swansont

Or, to be more specific, quantum entanglement cannot be used to transmit information FTL. The summary the "observation of one affects the other" is easily and often misinterpreted.

It's not just matter. Anything with energy, which includes massless particles. Why? Ultimately, nobody knows. But we do know that it does affect space-time, and we know quantitatively how much it does. That's what's important from a science standpoint. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Appeal to ridicule doesn't score any points for you in a scientific argument. As a logical fallacy, though, it does fall afoul of SFN's rules of discussion. I invite you to reread them

Please review the rules. Speculative physics discussion belongs in the Speculations forum. Not here.

No. Gravity is much too weak. The gravitational force between an electron and a proton is about 10^-39 times weaker than the electrostatic. The force between electrons will be ~1800 times weaker than that. Where are you getting this information? Charge placed on a conducting shell will reside on the surface. Charges in the interior will be unaffected by these charges, since they make no net contribution to the electric field, and so will interact with each other due to whatever forces are present between them.

sananda's post has been moved to its own thread

Specifically, the event horizon expands. A singularity would not.

You can calculate the amount of mass needed for gravity to overcome the electrostatic repulsion; it's going to be large. A charge inside of a conducting shell will not migrate to the center; it feels no force from the charges on the surface.

Time runs slower in a gravitational potential, which stems from the effects of having mass and energy nearby. This is part of general relativity, which is advanced physics. It may not make much sense without a decent physics background.

You seem to be focusing on areas of science that are new discoveries; in that sense there is no consensus, because the science is new. Competing models/theories exist (as phlogiston competed with oxygen). I don't see this as relevant to the current discussion.

Which is one reason why we don't get into religious discussions here The problem is that most of the non-scientific views are not objective.

Since I made the original statement in that thread, I'll reaffirm my "no." There is no rigorous testing, one of the requirements of science. Too many variables are in play, with no control over holding them constant in order to test hypotheses.

That, however, is the topic of this thread. So please forgive the confusion on my part. This, too, is something that might merit further discussion elsewhere.

Phlogiston and caloric were discredited because better science came along, not because a judge said they were wrong. I can't think of any examples of science being changed because of a legal (or even non-scientific) influence. I can, however, think of several examples of ideology being refuted by scientific findings. Economics is not science in some of the same ways that Social Darwinism is/was not science. "Schools of thought" are largely philosophy and ideology. Ideology can influence the course of science, but that's not the point — it doesn't decide if ultimately the science is right.

This is the point it becomes a political, rather than scientific, issue. The issue at hand is whether politics can decide whether 5% is correct, not whether it is acceptable.

One possibility is to use the chain rule; one can rewrite acceleration in a Cartesian system [math]a = \frac{dv}{dt} = \frac{dv}{dx}\frac{dx}{dt} = v\frac{dv}{dx}[/math]

Looking at the data in a different way is still looking at the data, though. Yes, and that's the politics aspect of it. But not heeding the findings of science is not the same thing as saying the science is false.

But all science is consensus, so I see no reason to differentiate Global Warming. Agreement is not universal; there are scientists who disagree with evolution, quantum mechanics, relativity, the big bang, and other parts of science, but we move forward because there is a consensus that the established models are correct, despite the objections of a few. One big difference is that the acceptance of most parts of science doesn't require much in the way of government action, but that doesn't affect the validity of the science. Social Darwinism was not science. Social Darwinism was ideology attempting to use science to justify itself.

It's not? Can you expand on this?

In that case, work is being done on it. Work is also energy transfer.

But science gets overturned or modified by data, not by decree. This is an attempt to apply a different standard to the problem, but you can't legislate natural law.

Some scientists feel this way. However, this is not a question of physics/science, as such.

Heat is energy transfer. But it can be a property, as in kinetic energy. An object in motion has 1/2 mv^2 of kinetic energy. That is not being transferred anywhere.

We are discussing physics here and only physics. Do I make myself understood?

[math]F_T - m_eg = -m_ea[/math] [math]-F_T + m_Cg = -m_Ca[/math] ————————————— [math](m_C - m_e)g = -(m_e + m_C)a[/math] multiply by -1 [math](m_e - m_C)g = (m_e + m_C)a[/math] LaTex makes it easier to look at, IMO Learning to manipulate the symbols and do algebra is a powerful tool, and a skill that needs to be mastered. Failure to do so will result extra work in a lot of problems, when you aren't able to cancel terms, which leads to a whole host of potential errors.

Yes. The measurement depends on the frame of the observer.