swansont

That's a necessary part of science. Formulas allow us to make specific predictions, and make attempts at falsification possible. So when you say it means very little until you make a prediction of how much the light will slow down, under a very specific set of circumstances, so that the idea can be tested. Anyone can blather "the ether is real!"

Almost certainly. I'll bet the bastard didn't even put a moderator note in, linking/explaining where the posts came from. If you had explained it this way, perhaps it would have. But you didn't, you said QM was indistinguishable from magic, and followed it up with later statements on QM. And yet it doesn't confound science. "Weird" is subjective. Nature has no obligation to be understandable to you. You fooled several of us. How is one to interpret "not understood in the slightest" as something else?

Be nice, and remember you are subject to random urinalysis. ———————— I really dislike videos as a substitute for writing, even when they aren't from some speaking slowly and sketching badly. You can't quote them to address specific topics, and much like simply copy-paste word wallpapering from some other site, it's far too easy to simply create a BS overload. If you want a critique, take the time to type in a summary of the hypothesis.

By whom?

Superconductivity will reduce your electrical transmission losses, but will not put you over-unity or even let you achieve break-even. It takes energy to cool superconductors down and to maintain a temperature below ambient, as you have noted, so you still have losses in your system.

You have provided no evidence that this is the case. In any event, you are merely repeating your claims. Repeating the responses serves no purpose. Closed.

It's not an engineering barrier.

Got a radio? In your car? Maxwell's equations yield a wave equation for electromagnetic waves, as long as c is constant. So if you still have a radio wave, i.e. your radio works, c is constant. I have personally verified this thousands of times.

Magnets produce a static field, which does not radiate. It is no more a perpetual motion device than a rock sitting on a table, which has a constant amount of potential energy. I hope we can agree that a rock sitting on a table is not perpetual motion. If you were to tap into the energy, it wouldn't be constant anymore. You run into a problem, though: magnetic forces do no work. The force is always perpendicular to the field. (F = qv X B) And we do exploit this type of system — a motor, for example. But that requires electrical energy to run it.

It depends on how good the detection is. You need a material that absorbs sound, so that little sound is reflected. But if you have that, one might be able to detect you by ambient sound that is blocked/absorbed.

Why?

Argument from authority aside, the quote is not the same as "nobody understands anything about QM," which is how you are presenting it. QM is a very broad and deep subject, and any person's understanding of it is incomplete. It is less complete for some than for others. Interference is a fairly straightforward concept; the real eye-opener is the evidence that the photon interferes with itself, because you get an interference pattern even if you send in light one photon at a time.

Double-slit discussion moved

Underlying all this is Noether's Theorem, which proves that all continuous symmetries correspond to conservation laws. If energy is not conserved, the laws of physics must change with time.

The specific way it would be affected is different. EM energy is quantized.

Clocks changing rates is a consequence of the constancy of the speed of light and the effects of gravity in general relativity. Showing that the rates change as predicted is evidence for the constancy of c.

The excess electron is not being put on a negatively charged body; the atom is neutral, overall, but one has to look at the charge distribution as well. Consider a linear system with two - charges separated at some distance, and a + charge placed between them. The overall charge is negative, but the attraction of the electrons to the protons is stronger than the electron repulsion. It's not difficult to form negatively charged ions with the right atoms. And, as stated before, the electrostatic force is many orders of magnitude larger than the gravitational, which can safely be ignored in these cases. Deference to historical celebrities seems to be very much a phenomenon restricted to nonscientists learning science. The behavior of charges in a Faraday cage and related configurations of conductors is well-established, well-tested physics, not merely a repetition of what Faraday said at some point. Even accomplished physicists get a lot of things wrong as they develop theories. What matters is what's left after it's all been tested.

GPS would give errors if c wasn't constant, or if other parts of relativity were incorrect. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged As above, GPS is a great example. The first satellite didn't have the timing correction made prior to launch so that this could be measured. The difference was as predicted; after confirming this they adjusted the oscillator frequency to the value required by relativity. There's also the Vessot rocket experiment, where a hydrogen maser was launched and the effects of general relativity were measured. And there's the continual experience of timing labs in doing this. You have to account for the Sagnac effect and both the kinematic and gravitational potential terms of relativity when you move clocks.

"Ken Amis" is "Simanek" (the site's author) spelled backwards. It's satire, drawing on many/all of the misconceptions and imagined conspiracies of perpetual motion cranks. That one would latch onto that and ignore all of the rest is truly mind-boggling.

[/font'] Oh, for crying out loud. The quote is referring to incorrect modeling due to a unit error, which is obvious if you read the whole section of the statement. http://www.jamesoberg.com/mars/loss.html That's the error in the model, not some underlying problem with translation and rotation mechanics.

If mass increases with speed with respect to the "vacuum medium," shouldn't this mass be the same in all frames?

photon antibunching

If the energy comes from somewhere, it's not perpetual motion.

Please refrain from this. Your objections to relativity and its descriptions MUST NOT drag other discussions off topic — they should be kept within their own thread, and in the Speculations forum

No more "magic" than Newtonian gravity, which tells us that mass attracts mass. Relativity states that because light speed is a constant, the geometry of spacetime is not Cartesian, the transforms between frames are not Galilean, and also that energy affects the geometry.