swansont

No, you won't be in the past. You can never be in the past, because now is tautological. It is always "now," hence the term is not meaningful. This argument sounds circular, because it only makes sense if there is an absolute time, but you can't assume what you are trying to prove. You can do this if you want to disprove the notion of absolute time, and since you can't exist in someone else's past, perhaps you've done that.

How? Two identical clocks will measure different intervals between two events if the clocks are in different reference frames. You get two answers. How is that the "same time?"

Absorption and re-emission of the photon. Blackbody radiation is from the acceleration of charges during collisions or from vibrations.

THis should be in E&M textbooks (e.g. Griffith or Jackson). I'm away from my books at the moment.

For active duty and dependents, you have access to military hospitals and a single-payer system for those not near a military hospital or otherwise requiring treatment not available at a military hospital. I think the VA system works out to be similar. That insurance system is currently tricare; it was something else when I was on active duty, years ago. So it's a hybrid between socialized medicine and single-payer. I have a colleague who is retired military and he raves about tricare, and was upset that he had to leave it when he took a government job. Now that he's retired from the reserves, he's back on tricare and happy about it. FWIW.

I have only read the press-release stories, which are maddeningly short on detail, so I can't tell what's going on. There is a dipole force that can be exploited — the electric field present in the light beam can induce a dipole in atoms and either repel or attract them. I don't know if that's what's going on here, but it would be a possibility.

Hutchison's work has never been verified, and electromagnetic interactions (if they are real and not video fakery) are not antigravity any more than an elevator/lift is.

I am skeptical that you did, and do not accept it based on you say-so alone. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and you haven't even provided ordinary evidence.

Yes, exactly — it's a response. And even here, by being vociferous about a spade being called a spade, there is a problem. It distracts from the dishonest behavior that provoked the response. An underlying problem is that coming up with real data, and explaining the complex science behind it, is hard. Misrepresenting it is easy, just like you can smear someone with false allegations. People don't remember the rebuttal, and associate the claim with that person. (Want an example? Obama's birth certificate. Has the truth cleared that up?)

We disturb the classical world when we observe it, but the perturbation is not small enough to notice. A photon bouncing off f a car doesn't have the same effect as a photon bouncing off an atom or electron. A good grounding in classical physics is important, because even though some details differ at the quantum level, the basic concepts are still there.

Professors will probably want you to have taken classes in the areas where you are doing research. Generally undergraduate research opportunities are for upperclassmen.

At first, it didn't. QM was terribly confusing at first. Now it is only moderately confusing. Math certainly helps, because discussion by analogy always fails at some level. Then you have to chip away at the misconceptions that set in, because ultimately all models are wrong in some way. But this is one aspect of science. You make a model and see how it works in predicting and explaining behavior, as Klaynos has already mentioned. The classical notions fail — so you replace them. You find out that saying "we don't know what happens here" is better than a model which is wrong. And, in fact, seems to be the way QM works.: we don't know what's happening to a quantum system when we aren't observing it. Light goes through both slits when we don't measure which path it took, even if it's a single quantum of energy, so the model of a photon as a baseball-like particle with a well-defined trajectory goes out the window. The only way to know where a photon is, is to make it interact somewhere. All of this takes time to absorb and digest. Learning is a never-ending process.

Schist for brains.

Repeating this doesn't make it true. A typical fission would produce something like Kr-92 + Ba-142, which leaves you two neutrons left over. Pointing out is one thing. Representing them as typical is another. Without context, I don't know what he was referring to. Yes, the nucleus is about 10^-14m, which is why I chose that number for the separation. Fission is described by the liquid drop model, so the lobes will actually be further apart than that. But the electrostatic energy is the primary source of the energy released in fission. You can't get more out than that, and simple conservation of momentum will tell you that the bulk of the energy has to go into the kinetic energy of the two fission products. So you have 5% of the energy released as radiation. Which is why you have all that shielding, which reduces it by several orders of magnitude. And whatever does escape the shielding is attenuated by 1/r^2 from the geometry of the situation.

No, I'd say you didn't. That's not what iNow said. That's not even close to what iNow said. No, the discussion is Which is very different than the prevalence of pro vs anti posts or articles. What fraction of pro posts contain falsehoods and/or fallacious arguments? What fraction of anti posts contain them?

The dilation will be with respect to a different observer, not moving at their speed.

For all frames, the speed of the light is c.

That's true if by time dilation you mean the rate (i.e. frequency) rather than the reading on the clock (the phase). The term "time dilation" by itself is ambiguous.

Yes, the dilation terms are potentials, and it can either be kinematic or gravitational.

Yeah, that's a problem. Does this show up in the scientific literature? I think the answer to that is "no;" it shows up in the MSM. It shows up when journalists sensationalize stories (e.g. changing "what could happen" to "what will happen"), when detractors twist statements and yes, when speaker over-reach. Again, though, it is disingenuous to complain that one side is using emotional-appeal arguments in the political arena when the other side is already using them. To say that it didn't/doesn't come from "your side" is incorrect. AGW "skeptics" take a "this is a possible outcome" statement by a scientist and portray it as a strawman prediction, in order to attempt to discredit the science — we've seen that here at SFN, on more than one occasion. At best you can say it doesn't come exclusively from "your side." (BTW, I don't break things down that way. You raise legitimate scientific questions without resorting to the fallacies)

There is no social mobility when it comes to massless particles. The only way to be in the photon's frame is to be born a photon. There is no way for a massive particle to get into that frame. The math diverges, so there is no transform to describe it in terms of inertial frames.

When your argument starts with a logical fallacy such as poisoning the well, there isn't a lot of intellectually honest high ground to complain about anyone else's purported appeal to emotion. You've chosen the set of rules to include arguments outside of the scientific realm. Logos, pathos and ethos. If you are going to wield pathos, don't complain when it is wielded in return. http://courses.durhamtech.edu/perkins/aris.html And that's the point of calling attention to logical fallacies — they represent a deviation from a scientific discussion. It's not fair if you demand a different set of rules to apply to the two sides of a discussion.

The NY Times certainly thought it broke down. http://kottke.org/09/07/best-correction-ever But is that part of the current thought experiment? I thought we were using the assumptions of relativity but with Galilean transformations.

Any QM textbook will discuss the basics of this. You get the interference pattern even if only one photon at a time is in the apparatus. If you restrict the path by blocking one of the slits, you won't get interference.

Do you require any interaction to exceed c for this to work? Since Galilean transformations, constant c in all frames and no preferred frame are incompatible conditions, what does a contradiction actually tell us? If I'm in a rocket going 0.9c going relative to some observer, I should still get to say I'm at rest in my frame. If I eject a mass equal to my own going 0.25c relative to me, I will recoil at .25c, thus my final speed is 1.35c with a Galilean transformation. There was no interaction that required exceeding c in my frame.