swansont

What kind of circuit? If there is a capacitor discharging in it you can get a funny result.

The equation I posted is a kinematics equation, but if you multiply by the m/2, you'll see that it's kinetic and potential energy, and can be used to solve both questions. It also works with the version Cap'n Refsmmat posted, of course.

I'm not defending her, per se. I just don't see the difference between her saying it or the anchor in the studio saying it. Quite often reporters convey information without the interview being a part of the report. The protesters are probably not the most reliable source of information on whether Fox was promoting the protests, and I'd hope that we can agree that "if some random guy on the street said it it must be true" is below even network journalistic standards.

I think it's the other way around. The act of thinking might change your energy, and thus gravity, but the thought itself is an abstraction. There's no energy in it.

Not as such. Gravity depends on energy density, and thinking doesn't change that.

The truth of the statement is independent of the protesters' knowledge of it.

Alternately, you can use the equation [math]2\vec{a}\cdot\vec{s}=v_f^2-v_i^2[/math] (the dot product means that if the vectors are in opposite directions, there will be a - sign)

It's real. Only some of the proposed uses are fictional.

A nit: the masses will be different, but perhaps 6 orders of magnitude smaller than for nuclear reaction. Chemical bonds vs nuclear bonds. IOW, in chemistry, conservation of mass is a reasonable approximation that can be applied.

I see it as a true statement that has no utility. 1=1

the tree has been banished for 30 days by request of the user taken a 30-day sabbatical

Which explains why there is Brewster's angle for polarized light. Dipoles can't emit in a particular direction (along their axis).

You have not established that this is true. Clocks are made in different ways and depend on different interactions, and yet they all behave the same predictable way when put into different frames of reference.

What is the physical justification for using mr^2 = constant? Are you still using the classical electron radius for the electron, which is known not to be the actual electron radius? Why should these fractions exist? (Your whole justification seems to boil down to the FQHE, which is a collective behavior expressed only under a very specific, narrow range of circumstances) If these are manifestations of a single particle, how do you reconcile this with different spin states and different charge that we observe?

Scientists don't have total control over what popular terms will catch on. There a number of just awful pop-science terms (some coined by scientists but not always) that mislead the public and are repeated by a credulous press that doesn't understand the meaning. In my area of atomic physics there's "quantum teleportation" and "stopped light," to name just two. There's the "god particle" for the Higgs. And many others. "Catchy" seems to be more important than "correct."

Less talk. More synthehol music. I use my iPod, connected though the car stereo.

One such medical physics example is proton therapy

Ran across something that reminded me of this. The brain block I had before of why this won't work as advertised is the Earnshaw theorem which basically says "A collection of magnetic dipoles cannot be maintained in a stable stationary equilibrium condition by the application of static fields alone." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earnshaw%27s_theorem

Time is the phase of an oscillation, but I think that this is OT for this discussion.

Yes. Any force that results in circular motion is a centripetal force. Conversely, circular motion requires that there be a force directed toward the center of the circle (uniform circular motion means that it's the net force)

What do you mean by 'All time frames will allways[sic] experence the same "now"'? What are the implications of this to measurements? What kind of measurements can we make?

But the problem is that you have assumed that an OR operator is appropriate, making it a binary condition. Why not an AND function?

IOW, it's always now, which is a tautology. Not a definition.

With the cat, we are used to alive and dead as a binary condition. A quantum mechanical superposition of states is more than not knowing which state the system is in — it's in both states at once.

Or no pill at all — the body does heal itself of many ailments. One of the reasons homeopathy got legs in the first place is that doing nothing was often better than some of the other treatments at the time. The placebo effect was a bonus.