swansont

I suspect the problems arise because measurements are being made in different reference frames, and you are not free to just jump between them in your analyses. I can't vouch for the veracity of the site, but I found http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s7-03/7-03.htm "Thus when we say "the gravitational acceleration goes to infinity as our radial position approaches 2m" we really mean that the amount of acceleration required to boost us into a hovering frame goes to infinity"

Any problem you'd have with gravitons you'll have with the electromagnetic force as well. And perhaps worse with force carriers that have mass — do they fail to work outside the event horizon, but in a region where they are gravitationally bound and would be unable to interact with other particles at a greater r? I think one needs to consider two things — the differences between how virtual and real particles behave, and that GR is a classical theory, so any introduction of quantum effects is potentially incompatible and may lead to erroneous conclusions. I'm not a GR person, so I don't know where exactly those pitfalls are located. But that leads to a question — are we sure that gravitons wouldn't be emitted at the event horizon?

You're looking for the physics definition of time, and yet you insist on looking in a dictionary. My suggestion of looking up "coincidence" would point out that the dictionary definition is basically opposite that of the physics definition, demonstrating that the dictionary is not a technical resource. Which has been stated a number of times before. Is energy just a consideration? Something need not be physical to be real, and it can still be something other than a "consideration." You're looking for metaphysical answers to questions. Science isn't going to give them to you. You said they were composed of motion, which is clearly, well, laughable. http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/mercury_atomic_clock.htm The optical oscillations of the essentially motionless ion are used to produce the "ticks" or "heartbeat" of the world's most stable and accurate clock. http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/22097 The ideal frequency reference would be a single, motionless atom, unperturbed by any interactions with other atoms or the environment. http://whyfiles.org/078time/index.php?g=2.txt The cold, slow-moving, atoms are measured in the microwave chamber on the way up and back down, using the same general technique we've already seen. The improved precision results from the reduced Doppler effect and an increase in measurement time. i.e. there is an improvement in making the atoms move slower. Motion is not the basis of the measurement. I keep pointing out that this is a false dichotomy. The oscillation is in the wave function, which is not real. The atoms are placed in either one state or the other. But this is QM, so it's really not profitable to try and glean classical meaning from what's going on.

I don't think we're at the level of delving into legal definitions here. I think the idea here is one of ethics, as in the ethical equivalent of blackmail. It's fairly obvious boycotts are legal. You don't need any reason, good or bad, to not shop at a particular store. You can not shop at a store because you don't like their color scheme, or because you think their checkout clerks are ugly. An organized boycott is, in one sense, an advantage to a business, because they know what behavior is keeping customers out, and don't have to guess. They then get to decide whether the proposed change is cost-effective, or whether an ad campaign to spin (or unspin) the story is a better option, or maybe a third course of action is warranted.

Once you account for this, then you have to add in the artificial impact of schedule. If it's assumed that the winds will aid/delay you by 45 minutes, and the actual delay is less, the plane will slow down as it approaches the destination, to fit into the scheduled landing slot. (I recall a trip from London to Wash DC, where were 30+ minutes ahead of schedule as we reached North America, and we "burned" it all doing a slalom track across the northeast US and circling Dulles airport. Landed "on time")

Yes, I'd say the two rulers here have different lengths.

As far as I know, yes, but gravity is very weak — we haven't ever detected gravity waves because they are so hard to measure. So this severely limits the rate at which the dark matter would be able to shed any energy.

But it does get smaller, when you go to the other reference frame. The two rulers are measure in exactly the same way, and yet you get two different answers, depending on which frame you are in. But I thought your claim was that none of this was true. And yet you link to an animation that demonstrates length contraction using time dilation.

Not necessarily for the public good. It could simply be the feeling (correct or not) that the company screwed you. But it doesn't matter, because people aren't under any obligation to agree with you, either. I don't think so. You are making others aware of the situation — it's advertising, which businesses certainly do. They try and convince us to buy their product. A boycott is an effort to convince you not to buy their product.

Well, to be fair, I can see how some here would take "you seem to have a misunderstanding on how an atomic clock works" to be an attack. I also know on whom they would bet, if the contest were between the two of us, on who knows more about atomic clocks. An atom is not "composed of motion." It is composed of neutrons, protons and electrons. One can argue whether the electrons are in motion or not — QM describes a probability function of where they might be found, but that's beside the point. I said that the atomic clocks don't depend on the motion. Motion adds time dilation effects — the best clocks use atoms or ions that are as close to motionless as possible. In a standard atomic clock (Cs or Rb), you use the hyperfine splitting of the ground state — put half of the atoms in one state, and the other half in the other state. Because of the peculiarities of quantum physics, the ensemble is in a superposition of the two states, and behaves like it is oscillating between them. But none of that implies any physical motion of the electron. The difference between the states is the spin orientation of the electron. What is the definition of "coincidence" in the dictionary vs its use in science (particularly physics)? You're hung up on "physical" for some reason. Something can be real without being physical. Is energy real? Is it physical?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Newman_(inventor)

It's the only real leverage a consumer has — telling a business that you won't patronize them, and why, and then following through. You are under no obligation to be a customer of their business, as was pointed out in the original thread.

Does it really state that "all conceivable universes are possible?" The problem doesn't appear if you can have an infinite number of universes in which the same laws hold.

Richard Dawkins — Beware the Believers Yeah he's the Dick to the Doc to the phd, he's smarter than you he's got a science degree!

That may be electron capture, which is lumped in with beta decay, but is actually an induced reaction rather than a decay. It has a weak dependence on environment, such as pressure and temperature. The temperature dependence is apparently a more recent find. Radioactive Decay Speedup at T=5 K: Electron-Capture Decay Rate of 7Be Encapsulated in C60 Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 252501 (2007)

Because you're at a resonance you have to have either a node or antinode, in an ideal case. They don't end up being at that point because of the change in coupling to the free space — there's basically an impedance matching issue, and the node or antinode point shifts a little bit. Boundary conditions would be "any restriction on the behavior at specific points" i.e. knowing you can set some variable to a specific value. So do you see that the answer has been given already?

Let's restate the question to say nuclear decay. Does that help?

You don't need to invoke multiple forms of gravity. Severian gave the main reason — dark matter only interacts gravitationally, making it very difficult to shed energy (it could do so only via gravity waves), which, in turn, limits its ability to collapse.

No, time is defined as a measurement of an oscillation. In atomic clocks these involve stationary states of the atom — they don't evolve in time, and don't depend on motion.

So, do you understand the difference in the boundary conditions? The wave must be a node where the pipe is closed — no air can move there.

The Newman motor is a sham, a purported perpetual motion machine. It is possible to transform energy; people do it all the time. In a motor, electric energy is transformed (via a magnetic field) into mechanical work, i.e. kinetic energy.

These posts have been moved because they were off-topic for the "one wave" thread. This is now closed, because Zephir has not met the burden of posting this material from the previously closed thread on Aether Wave Theory.

Actually, I think both cases are true (though I believe you misread the statement) if you don't account for the curvature, i.e. you make a measurement in a region that is not in your locally flat region, and assume the whole region is flat. You won't get c for the speed. That's one interpretation of the Shapiro delay, AFAIK. Of course, if you do account for the curvature, you get a different path length, and get c, or you go into the locally flat frames of the path of the photon, and take the gravitational time dilation into account. Here's a page with some more animated diagrams that might help: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/deflection-delay.html and more here http://www.astronomynotes.com/relativity/s3.htm

In this day and age, leveraging the blogosphere would figure prominently, methinks.

"really does" implies that there is a preferred reference frame, where one can measure an objective "truth" of the universe. And relativity tells us there isn't. It can't be a mundane physical force, because you will observe contraction or dilation of some other object if you are moving with respect to it (which cannot be distinguished from the situation of it moving with respect to you) — so there is no force acting on the object. It all boils down to the transformation between reference frames being nonlinear, and the physics working in all of those frames.