swansont

No, because "in reality" assumes there is a frame of reference that is "reality" which one can objectively determine with a physics experiment or test. Nope. The finite speed of light is not the source of time dilation — it remains after one removes the d/c delay from the signal of a remote clock. This claim is falsified by many experiments where the clocks were compared after accumulating a delay, but were compared to other clocks at close proximity. I think you are the only one calling time a "physical thing" in these threads. But you continue to base your objections on a preferred reference frame, one of several persistent misconceptions you have about relativity. Clocks measure the thing we call time. Time is not an absolute, and the transformation between reference frames is not linear.

Depends on whether you think that partisan/non-partisan is a binary state or there can be a continuum. I suspect that distinction is at the heart of what is obviously a misunderstanding of my point. False dilemma — I don't see those two attributes as being mutually exclusive. Objectivity implies that they would look at both sides of the story, and they don't, but they don't claim to. And I don't recall saying the show was bipartisan — that's a strawman. Was it when I wrote "There's no doubt in my mind that he leans left" that implied that? To address the point I raised above, I wasn't thinking in terms of partisan/non-partisan. Partisan means supporting one side only, and nonpartisan means not taking sides at all. But that doesn't cover all of the possibilities, so that's another false dilemma. I think it's possible to be liberal or conservative and still act in a way that isn't inherently partisan. If the show were partisan, there wouldn't be any serious criticism of democrats. Well, you did mention Fox News earlier, and O'Reilly is on the Fox News network. But I admit, I was getting my slogans mixed up. O'Reilly is the "no spin zone." Potato, potahto — it's still an implication of objectivity. That's where I disagree. People tuning in to a news channel expect objective news and commentary. I don't think anyone tunes in to comedy central with the same expectation. I refer you to the comments I just made. I never claimed that the show wasn't "leftie." My point was simply that your claim that "I don't expect him to make fun of the democrat president, he'll just stick to the republican representatives." has no basis in actual fact (as well as point out the error of Pangloss's claim that TDS should be required to have an "objective basis for its criticism") ——— Not every claim is challenged because of an ideological position. Sometimes unsupported/incorrect claims are called out because they are unsupported/wrong. Nothing more to it that that.

No, what SR tells us is that KE and speed do not have a simple quadratic relationship, though the deviation from this is small at small speeds.

Then I guess I misinterpreted this: If he's under no obligation to do so, why does it matter whether he completely fails to represent the opposing side's arguments or not? I don't think TDS represents itself as objective comedy, whatever that is. from their website (emphasis added) One anchor, five correspondents, zero credibility. If you're tired of the stodginess of the evening newscasts and you can't bear to sit through the spinmeisters and shills on the 24-hour cable news network, don't miss The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, the nightly half-hour series unburdened by objectivity, journalistic integrity or even accuracy. The Emmy and Peabody Award-winning Daily Show takes a reality-based look at news, trends, pop culture, current events, politics, sports and entertainment with an alternative point of view. In each show, anchorman Jon Stewart and a team of correspondents, including Aasif Mandvi, John Oliver, Rob Riggle, Jason Jones and Samantha Bee, comment on the day's stories, employing actual news footage, taped field pieces, in-studio guests and on-the-spot coverage of important news events. "unburdened by objectivity" sounds exactly the opposite of a claim that they are an objective show. Do O'Reilly and Fox News claim to objective? (I always interpreted "fair and balanced" to be just that). Anyone thinking they are getting objective news from TDS are not doing so because of the show's claims. Or you could go on their website and see if the show made fun of Bill Clinton, and satirized the Lewinsky affair and the impeachment, among other things. Stewart started on the show in January of 1999, so you can't make a complete comparison, but a search of "Bill Clinton" gave 13 pages of hits; the first five pages are after his presidency ended.

Space and spacetime aren't the same thing. Spacetime is the four-dimensional geometry we use to measure things.

I did two postdocs. One was through an ad in Physics Today, and the other was an email circulated through the atom-trapping community (back when it was much smaller). If your thesis advisor has contacts, use them. You should also be aware of who some/most of the players in your subfield are from conferences and journals. Also, look into any postdoc programs run by national labs and funding institutions (e.g. in the US there is a National Science Foundation fellowship program, a NIST-NRC postdoc program and probably others) So in the UK look at NPL and whatever the programs are that award research grants and see if anything is available. In the US these often require citizenship, but there may be EU-wide programs that are similar.

Any claim of finishing a PhD with an expected completion time more than a year out is very suspect, in my experience. Until you've gotten the data you need and are writing the thesis. It's a corollary to Hofstadter's law (It always takes longer than you think, even after taking into account Hofstadter's law): (Before the defense date is actually set) [A]ll thesis completion predictions are optimistic

It's been a while since I've seen the movie, so I don't recall the particulars of various arguments. But from the context of the analysis of the judge's ruling, it seems like there was a distinction drawn between "what is likely to happen," and "what might happen," and also between the levels that global warming has contributed to some events — saying that X is a result of global warming, and the question between whether GW is responsible for 100%, or 80% or 50%, etc. of the event. As the judge ruled, these were points for teachers to clarify. It was not ruled that the underlying science was wrong.

It's satire, not news. He doesn't have an obligation to represent the other side's arguments. And he regularly mocks the impotence of the democrats in congress, whenever that comes into play. http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=87456&title=*****-party When the disembodied voice on C-SPAN calls you pussies, you’re probably pussies (The link should work, even though it contains the singular of the above synonym for "cat" and it gets filtered in the display) But beyond that, it's hard to mock people when they aren't doing anything. Targets of opportunity, as I said before. Obama and Clinton aren't making policy or acting on it, so what is there to satirize? The campaign, which is what is happening. Or, put another way, he has satirized 100% of the executive-branch decisions made by the democrats in the last 7 years.

Short answer: because c is constant in all frames, people will disagree on measurements of length, time and simultaneity (this is after accounting for c being finite). Agreeing that two events were simultaneous requires that there be an absolute way to measure how far away something is and what time it is, and there is no absolute reference frame.

P=IV, If V is the same, you can only increase I by generating more power.

However, it is not true that current takes the path of least resistance — that's an oversimplification. If resistors 2 and 3 were unequal (say, R2<R3), the current (with the switch open) would not all flow through #2. The current flow would be proportional to 1/R, so that the voltage drop were equal across each. Even in the example, if real wires are present, there will be a tiny current in 2 and 3 with the switch closed.

But Stewart mocks the left, too. There's no doubt in my mind that he leans left, but the satire is aimed at targets of opportunity, and the president — who tends to be in the news a lot — is a republican. Do you expect the show to cease production if a democrat is elected? I don't.

The current limit for a battery is determined by its internal resistance, so in series you are limited to 0.01A. Trying to drive more can damage the battery. I don't think you could quite get 2.06A, because you can't put all of the batteries in parallel — some small amount of current will go through part of the circuit that ties the batteries together.

It depends on the chemical makeup of the dyes used for coloring. There are effects from heat, and also on specific bonds from photon absorption and possible ionization. But this definitely extends into the visible, though the effect is not linear — UV does a lot more damage. In the context of protecting works of art at a museum http://www.padfield.org/tim/cfys/lightmtr/luxerror.php

One of the functions of science is to limit the scope of uncertainty contained in "for all we know," and its utility includes neither argument from incredulity nor argument from ignorance.

James Whistler and Oscar Wilde did it first. (and Monty Python based a whole sketch on it, and other sayings) Now back to our regular program, on the "you'll like whatever we damn well tell you to like" network. (<—— what will happen when GeneralStarbucksoftMobil owns all the media channels)

Removing heat from the light source is impossible*; I assume by this you mean you are limiting the light to the visible spectrum. And the answer is yes, light at the blue end of the spectrum can do this in some cases, as Mr Skeptic said. *visible light has energy and is thus a form of radiant heat transfer

It's an idealization to make circuit analysis easier — no potential drop in the wires. In many cases it's a reasonable approximation.

Does it turn you colors like colloidal silver sometimes does?

We've gone through this before. The judge was not pointing out any flawed science; that wasn't his job. It was a legal assessment based in politics.

Properties exist in the absence of a gravitational field, though, e.g. permittivity and permeability

In the quantum world there is a fundamental limit to precision from the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

One issue here is that the aether was defined in a certain way, and falsified, but there is a continual parade of concepts using the same term. Space has properties, or to be more specific, the vacuum has properties. And yes, it gets investigated — the Casimir force measurements jump immediately to mind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

Who said it would happen in a decade?