swansont

I appreciate your position. However … How is someone answering a question to know your level of math skills? I don't find it unreasonable to expect algebra (not calculus) skills to be a given. Also, one has to appreciate that some questions do not have simple answers, and that for the answer to make some sense, you need to have learned some background information. At some point, the asker is responsible for obtaining that education. The link you provided had some good insight into this. Your original question was ill-formed, and eventually an answer was given. You need a kinetic energy of 6 times the mass energy Not a simple situation, because once you accelerate a charge, it starts radiating, so it loses energy. The basic equation is that E = qV, so it's a Volt of potential per electron-Volt of energy. Ignoring that energy loss, the answer is ~6GV.

I don't see the connections you're trying to make.

One is a quantum description, the other is classical. It depends on how you are describing things.

How can the vacuum be full of traveling photons if they don't travel?

E=mc^2 holds. The caveat is that it doesn't guarantee that there is a reaction where all of the mass can be converted into other forms. What if that pile of rubble is a nuclear reactor core?

42 minutes, 12 seconds, under the assumption of a spherical earth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_train http://kottke.org/tag/earth

Proton mass is about 939 MeV, or rounded up, 1 GeV. So you'd want a KE of ~6 GeV

I think the bonuses are the hardest to swallow. There were a few examples that were reaches, IMO. While you can debate the value of naming rights to stadia and the level of fiscal irresponsibility in golden parachutes (and if you thought these a waste of money I'd agree) those were contracts in place before the bailout. It points to the shabby thinking that got these companies in trouble, but are not bailout boondoggles, per se, like the retention bonuses and the AIG party.

Wild-Assed-Guess (as opposed to a domestic or feral one)

And since he recommends steel-toed shoes, he's not a flip-flopper. [beats hasty retreat]

OK. Adding the note is a good idea.

I was discussing the path of photon travel and last time I checked stationary clocks weren't photons. Time dilation is a gravitational effect. It's misleading to explain the warping as being caused by time dilation; all of the effects are from a common cause.

That's what the calculation should show. pioneer's claim implies that the atom really does behave like the Bohr model. I'm requesting that he substantiate the claim with a calculation, without which it's really just a WAG.

That would lead to one being out of uniform. On several levels, not a career-enhancing move.

Note that the original post referred to above is now in another thread because, as this says, it's really not related.

Is that something that can be a user option — whether your rep is anonymous or not? Ah, I bask in the glow of your faint praise!

Which brings nothing new to the discussion. Matter and energy bend space/cause gravity. I'm failing to see why this is being repeated in umpteen different ways as if some new insight were being delivered. It would seem that you think your statement is saying something new. Light's path changes because of the curvature. The excess path due to this, as viewed by someone in flat spacetime, is one way of accounting for the time dilation (Shapiro delay)

Why would it raise the temperature? Energy is conserved. In fact, under your conjecture that matter repels antimatter, that's positive potential energy. Annihilating and replacing that with a attractive gravitational force represents a reduction in energy, absent other mechanisms to preserve conservation of energy. If anything, this would be a cooling mechanism.

What absorbs and re-transmits the light in a vacuum? In between the atoms in a non-vacuum?

Destructive interference at one point will have constructive interference at some other point associated with it. Energy is conserved.

Not "also" since gravitational time dilation stems from the same effect. You appear to agree that light bends. Then, end of story. One way to represent that is geometrically, i.e. non-Euclidean space. Any suggestion that relativity is incorrect (if that's what you are suggesting) should be discussed in its own thread. Not here.

As the link I provided explained, there is a mass effect, but it's very small. In heavier elements there is an additional effect of additional neutrons because of the change in the charge distribution. A moving hydrogen atom's spectrum will change because of the Doppler shift, but in its own frame it's at rest and has the same spectrum.

I think you need to be more specific in citing. An entire Google search?

You still wouldn't see an orbit. Show me the calculation. What is the uncertainty of the momentum in a Bohr orbit? What is the momentum?

Deuterium has only one electron. There's a neutron in the nucleus, but the basic electron structure is identical to hydrogen (there will be small effects from the increased nuclear mass) http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/hdoub.html#hdd