swansont

Mars-to-Earth has the sun's gravity working for you. The other direction does not. Assuming I've done my math right, it takes ~5x more energy to eject something from Earth and have it be gravitationally free than to do so from Mars. It takes ~5x of that to get it from Earth to Mars due to the Sun's gravity, meaning it takes 25x more energy to get from Earth to Mars as the reverse. So I wouldn't say that the reverse seems anywhere near as likely.

You have to know these things when you're a king.

I don't think so. I was deemed a physics slut a long time ago. Your basic problem here is that you are firmly ensconced in the notion that there is a preferred reference frame. That if in your frame of reference you measure something to be a meter long, that it must inherently be a meter long. Relativity tells us otherwise. What you measure and what I measure — using identical techniques — will be different if we are in different frames of reference. In your frame you have a meter stick and a clock that ticks once a second, but to me, they are an 80-cm stick and a clock that ticks every 1.25 seconds, and there is nothing we can measure to claim who is really at rest to say who really has the meter stick.

What, only one choice per customer? All my degrees are in physics, but that might not be true for others.

Similar to canning foods, I'd expect http://www.canningpantry.com/home-canning-articles.html

You need to define what LGBT means —standard scientific practice. Unless the presence of that poll option means you are also trying to identify the awareness of the abbreviation. Personally, I don't see how Linear Gaussian Broadband Transmissions are affected by social issues, though Laser-Guided Bomb Tactics might be.

If you want to discuss the science behind certain events, then do it here at this site. Trolling, advertising and multiple posting violate the rules by which you agreed to abide.

There's a difference between falsified theories, contradictory theories and incomplete theories. GR and QM aren't really contradictory since they don't have a lot of overlap — it's not like they predict different results across the board and only one can be right. You won't drop a theory that works, even if you find areas where it doesn't hold — you will limit its use to the areas where it does hold, and/or modify the theory, as appropriate. You discard theories when they don't work, i.e. you falsify them. Lamarckism, saltation, as I mentioned before, and in physics you have things like the particulate thermodynamics like phlogiston and caloric theories. New data does bring about demand for new theories when the established theory doesn't fit. But whether you discard, modify or segregate the old theory depends on the failure mode. We didn't drop Newtonian gravity when GR was introduced, because it still works under a wide range of circumstances. Same with classical physics that does not deal with quantum or relativistic scales. Evolution is an example of modification of the theory, because new mechanisms have been added, but the "descent with modification" basis still holds.

I took a frikkin' screenshot of the demo that you linked to. How is that misrepresentation? I falsified nothing. It's what the observer in the other frame measures. And that's the whole key: using identical measurement techniques, observers in two frames will disagree on measurements of time, length and simultaneity, and there is no physical test they can do to be sure that they are at rest or moving.

Martin has set up several links that answer the basics of the big bang and expansion http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=30900

Never? Saltation and Lamarckism come to mind. They were, of course, falsified.

You have to have some related or conserved quantity, such as spin or polarization. Because interactions tend to remove the entanglement.

This is the story where Archimedes realizes the displacement trick when he gets into the bath and sees the water rise/overflow. He then runs around, naked, shouting, "Eureka!" Weighing it was the easy part, but it was finding the volume that was difficult, because of the irregular shape.

Actually the conclusion is somewhat different. We could be getting a black hole a day from this. It's just that they haven't consumed the earth.

Class undismissed. First two posts copied over. Class redismissed.

Except this brings us back to really high energy cosmic rays that haven't caused us a problem. Significantly higher energy, though the collisions aren't happening with us in the center-of-mass frame. The basic problem is you will never get a physicist to say "zero" when he/she can say "extremely small." The example was bound-state neutrons, though, rather than in the context of ionizing radiation.

Googling should give several more examples.

You could have claimed red-green color blindness. "700nm" and "550nm" look exactly the same to you.

Hand powered battery charger http://www.aladdinpower.com/apAladdinPower.html

550 is green, 700 is red. 550 is in the middle of the spectrum (555 nm is the wavelength where the eye is most sensitive)

I think you mean thermal energy rather than heat, because a microwave over certainly does not rely on the movement of atoms to raise the temperature of the item placed inside.

It's more "time is two-dimensional because the vacuum is birefringent, which is my take on what Zephir was claiming. But it's all part of the same overall — if it's out there in the literature, provide a link and let's discuss it. If it's you own home-brewed concoction, it's probably going to go in speculations, but that isn't (by itself) an impediment to discussing it.

Klaynos has pointed out that that means there are a lot of photons. The 1 kW/m^2 number doesn't contradict the 400 W value I gave, either, even though I was thinking of ambient conditions, rather than direct sunlight. You have to remember that humans are a source of thermal photons, too.

Not at all. If you want to e.g. discuss some structure of a black hole and claim that it is all due to the strangeness of the particles inside, that would be speculative even though black holes and strangeness are well-established. If positing birefringence and multidimensional time is not new, then there should be some literature already peer-reviewed that we can discuss — and you need to cite that literature. If it is new, though, then the complete absence of supporting calculations or ways the effects could be measured makes this speculation.

No problem — new thread started.