swansont

Except that model is very wrong — "not completely correct" is underselling it. Electrons do not move in planetary orbits.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking of.

What about the little dipper — the one that actually has Polaris in it?

Are the Ghostbusters hiring? That's about the only job I can think of, unless it involves being a charlatan of some sort.

Perfectly rigid materials violate relativity. Once your conjecture breaks physical law, pretty much any behavior can be concluded.

Not after they explode, they aren't.

Being a federal employee doesn't mean what it used to. Is nothing sacred anymore? Will no-one stand up for traditional values? I guess the single employee is the only one being denied fair benefits/compensation now.

The story in the Telegraph says he was "knocked flying" by the impact. It's harder to reconcile that being caused by the meteorite impact, concentrated to a few square cm on the hand, than the blast from the crater creation.

Wrong. How would you differentiate between EM radiation that carried information and one that didn't, anyway? I can send you a photon that represents a "1" in a digital transmission, and I can send you an identical photon that doesn't. Why would the "1" photon travel slower?

You might want to rethink this. The nuclear force, by definition, doesn't affect electrons — it only affects nucleons (neutrons and protons) As to the original question, in general you don't need any force to keep something in motion — that's the natural state of things. You need a force to cause an acceleration, i.e. a change in velocity. For this reason and also for the one iNow mentions above, the question is ill-formed. If one were to ask, "why don't electrons collapse into the nucleus?" the answer will be from quantum mechanics: the energy of the system is quantized, and the lowest energy state is not one where the electron falls into the nucleus— it turns out you can't confine an electron on a space that small. So while the electron can be near or inside the nucleus (and on occasion interact with it via the weak force), it won't stay there.

Yes, there are. And while the specific instances of e.g. repeatability differ depending on the specifics of the type of science you are doing, all proper science has a certain degree of rigor. If that is missing, then you aren't doing science. You are possibly doing philosophy, as iNow has noted, or perhaps some other form of contemplation about the universe.

It's the gravitational potential, i.e. a deeper gravitational well, that has clocks running slower, not the pull itself (which is the slope of the well)

Then you have, of course, learned the protocols of doing science properly. Please follow them. What is your evidence, and how would one falsify your ideas? Surely you know that these are cornerstones of theories.

There is a whole host of people who are using QM as an excuse to justify the nonsense they peddle. Deepak Chopra and his ilk. So while I can't view the video at the moment to comment specifically on that, let me say that just because someone uses the words of QM doesn't mean they are actually doing QM.

The observer pops into his Gamma100 spaceship which travels at .995c (so gamma=100). The trip takes him 3.65 days by his own clock, and a 366.8 days by the earth observer's clock. From ajb's link, the frequency shift is about a factor of 20 — he has to change his radio electronics. If the transmission was at 100 MHz, now he has to listen at ~2 GHz. And he will get the entire (earth) year's worth of transmissions in that time. Nothing will have traveled faster than c.

Actually, it did happen, and there are peer-reviewed papers that say so. What they don't say, AFAIK, is that this is the only way it can happen. But a claim like that must link to a specific source to be considered credible, so that the interested reader might have an opportunity to confirm the summary, or go and show that the paper doesn't say what the poster thinks it said. I am confident the latter is the case here, but I can't debunk a source that's not given — and that's why bald assertions are given basically zero attention and aren't worth the electrons used to display them.

What?

Bingo! The non-falsifiable nature of the discussion is how one knows the "debate" is philosophy and not physics.

The charges don't distribute themselves throughout an insulator. Charges might collect on the surface, as in the case with the static charge.

Sodium chloride is table salt, and I don;t think it's very conductive as a solid. But if you dissolved it in water, then you could get current flow and heating since the bonds are ionic. Graphite should work, since as you point out it's conductive.

This is just moving the goalposts. By and large it is not physicists in the debate, and the debate is not about the physics, much like a debate about the ethics of medicine is not a debate about medicine, it is a debate about ethics. Again, the emphasis is on the philosophical interpretation, not the physics. And it has been answered, yet you persist in presenting a contrary conclusion.

Already answered — yes.

Nope. No consciousness here, just detection. The "observer" in this experiment wasn't human. Institute scientists used for this purpose a tiny but sophisticated electronic detector that can spot passing electrons. The quantum "observer's" capacity to detect electrons could be altered by changing its electrical conductivity, or the strength of the current passing through it. Anything labeled "Interpretation of quantum mechanics" is not a physics debate, per se, it's a philosophy debate. Emphasis is on interpretation, not QM. Still no indication this debate is going on in physics circles.

Not sure, but neither of those are metals.

What of neutrons? Can't their states be excited within a nucleus? You get a discrete spectrum of gammas when a neutron is captured. Where might one see such a derivation?