with itself is a different question. But a photon is a quantum of energy, and you only notice this so-called particle property when it interacts with the detector. While in transit, it's still a wave. Waves interfere. What are you meaning by "standard" scientific theory? QM is the accepted theory, and incorporates this phenomenon. Therefore, it can be explained by "standard" theory. QM is not, however, synonymous with the interpretations of QM.

I would be delighted if you presented some math/topology, here. You can be moved out of P&S, but you have to earn it.

Keep in mind that sananda's views are his/her own, and are not representative of the greater science community's.

Color addition is biology, not physics. Still: D'oh! Yellow and blue.