swansont

You'd need to know what the losses are, because no force is necessary to maintain momentum. You just need to counteract the other force (or torques) in the system. If you had an ideal system, multiplying the torque and the time will give you the momentum, if the torque is constant.

Let us be very clear that you are making claims here, and must address questions put to you. Asking questions of others is OK as long as you are doing that, but if not, it is simply shifting the argument, and will be considered trolling.

Nobody will be injured from relativistic effects. All of this is a consequence of the speed of light being a constant in all frames — length and time are not invariant quantities, i.e. it depends on who is making the measurement. You cannot say an astronaut is 2m tall, and you cannot say a certain amount of time has elapsed. You can only make those statements as someone in a particular frame of reference. The values will be different to someone in another frame. Since the physics works exactly the same in all of these frames, each observer can claim they are at rest, and everyone not in that frame are the ones who are moving. No frame of reference can lay claim to the "real" value of any of these measurements. Things moving relative to you are length-contracted. Clocks moving relative to you run slow. They will say the exact same thing about you. How much the lengths contract and how much time dilates depends on the relative speed.

It is important to note that the length contraction seen by the astronaut is observed only by him, in his frame. Observers in other frames will measure different contractions. Observers at rest on earth see no contraction. Length and time are not absolutes. It depends on what frame you are in when you make the measurement.

And Leedskalnin would be wrong. Electrons have a dipole moment, and moving charges create fields. This is all well-established physics. Pick up a textbook and read it.

Sure. Flywheels mean rotation, and so you want angular momentum, L. [math]L = I\omega[/math], where I is the moment of inertia and omega is the angular speed. Compare that with linear momentum, p=mv. Mass changes to the moment of inertia, which takes into account the mass distribution. You can see why this matters by looking at another equation. [math]\vec{L} = \vec {r}\times \vec{p}[/math], so a particle farther from the axis of rotation has more angular momentum than an identical particle moving at the same linear speed, but closer to the axis. IOW, the placement of the mass matters to the angular momentum.

Magnetic fields are the result of moving charges. Magnetic fields appear when you take an electric field and transform into a coordinate system that's moving.

I'm sure some people find argument from incredulity and argument from ignorance convincing.

Science does explain things, but if all you have is an explanation, you don't have science. Science is not ad-hoc.

Clocks measure time.

You've had the benefits of dozens of posts explaining relativity to you. Perhaps you should reread some of them.

Please use the "report post" button to call this to our attention, rather than noting it in a thread

One way is to put a big electric field in place. It's what you do in a discharge tube for a variety of gases. The recombination often emits pretty light, according to the energy level structure. At TRIUMF they actually add an electron to hydrogen to form H- to accelerate it, and the strip off the electrons in the process of directing the beam to its target. The stripper foil probably works by having a higher affinity for electrons, which AFAIK is similar (microscopically) to field ionization.

Because the densities are so low, the amount of energy released is comparable to the amount you have already. I've been witness to an accelerator hitting Thorium with protons (we were looking for Francium). Not a big deal, but the nuclear bomb test detection facility located nearby asked us what was going on, and guessed what target we were using.

And we put many particles into such a reference frame with particle accelerators. —— The ladder is a good "paradox" to study because it shows how simultaneity is not absolute.

Entanglement is a QM effect, not a relativistic one. The problem is that a new explanation has to explain how everything within its sphere works, and allow us to calculate things. You picture of "ropes" is a recording of the tracks of particles in a collider over a period of time. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged No. Logic can only proceed if the premise is valid. But, even within that flawed regime, "it looks like X, therefore it is X" is faulty logic.

The shell theorem (which is a restatement of Gauss's law) assumes spherical symmetry. You can't apply it to three objects. If you violate the assumption, the results won't hold. Put another way, you have a bunch of math in the form of the derivation of Gauss's law. If you do another bunch of math that doesn't agree, it means you did the math wrong, because math is self-consistent. The only way to show Gauss's law to be wrong is to find an error in the derivation (or show that the whole mathematical construct is wrong, i.e. show that calculus is not self-consistent)

Making them the same frequency is syntonized, as I said earlier. If you synchronize clocks running at different rates they will lose synchronization, as with two clocks in different frames. GPS clocks are set to run at earth clock speeds by adjusting their frequency.

The part about the terms being defined is. I'm not sure about the overdetermined claim.

Photons follow the geodesic of the curved space. They are affected by gravity.

In one frame the astronaut is 2m tall. (Big for an astronaut, but this is just an example). In another, traveling such that gamma=0.5 with respect to the astronaut, he is 1m tall. There is absolutely NO measurement that you can do that tells you which measurement is "correct." Measurement is reality, since there is no way to justify calling one measurement valid while excluding another.

Any measurement has an issue of random error. So even though the readout is to 0.1 lbs, the actual error is about 1 lb. Your choices are to take one measurement to ± 1 lb, or take a dozen or so measurements and average them to get rid of the noise. If you plot a single set of values they should give you a gaussian (aka bell) curve. Personally I wouldn't bother with the latter. Your weight fluctuates a couple of pounds over the course of a day, and obsessing over a few tenths might just be adding stress. You gain about a half a pound by drinking a glass of water (around 8 lbs a gallon!), and lose that as you perspire, breathe, and go to the bathroom. Any precision better than a pound is just measuring noise. "Real" weight loss happens over the course of weeks and months. It's not the daily fluctuations that are always going to be there.

Yes, that's one of the ideas behind having certain safety equipment in a car, like crumple zones and airbags. Accelerating from 60 mph to zero in a short amount of time causes a lot more damage than doing it over a long period of time. So you add features that make the impact take as long as is feasible.

I have to correct this. Synchronized means the same reading. The rates can be different if they are in different frames, so what I said above only applies in the same reference frame.

That's it. To me, universal/absolute time implies that such a thing exists. A master clock, OTOH, is an agreed-upon reference, much like we agree to measure longitude starting at Greenwich. You can start anywhere and get consistent answers, but the problem arises when you try to talk to someone else.