swansont

Chemical bonds, basically, and similar effects like adhesion. Gravity is an incredibly weak effect compared to the other forces in nature; we notice it because it can't be screened, and so the long-range nature of it can be detected.

Dilation doesn't scale with pressure.

Some of these have been tested on the shuttle and space station, and even earlier, on space lab and Mir. AFAIK the advantages have been few and far between, and don't justify the expense. Microgravity advantages appear to be largely a myth. http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=10831 "There had been speculation that certain manufacturing processes that are difficult or impossible on Earth might be easier in microgravity. For most manufacturing processes, however, gravity is simply not an important variable. Gravitational forces are generally far too weak compared to interatomic forces to have much effect."

OK, I was in the laser mindset and thinking it was only IR photons being absorbed. This is exactly the same as the case I listed earlier, with the chlorophyll example.

Time dilation. As insane_alien notes, it's a part of the theory of special relativity. Have fun countering it, because I've got a boatload of empirical data on my side.

I'm not sure how you mean "the same now." But here's an example: the twin leaves in 2000 with their clocks synchronized — they both agree on this — and returns in what he says is 2010, but the earth twin thinks it's 2050. The earth twin sets off fireworks on the twins' birthday each year, bright enough for the space twin to see. They each observe 50 firework events. The earth twin thinks they happened a year apart. The space twin does not, because his clock was not running at the same rate.

But someone moving very fast ages at a slow rate, relative to a stationary observer.

Yes. Signal generators for electrical signals are standard lab equipment, and making square, triangle and sawtooth waves are typical functions. Programmable generators are available, too, to make arbitrary waveforms.

We keep going over the same ground. These questions have been addressed. Explain to myself? Already done it. The speed of light is constant in all inertial frames.

We're not going to go down this path. Dredging up history of who said what (or didn't say what) is off-topic. —— The ironic thing here is that the answer to iNow's question was contained in the link SkepticLance had provided, and so it would have been trivially easy to say "read the link" or copy/paste the line from it. So it's pretty obvious that neither of you read the whole thing. iNow's request for clarification of the precipitation pattern was not out of line, but would have been unnecessary. The subsequent melodrama could (and should) have been avoided. Get back on-topic.

If you're in an accelerating frame, you need a term to counter your acceleration so that F=ma will hold. That's why there would be a centrifugal term in that case, and why you also have a Coriolis term when treating the earth as an inertial frame of reference. If the rotation changes with time, you have an Euler force term. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_force http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_reference_frame

But I can find out that [math]\frac{GMm}{r^2} = \frac{mv^2}{r}[/math] and do a whole bunch of calculations with it, and compare them to measurements, and find agreement. And then do predictions and launch satellites and find they go where I wanted them to. So when someone else comes along and says, "My theory predicts that the earth goes around the sun, too." but has no math, I get to say piss on you, I'm working for Mel Brooks Big effing deal.

The physics also tells us that red or infrared photons have less energy than blue photons, so I'm curious as to where the extra energy comes from? Define "exactly." Doppler and collisional broadening can be GHz — huge! Beware the ghost of Rutherford!

The time passes at different rates — it stretches, as it were — so there isn't a 1:1 mapping between the two frames. Again, you are using an absolute time. An event occurs and both observers see it. But they will disagree on what time the event occurred. To one observer, the event happened at noon, but to the other it happened at 1 PM, because his clock has run faster.

Your claim, your burden of proof. Find me a cite for the experiment that teleported matter.

Moved to speculations. Sorry if any active responses got munged when I did so.

Um, no. No matter teleportation has occurred. "Only" information has been teleported.

The question as framed by asprung only allows one answer.

Are we at rest with respect to the aether, or moving through it? Let's stick to the topic at hand.

Right. The issue with the electron is that if you require the surface speed to be below c, you end up with an electron that's much bigger than experimental values give.

Dry ice or liquid nitrogen works OK, using scatter instead of fluorescence.

Others disagree, and there's definitely no need to go to "4" on the font size. Please change your browser setting if you need larger type.

And you have to take this one step further — not only do length and time depend on who is measuring it, but there is no way to determine that any frame of reference gives he "right" answer; nobody can physically determine if they are moving or at rest, if the motion is inertial.

I don't see where anyone has challenged that point. But the 700 billion tons is not the net addition, because you haven't determined the losses. Non sequitur. Where has that claim been brought up in this thread? The OP offered it as a premise, not a prediction, in the context of understanding why water levels would rise should the ice melt. Most of the rest of the thread has been correcting points of math and physics. And that was never really a point of contention. And I (and I assume others) were proceeding from this point assuming ice had melted, and not discussing the merit of the premise. So yes, I think there has been a little difference interpretation in what was meant by "melting." I think you have an extraneous "not" in there.

No, the answer is incalculable, period. As has been repeatedly pointed out, the framing of the question implies the existence of absolute time, and that is the fatal flaw in the problem.