swansont

How you hit the water matters. At some point you hit terminal velocity, and additional height means nothing.

Epiménides, please start using the "quote" function to separate what you are posting from what others have said. It will help reduce confusion. The button is at the lower right of each post. It will automatically quote that post, and you can reply below it. Thanks

Tom Vose has been banned, as a sockpuppet of a previously banned user. (Graviphoton)

A warning was indeed issued for that act.

You claimed that a post you made here was your own work and not plagiarized, which makes you Reiku on another forum. Is that correct?

The image appears to be just as far away in a plane mirror, e.g. if you are looking at your own reflection and are 50 cm away from the mirror, your image will be 50 cm on the other side, not on the surface. So using plane mirrors only helps you to redirect the light.

Which definition or use of "clean coal" is being discussed here? Pollutants, or CO2? It seems to be the latter, and since you're burning carbon, there really isn't any way to make less CO2 out of it — that's simple chemistry. If the discussion is about sequestration, then it should be called sequestration, IMO. Otherwise it's just spin.

No need to apologize, IMO. I think it is germane to the discussion — we're talking about credibility, and though it's not normally considered proper etiquette to harp on spelling and grammar, the underlying truth is that habitual misuse of words, and poor spelling and grammar, are hurdles to gaining credibility. Using the wrong word undermines the trust that the poster said what they actually meant to say, and poor spelling and grammar give the impression of not being well-educated or of lower intelligence — I say impression because I know some really smart, well-educated people who can't spell worth a damn, but the reality of this is that it's a barrier to effective communication.

Right. It cares only to the extent that the simpler explanation is still correct. If it isn't, being simple doesn't matter at all.

Yes. These are time dilation equations. Mass does not appear in them.

If you post "the moon is really made of cheese," it will be challenged. But many requests for citations are shorthand for "I didn't know this and would like to read more." There are a lot of posters who routinely include citations in their posts and do so before they are asked, just for that reason. Whether a request falls under the former scenario or the latter depends partly on the nature of the claim and partly on how much credibility one has built up.

Since the OP specifically states that the topic is to be at a novice level, though, that's where the discussion should remain, rather than invoking a connection between zero-point energy and the cosmological constant that is still not well established and is at a much higher level.

What about the thermodynamic arrow of time? Entropy does not spontaneously decrease in a closed system.

Many years? According to your Bebo profile, you're 18.

That was, I believe, referring to a force and the reaction force given by Newton's third law. They are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction, so they add to zero. Since they act on different objects, saying they add to zero and thinking that applies to an object's motion is a misconception. An object's acceleration is dictated by the forces acting on it, not by the forces it exerts on other things.

Null Physics is a crackpot physics book. That's the topic under discussion here.

That's correct. If there's nothing to scatter the light, you won't physically see it except by being along its path. In these discussions, however, "see" is not always meant to be taken literally. See, observe, measure are some of the words that are used in this way; essentially it is being assumed you've set up an experiment to take all of the data you'd need to learn what happened. In this case, it would be a measurement of the time it takes for the light to travel the paths and the distance of those paths. I would conclude that each beam traveled at c.

You can't, though, because you'd need 4 spatial dimensions to depict it.

As D H notes, you misrepresent my position here. There is evidence to suggest it is permanently true. Conservation of energy stems from the time-symmetry of physical laws and constants, and tests of those constants (such as the fine structure constant) shows they can't be changing by more than a tiny amount (i.e. zero with really small error bars) Fallacious reasoning. "Scientists have made wrong pronouncements in the past, therefore all science is wrong." And argument from incredulity:"no evidence to rule this out" But there's no evidence to suggest it's true. You haven't ruled out invisible pink unicorns, either, but that's no reason to think they exist.

The beams will travel toward any inertial-frame observer at c. You'd actually see the two beams approaching each other at 2c.

That kinda makes the rotating-mirror method of measuring the speed of light tough to explain.

All science is inductive. If the right evidence came along, any part of it could be discarded or modified. But that doesn't mean abandoning things that have been confirmed by numerous tests — you need to wait until the contradictory evidence is obtained.

In addition to what ajb said, consider that the representation is attempting to convey a 2-D representation — all of the warping is happening to a plane, or what would be a plane away from any gravitational perturbations. But you can't show this non-Euclidean effect in a Euclidean 2-D space; you have to "borrow" the third dimension to depict it.

I can excite an atom without using photons and let it cascade to the ground state, emitting photons. I can accelerate a charge in a field and have it emit photons. There is no conservation of photon number. There just isn't.

On the contrary, mass is generally taken to mean invariant mass. You need to specify relativistic mass if you are going to use it.