swansont

One key concept here is that there is no absolute frame of reference. You are not moving at 0.5c — that's an incomplete statement: you are moving at 0.5c relative to some reference. But it is just as legitimate to say that you are at rest, and that reference is moving at 0.5c relative to you. Since you can't tell if you are moving, light moves at c with respect to you. There isn't a way to tell if you are moving or at rest. Measuring the speed of light to be something other than c would be a violation of that.

You can only use acceleration to calculate your velocity if you have the initial conditions. Absent that, the answer will be the same to within an additive constant. A "change in direction of travel" assumes a reference against which you are making the measurement.

Cheaper glass has more iron contaminants, which is the source of the greenish cast YT mentioned. There will be a slight difference in reflectivity from the dispersion, since the reflectivity depends on the index and normal incidence reflectivity is [math](\frac{n_1-n_2}{n_1+n_2})^2[/math] (Air has a similarly-shaped dispersion curve, but a smaller change in n, so to first order it's constant) So blue reflects more than red (~.044 vs ~0.041 reflectivity for this, which is BK7 glass), but our eyes are more sensitive to green/yellow, whch may have something to do with it

Those are not conserved quantities. "How is this possible?" is an ill-formed question. It is not forbidden, i.e. not impossible, so it happens.

F = ma always applies in these problems a = v^2/r always applies to circular motion However, the "centripetal force" is not it's own kind of force, such as gravity, or tension or normal force, that we identify in a free-body diagram. It's an additional condition that holds true when something moves in a circle. GMm/r^2 (as big314mp has given) is the gravitational force (rather than the acceleration) If you were given the period of orbit, you could find the speed, and use the centripetal acceleration equation.

As long as there is no acceleration, you can't say, absolutely, who is moving.

At least this part of the economy isn't in the tank. Now watch while the media business has a post-election crash.

The theory of relativity actually tells us no such thing. D H has already given a trivial example of something traveling faster than c. But there is no information that is exceeding c; causality is not violated.

Are you sure the solution is to the exact same problem? Sometimes similar problems are written with different values in them.

Your head's wrong. nm are smaller than cm, so there should be more of them, so your answer doesn't even pass the "reasonability" test. 1 cm^-1 has a wavelength of 1 cm, which is 10^7 nm.

How do you mean anti-competitive? Apple is under no obligation to sell other businesses' applications. The objectionable behavior is that Apple did not spell out to developers that they would not sell competing apps, and don't apply this "policy" uniformly. IOW, it's BS that they made up as an excuse to pull some apps from the store. The thing that made this even worse was the NDA that developers were under, which meant they couldn't say anything if their app was pulled. That NDA has apparently been stricken from the developers' agreement.

Done — posts copied. Discussion of earth tides and mass distributions, etc. should follow up in the new thread. http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=36153 Let me know if other posts should be added.

You may start circular, but even if you did, there will be perturbations. At the very least, from other planets. This is merely a guess, but the circularity may also depend on how much matter there was in the vicinity, to collide and circularize the path.

Multiply by 10^7

Relativity is an observed effect, rather than being invented. Some theory may supersede it someday, but the effects we have documented will be included in the new theory; consider that we still find Newtonian gravity useful, even though it is "old hat." I think that Severian is right in that the implications of not having relativity are way too involved to know the answer of designing a universe. It's all interconnected.

Mod note — I deleted the duplicate post.

Relativity and/or quantum physics.

Posts merged from redundant thread. No reason to have multiple threads addressing the same questions.

I think bringing up how much was spent on Palin's clothes is only partisan and/or sexist if the media never did anything like focus attention on how much any male candidate ever spent on, say, a haircut. Oh, snap!

I think the easiest way to do that is to use a coordinate system where gravity is in the -y direction. The you should see that the forces in the y direction are gravity (down), a component of friction (down) and a component of the normal force (up). By inspection, you should see that the normal force has to be larger than the weight. Since the frictional force can be expressed in terms of the normal force, it can be solved. Then you solve for the x-component of the force, which is the centripetal force.

Hijacked part of thread has been moved (and infraction issued)

I previously asked "How would one, in principle, falsify the dot-wave hypothesis?" Until that is addressed, there is no point in further discussion.

I have no idea what "violating reality" means.

jerrygg38 has been suspended for persistently invoking his speculative theory in science discussion, outside of its own thread.

OK, stick a fork in it. We're done here.