swansont

They could, but they generally don't.

If you are expanding it the intensity is going to decrease. But yes, I think you need to use mirrors for something on this scale. It should be cheaper than lenses, unless you can get Fresnel lenses that big (I've never run across any bigger than ~ a meter)

The laws are the same. How things behave as a result is different. Take diffraction as an example. Things diffract when going through a slit or around a corner, but you only notice it when the wavelength is about the same size as the slit. massive particles have wavelengths, given by h/p, meaning my wavelength is going to be on the order of 10^-37m, and I am not going to noticeably diffract when walking through a doorway. But an atom going at a few cm/s through a 100 nm slit will.

You appeared to claim that it would lead to instant communication in post #10.

Auugh! I've been outed!

Then you have to look at density, which is the point of the golf/ping-pong ball demo in moo's link. Things that are more dense than air will continue moving and push the air out of the way. This is why a helium-filled balloon will move backward when you hit the brakes — the air continues to move forward, since it's more dense. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged You shouldn't be using moment of inertia here — there's nothing rotating. Mass and density are sufficient to explain the phenomena.

No, it's often a pain the ass to find the error when you make a problem complex enough, and doubly so when it is described in vague terms. But the result — FTL communication — tells me that there is an error, because it violates relativity, which is self-consistent. Thought problems that have a contradiction contain an inconsistency, either in the setup or in the application of the physics. The only thing that can disprove a theory is an actual experimental result. Do you have one? You should be aware that argument from ignorance (i.e. "it's true until proven false") is a logical fallacy.

The Clausius statement, applied to radiation, is about net energy flow. The photon path is reversible, and the hotter object emits photons, too. And more photon energy, which traces back to the cooler object. There is a net heat transfer from hot to cold.

Quantum eraser experiments generally do not test for FTL phenomena. You can't simplistically assume that if you scaled them up (i.e. moved the detectors far apart), they would exhibit this behavior. If you can find an experiment that explicitly tests for this, then please cite it. Otherwise it's a thought experiment that assumes the answer you're looking for. The Wheeler experiment page doesn't claim anything happens FTL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser Pay attention to the discussion section, where it is explained why this does not send information FTL or violate causality.

Atoms behave very differently than solar systems and galaxies. The "planetary atom" model was discarded long ago.

Moment of inertia has to do with rotating systems, though, not linear ones.

The other implication of all of this is that when you are outside of the earth, it behaves like all of the mass is at the center. Both situations assume the mass is distributed uniformly. Both of these circumstances make it easier to solve certain gravitational and electrostatics problems (it's an artifact of the 1/r^2 force)

Baryonic dark matter is limited by nucleosynthesis results — the amount of the various elements in the early universe wouldn't match up if there were significant amount of it.

No. These experiments do not violate casuality, nor do they claim to. You have to establish that they are set up to test FTL phenomenon (rather than some other interesting physics) before you could possibly draw that conclusion.

It explicitly states that it's freewheeling. This "unrealistic" part actually shows why that design is necessary.

Virtually all of the points refer to logical fallacies in one form or another. The title should be "38 Ways to "win" an argument … when you're wrong." The winning is illusory. (and, I should add, these tactics are things the staff here try and clamp down on whenever possible) (You should have blogged this, so I could link to it. Now I'll just have to steal it outright.)

An object moving on a circular path must feel a centripetal force as its net force. Have you taken that into account? N = mgcosL implies that there is a normal force up until the bead is at 90º. Will it stay on the sphere all the way to that point?

Moved to Homework help

And? If you know the path, you kill the cat. If you don't know the path, the cat survives.

Moved to homework help

What would be the speed at the top of the loop if you started at 16m? Would the car stay on the track under that condition?

The key for EM radiation is the presence or absence of states that can absorb the light. Things that are transparent don't have states that will readily result in absorption. Sound passes through a wall, but not a vacuum. Light passes through a vacuum but not a wall. The mechanisms are different.

Perhaps I am just misunderstanding your point, but for interference to manifest itself, you need an ensemble of particles — even though a photon interferes with itself, you can't tell that it has done so by detecting a single photon. But you have only one cat. How does interference matter at all?

A coincidence counter requires two things to be measured. You only have one cat.

This sounds like a which-path quantum eraser experiment. Once you know which path, the interference goes away. In this case, even if you had interference between the states, the cat can only end up in one state or the other.