swansont

If energy is not conserved it means that the laws of physics change over time.

What fraction is left after 4.6 half-lives? That will support your answer quantitatively.

Oh, stop already. A passage is not the same as the whole book. I provided a freaking link to the page in Google books, where you find the context of the passage in question. MacGregor at least provides a context for the discussion, whereas you do not — you made it sound like the electron being treated classically is a perfectly acceptable thing to do, and upon reading the entire quote one realizes that this is not what MacGregor is claiming. He admits that the QM viewpoint is almost universally accepted, and if one were to only look at your quote, one would not get that impression. It's what separates science from nonscience. Rigor vs ad-hocery. Last column of the first table in the first post. And this is where the wheels come off the wagon. No, mass is not treated as one particle — that's missing the point, as it were. They are treated as point objects, because that's a perfectly valid mathematical treatment. Any spherically symmetric mass of radius R can be treated as if all mass were at the center for r>R (Gauss's law, or Newton's shell theorem). And even if not symmetric, if r>>R, it reduces to that case if you expand the equations. That's all math, and nothing more. There are no other claims made as to the physical nature of the bodies. Your units don't match up. Which means that the relationship between the two depends entirely on the unit systems chosen — if you did this in english units, or even cgs, you would not get the relationship you claim. That indicates that it is accidental rather than physical. Numerology.

And if your particle is in a box of length L, the lowest state is a half-wave fitting into it, so the wavelength will be 2L (or a bit longer, depending on the depth of the well, since the tail of the wave goes into the sides a little), which is exactly what you've shown, and what hermanntrude suggested.

I haven't read the book, nor did I claim to. I was just pointing out that there's more to it than the snippet you quoted. The existence of a book does not make the information contained in it true, however. You need e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e, i.e. you need to come up with a way of testing the claim in a way it can be falsified. Rqmc/Rc will give you a constant because that's all there is left — the QM correction term (which MacGregor gives as sqrt(3)) What are the units for mr? What are the units for G?

Lorentz transformations are invertible, i.e. you can transform from A to B and then do the reverse transform and get back to A. Thus, you cannot do a thought experiment, using relativity, which negates relativity. If you get an inconsistent answer, it means you applied the theory incorrectly or made a math error. IOW, once you have removed any kind physical experiment from the discussion, it is no longer a physics problem. It is then a math problem, and you are discussing the shortcoming of math. The only way to disprove relativity is by actual experiment disagreeing with the predictions of the theory.

My objection was the use of the classical electron radius as a physical value, as it is a value derived from equating the electrostatic self-energy with the mass. In reality, the data are consistent with the electron being a point particle. The main thrust seems to be that if you take a number and divide it by a larger number, you get a fraction. elas is selectively quoting MacGregor; if you read the entire passage you'll see that he says that experiment confirms that the electron is indeed a million times smaller (at least) than the classical radius, and that as a result classical physics does not apply. The compton radius depends on the mass of the particle, and AFAIK the QM corrections to it are a constant, so it's not surprising that certain ratios give you a constant. 5/10 is the same as 3/6. OMG!

There's no paradox, though.

The critical part of the Hafele-Keating experiment was the difference in the kinematic terms of the dilation. The gravitational terms don't cancel, because the flight times weren't equal, but they had the same sign. The kinematic terms, however, had opposite signs. Conceptually, the gravitational effects are indeed irrelevant. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged The notion is that if you are accelerating then you know you are accelerating. And it is indeed the case. I'm not sure where you got the claim that the earth is moving because it's flattened — we know the earth is rotating, because it's rotating, and it is also flattened because it's rotating. Acceleration is not relative.

Centripetal forces are perpendicular to displacement on a circular path, so they do no work and are not responsible for changing kinetic energy.

If you are soliciting alternative explanations this should be asked in the Speculations forum. Otherwise, the responses should reflect mainstream physics

One must be careful to discern between scientific barriers and engineering ones. The speed of light, absolute zero, and overunity energy production would be examples of scientific barriers. Launching someone to the moon was an engineering barrier. And this conjecture of yours requires that SR be wrong, so disproving it is part and parcel of your position. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Not a crack at all. Rather, it tells you that certain quasi-classical interpretations of QM are wrong. The particles are entangled, therefore all of the information about that state of both particles may be obtained by measuring one of them, because that is a measurement which collapses the wave function. This, as opposed to thinking that the particles must superluminally communicate with each other. There's nothing in quantum teleportation that inherently violates relativity.

Having just gotten back from the DAMOP meeting, I'd have to say the answer to this is no, not always. I'm at a loss to give a general explanation, though (this is the impression I get after some discussions and seeing some talks that have turned my brain into tapioca). There are conditions where you can have macroscopic objects with small deBroglie waves displaying quantum behavior. Simply "going large" with the momentum is insufficient. Generally speaking, though, it's a good first cut at making that division.

You should read better quality forums. It doesn't matter what you believe, it's a matter of what you can back up with evidence. If light were not constant in all inertial reference frames, your radio wouldn't work (constant c is part of Maxwell's equations). GPS wouldn't work (relativistic offsets, both gravitational and kinematic).

Please don't. Ask for better evidence, but an accusation of lying implies intent to deceive, and is a step over the line.

Within the limits of applicability, this is true. Bernoulli's principle assumes certain things about fluid flow, so once those assumptions fail, it no longer applies. The bottom line is that fluid dynamics is complicated, and these arguments arise from people trying to simplify it.

It takes time for the light to pass through the barn. Even if they are opened out of sync, if that time difference is less than L/c, light will get through.

It's probably a mistake to separate the two (space and spacetime). Gravity slows time as well as curving space. However, being stationary in a gravity field is an accelerating frame of reference, so we know for sure whose spacetime is being changed. For flat spacetime, the length and time transformations are reciprocal. Once you get used to it, it's easy to see how the effects compensate for each other to give an overall consistent picture. Right. You agree on event happening/not happening, but you won't agree on simultaneity. i.e. everyone must agree that the barn door shuts, but the different observers disagree on when the other door opens, or whether the ladder was completely inside the barn, since those are issues of length and timing.

There isn't a conflict, AFAIK. You don't a have the same right to freedom of expression, religious or otherwise, when acting as a boss or an agent of the government. IOW, a boss can't claim those rights as a defense if (s)he attempts to proselytize. You have those rights as a private citizen, outside of work. Replace any of those expressions with "Allahu akbar." If that's going to be upsetting to any of the subordinates, then it's probably not going to be protected speech.

It's used when you have a circuit with multiple components; the resistance they have is equivalent to having a single resistor of that value.

It probably runs afoul of the EEOC's guidelines on a hostile work environment. You can't put religious slogans and Bible quotes on paychecks and company newsletters. http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/harass/BREADTH.HTM Part I, section B. A state court has in fact found that it was religious harassment for an employer to put religious articles in its employee newsletter and Christian-themed verses on its paychecks. 26 The EEOC likewise found that a claim that an employer "permitted the daily broadcast of prayers over the public address system" over the span of a year was "sufficient to allege the existence of a hostile working environment predicated on religious discrimination." 27 A recent article by two employment lawyers gives "repeated, unwanted `preaching´ episodes [by a fundamentalist Christian employee] that offend coworkers and adversely affect their working conditions" as a "bright-line example[]" of actionable harassment; an employer in such a situation would be "well advised to take swift remedial action." It's probably unlikely that anyone would have complained, though.

... ! (moved to speculations)

In his own frame he sees things normally. When he undergoes his acceleration he will notice other clocks readjusting at a very fast pace, such that a very long time will have elapsed by those clocks .

As geistkie has been banned, I am closing this thread. Anyone who has legitimate questions about the shell theorem/Gauss's law should start a new thread on it, so that the odor of these leavings does not pollute the discussion.

geistkie has been banned for being a not-so-subtle reincarnation of the previously-banned geistkiesel, and for exhibiting the same traits that got him banned in the first place. Repeatedly posting the same errors, at length, after being shown why they were errors (i.e. trolling/refusal to acknowledge cited information).