swansont

They slowed the speed of light propagation, not the individual photons If they the same color, no. The Casimir effect is hypothesized to allow you to exceed c http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scharnhorst_effect

Right. Alphas are exceedingly tightly bound, which is why they are the particle of choice to be released for nuclei that are too big, but stable vs beta decay.

Nuclei have energy levels and shells for neutrons and protons, similar to those of electrons, so you can reach a state where a proton or neutron has a higher energy than an empty state of the other particle. The particle will change identity if the nucleus can release energy in doing so, which is what happens in beta decay. Physical, chemical and biological reactions are also affected by isotopes; heavier particle move slower, on average, at a given temperature, and tend to react or diffuse more slowly. For example, there are seasonal variations in the concentration of O-18 and deuterium in water found in ice layers. Heavier isotopes evaporate more slowly and condense more quickly, so the isotopic ratios will differ depending on the conditions. http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/icecore/review.php

No, that's all there is.

Basically yes, but you have to realize that there are two different nuclear forces — strong and weak. The strong force does act on both neutrons and protons, and nuclei with too many nucleons tends to alpha decay. But an excess of protons or neutrons leads to beta decay, which is mediated by the weak force. Light atoms can be unstable with beta decay, as I mentioned before. Be-8 is also unstable, splitting into two alphas.

What is a synthetic state?

Seems to me all the answers were just a couple of seconds of ad-lib to bridge the way back to their talking points. I was disappointed that Obama seems reticent to take the gloves off. In an early exchange McCain talked about earmarks and fired a salvo at Obama. If McCain's so opposed, why did he choose a running mate who loves them? Obama didn't bring that up at all. And McCain's lame joke about bear DNA would have been a time to attack him on the importance of science and technology. I tuned out after McCain's second reference to himself as not winning "Miss Congeniality." It just seemed like theater by that point.

Sweden had a similar bank crisis last decade. They demanded equity from the banks, like the US has done with Fannie, Freddy and AIG. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/business/worldbusiness/23krona.html?em

You aren't missing anything. Lots of word salad, very little math. An excerpt

Testable means one can devise experiments that can be confirmed, or not. The theory must make predictions for this to be the case. The background radiation is an example of one of those predictions that was confirmed. I think Hawking was referring to the Hawking-Turok Instanton Theory. I'm not a cosmologist; I don't know what predictions it makes and how they could be confirmed. "Popular pseudo-scientific belief," however, would not be an accurate description. You started this thread asking about quantum theory. I'll ask one last time, do you have any untestable implications of quantum physics in mind? (Related to this, please review the forum rules, especially rule 2.5)

No, it's very real http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/278 An isomer (long-lived excited state) of Fe-65 was discovered because its mass is greater than that of the ground state, by an amount that is E/c^2. So the atom, absorbing a photon of that energy, increases in mass.

Ashish, you've asked me to weigh in here, but Klaynos is giving you reasonable answers. If you think that there are only particles, you need to explain things like single-particle interference. If you shoot single electrons, photons or atoms through a double slit, they will generate an interference pattern, which is a wave phenomenon, as Klaynos has already noted. One should realize that physics attempts to describe how nature behaves, not what these phenomena are. We use "particle" and "wave" because they are convenient to use, stemming from macroscopic behavior. And things like electrons have behaviors of both, which are convenient to use in the description of their behavior. But there's a big difference between "acts like a particle" and "is a particle" and to say the latter means you step outside of science, IMO, and into metaphysics. There's no way to test "what it really is." Only "how it behaves." You may be able to come up with a model in which everything is a particle. If you can get that to work, i.e. it's consistent with what we already have, explaining observations and predicting others, great. But to be useful (i.e. a better model), it will need to be simpler than what we already have. ————— "New Physics" post moved to speculations http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=35525

Mass is a form of energy. If an object absorbs energy, its mass will increase. Standard physics separates the kinetic term, in order to be able to transform between reference frames. E2=m2c4 + p2c2 m here is the rest mass

It's not really the air, it's the water and steel. The steel has pushed the water out of the way, and it's the water pushing back that keeps the ship afloat. The air is at one atmosphere of pressure. It's there, but not really doing anything. All of the strength to withstand the forces is in the steel. The ship floats because the water displaced weighs more than the steel+whatever is inside the ship (were it to be completely submerged), so it exerts a greater force than the weight. Contrast this with a balloon inflated underwater. Then it's the air restricting the collapse, but the air would have to be above atmospheric pressure.

And, to clarify this, it means the theory doesn't hold at r=0. No need to test a theory where one doesn't claim it to be valid. I'll ask again, do you have any untestable implications of quantum physics in mind?

The formula assumes the energy is absorbed, which is not necessarily the case for a gas that is mostly transparent to the radiation. It's also included in the blackbody "correction factor" CaptainPanic mentioned; it's called the emissivity. (However, one would not include both it and the effect of reflection, since the latter is included in the former) Basically, yes. You could have temperature differences because of different emissivities, but if they are at the same temperature, something with a higher heat capacity has more energy that it can transfer for each degree it drops in temperature. The bottom line is the ability to burn is not just a function of the temperature, as in the oven example I gave previously.

What untestable implications do you have in mind?

I was under the impression it started falling apart before he and Obama arrived. Like people started reading the fine print and realized it was a pig in a poke. No oversight. No restrictions on CEO pay and bonuses. Little things like that.

We generally can't establish the connection between taxes paid in and government services. "Let the government pay for it!" (or substitute "insurance companies," or whatever) Cognitive dissonance is our birthright.

Not that different from moving ones; you get them all the time in resonant cavities, e.g. some types of lasers

You have a thread on this topic already http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=35426 Please don't hijack other discussions

So? Should anyone take a non-responsive ad hominem seriously? Does the fact that Krugman wrote it mean that Paulson didn't testify before congress, didn't say what was quoted, and that section 8 of the proposed bailout didn't completely abandon oversight? I don't know who Krugman is and I don't care — I followed a link. I don't care if Bozo the Clown posted it after channelling Ramtha, though. It was factual information, and that's what is relevant. Attacking the source rather than the information is a very basic logical fallacy, the worst of political discussion, and you should know better. I don't understand what you're calling bullshit on.

Rubber is another material that tends to contract upon heating. Long molecules, stretched when cold, but bent when heated.

I'll have to read the article; I wonder if the net flow of energy is still outward and this is a localized effect.