swansont

You OP has been responded to. There were some answers and some requests for clarification. If people are saying the question isn't clear to them, you don't get to say, "yes it is." You don't get to berate them for it, either. Are you asking about unanswered questions of evolution, or areas of current research? A history of those things? Please learn to use the quote function, and please tone it down.

In your own frame, you always get the rest mass. Your mass doesn't change, anyway, for reasons discussed in other recent threads.

You may have a harder time of convincing some prospective employers, but a degree in physics basically says you are reasonably smart and like to apply those smarts as you solve problems.

My 20 bucks is for them not getting expelled, so if the motivation is for the cash, they should be on their best behavior. But as YDOAPS is hinting, video and youtube. Document it all.

"Time potentials" already has its own thread. It's off-topic for here. Post will moved.

I've got 20 bucks that says such a group — not attempting stealth, mind you, and attempting to tour the whole thing — gets EXPELLED from the museum. edit: D'oh. I didn't see Paranoia's post. Still, I'm ponying up cash, and have announced it

Something is very wrong here. If we had a 1L bottle, and our oxygen concentration drops 3.5% of that volume (20% to 16.5%), that's 1.56 millimoles of O2 burned. If the paraffin is C25H52, we need 37.5 moles of O2 burned per mole of paraffin, so that's 51.6 micromoles, or a mass of 14.6 milligrams of paraffin lost to combustion. The heat of combustion is ~42 kJ/g, so this releases 615 Joules of energy. Even ignoring factors of two for approximations, that's way off. It only takes a couple of Joules to raise air temperature 2 ºC for a volume of 1L. (Cp and Cv are different, but in the vicinity of 22.4 J/mol-K) The heat capacity of paraffin is around 2 J/g-K. How massive was the candle, or at least the part that heats up. — tens of grams? That's a few tens of Joules of energy. The value also doesn't jibe with the caution about using a metal plate as a heat sink in the case where you use a plastic container. You won't melt plastic with a 2 degree rise in temperature. So, where was the temperature probe? In the water, perhaps? If it was in the air we're missing several hundred Joules of energy, or I've made a math mistake I can't find. (or someone has embezzled it). But the water makes sense, because Cp is 4.18 J/g-K, so less than 100 ml of water will take that energy right up and only rise two degrees. The air temperature could have easily risen 30 ºC and the water near the probe only 2 ºC.

I'm going to go geeky here (what were the odds): apples and some other fruits, such as bananas and pears, give off ethylene as they ripen, and ripening is accelerated by the presence of ethylene. So a ripe apple will cause others to ripen more quickly, hence one bad apple spoiling the bunch — the darker splotches on any of these fruits, where it has gotten mushy, is a source of ethylene. These days, these fruits are picked before they ripen and can be stored for a while (in a cool place), and then triggered to ripen by introducing ethylene. So you can ripen things on your own by mixing a ripe subject with some unripe ones; placing the apple/banana/pear in a paper bag helps as well, by trapping some of the ethylene. Conversely, you should segregate them if you want to slow the ripening. AFAIK higher humidity impedes ripening, so a plastic bag does not hasten ripening — it traps water vapor as well.

Citations for this mass of scientific work? Without them this is just an empty claim. Newsweek and Time, et. al, don't count as scientific literature. Neither do articles that merely identify the cooling that actually happened. By this analysis, the mass of scientific papers on the 70's was opposite of what you claim: 7 for cooling, 42 for warming, 19 neutral. At least one of those seven was a prediction based on aerosol levels rising dramatically, so it was (like some GW papers) not a prediction of the future, but a conditional prediction, and is not necessarily wrong (they used a smaller climate sensitivity than has been determined, based on better data, so in hindsight, the analysis is actually flawed) Phlogiston was falsified. Do you have evidence that falsifies the IPCC reports? Velikovsky's work has been thoroughly debunked, though we could go into that as a separate topic.

You're part of the precipitate?

Nothing wrong with being wrong, though, as long as you learn something. Water turning into ice can do work. There has to be a force, and it's the electrostatic force between the atoms.

But there are forces involved in the example you give.

However, there is a big difference in that there are two possibilities for the absorption. It can be to a virtual state, in which case the photon must be re-emitted with the same energy and polarization and in the same direction; this takes time, so the propagation speed is smaller, and is what happens to the light that makes it through a material. If the absorption is by a real state, the emitted photon can go in other directions, and the light is not transmitted.

The space has a vacuum energy and properties such as electric permittivity and magnetic permeability. The metric for spacetime depends on the what the gravity looks like, though locally it will be flat.

The image blurs because you are collecting photons from more than one location on a plane, and the lens of the camera is imaging that plane onto another (the film or CCD). The amount of blurring is directly related to the speed of the object (as projected onto the plane) and the shutter speed — if either one is sufficiently small, there is no blurring. This is not a relativistic effect. You are introducing a "time potential" to explain something that is readily explained by kinematics.

The energy was already there. Muons were created by cosmic ray interactions in the upper atmosphere. Knowing that there was an acceleration tells you that the reference frames are different, but if you synchronize clocks after the acceleration (or energy input, though I think there may be problems with looking at it that way) then you eliminate the effect from that. The accumulated dilation depends on how long the measurement interval is and the speed, and not on the acceleration.

split off from the "defining time" thread ——— The shutter speed/baton example is not a relativistic effect.

There's no such thing as absolutely empty space, so it's a dangerous path to tread. Normal "empty" space is flat, so yes, time should exist, just as the three spatial dimensions should.

Changed is perhaps the wrong word. What is seen/measured is different in different frames. My motion doesn't alter an object, but what I see is different in different frames, and I have no way of saying that one frame is the "right frame" and that's the "real appearance" of the object. So with a meter stick, I can't say that it is "really" one meter long because I can't tell if I'm moving or at rest. It's only a meter long in a particular frame of reference — the length is not an inherent property of the stick. In one frame it's 1.00 meter, in another frame it's 0.99 meters, and in yet another, it's 0.90 meters. Nothing physical has happened to the stick, but I can't say how long the stick is, only how long it is in a particular frame of reference.

Depends on what you mean by observable. Naked eye, or with instrumentation? What kind of augmentation — optical (so it's enhanced naked eye) or other (e.g. electron microscope) The diffraction limit of the eye (Rayleigh criterion) at the near-point of vision is a few tens of microns, but of course that's not easily seen. Smaller than ~100 microns would be tough. If you add in optics, you have the limits of the optics and the wavelength of light, so about a micron would be the limit. Atomic-force microscopes have imaged individual atoms, so that's at the nanometer level. http://www.iap.tuwien.ac.at/www/opt/images/afm_surface.png http://www.science.org.au/sats2004/images/bilek16.jpg

And I point out that you make this claim again without backing it up with any examples. You haven't been following any of the threads in which Eric5 has been posting lately, have you? His positions have been attacked as vigorously as we see in global warming discussions. That's how scientific discussions go — you thoroughly attempt to falsify claims, precisely because nothing can be proven deductively. But in relativity there is much less rhetoric to get in the way and stir up emotion. And that's a big issue in the global warming threads, because rhetoric and other debating tactics get added to the mix. Frustrations grow and tempers flare when a person making a false or tenuous claim is asked to support it and responds with something other than a scientific source (e.g. no response, a fallacy-ridden response, repetition of the claim, or a link to something that isn't a scientific source,). After a few rounds, someone calls the poster an idiot, and then the persecution claims start. It's a pity we don't keep score of the behavior that goads people into infractions (or at least to the same extent). I don't say this to defend flaming — one has to learn not to take the bait — but scientific arguments and political arguments use a different "scoring" system. In a scientific discussion, using a logical fallacy invalidates your argument, while in a political discussion it often scores a point. In science, making an unsubstantiated claim scores no points, but in politics it depends on the quality of the sound bite. In science, a false claim diminishes your credibility, but in politics it often not only has no penalty, it can be seen to score points — creationists do this all the time. (And if you want a quick example of this, McCain's comments about bear DNA demonstrates what I'm talking about — crappy science arguments used to score political points) Take "driving the opposition out of town on a rail" as an example. To me that carries no weight until examples have been given to allow the opportunity to rebut. It sounds good, though, so some might think that there's something to it. The issue here is whether you score these discussions using a scientific scorecard or a political one. Many of us want to have a scientific discussion and not have a political framework forced upon it. Rebutting bad arguments and flawed claims is not an inherently political action, especially if it does not involve policy discussions.

These are physical processes, involving atmospheric pressure and intermolecular forces, rather than effects from coordinate transformations.

In the view from other frames, that "flatness" is the normal state for beings traveling at that speed, just like a longer decay time is normal for radioactive particles that are not at rest.

No, the positron is at the same energy as an electron, and the antiproton is at the same energy as the proton. They are not unstable. The current proton/electron universe shows CP violation, though the observed extent of this is currently not sufficient to explain the prevalence of matter vs antimatter. There is no demonstrated affinity for positive charge to be with higher mass.

That's why I asked you about energy, because it is a similar application of the false dichotomy. It is not a physical thing that you can hold, like a rock, yet is exists independent of our thought, so it is not a consideration. Length is not a physical thing that you can hold in your hand — it is a property of an object, but not the object itself. And yet an object has length whether we think about or not. It is not a consideration.