swansont

I don't think "atheism" is saying anything. Certain atheists might be, just as certain theists think they have proof of God's existence. To what "atheistic beliefs" do you refer, that science has been hijacked to support? Since science does not depend on the supernatural, by definition, there may be overlap without explicit support. Is "F=ma" an atheistic belief?

On the other hand http://blogs.scienceforums.net/anewworld/2008/02/12/the-lagrangian-how-its-used/

I think the question is ill-formed. Energy "acting" in a vacuum sort of implies electromagnetic radiation, but that's certainly not the only way to transfer energy or the only form it takes.

As compared to what? Wave behavior of, well, everything? Time dilation and length contraction? Self-interference? Entangled particles and quantum teleportation?

Debating the classical interpretation of particle physics is one thing, proposing a new interpretation is another. The fact that the debate exists here is proof that nothing is being stifled. One or two posts that have been altered because they violated forum rules — rules you agree to abide by when you register. If you want your view to be accepted, come up with some evidence that supports it, and not the standard view.

Anemicpsycho is spamming the blogs. Everyone should enable the plugin.

The phrasing "just a theory" should make one's word processor explode. IMO. ——— It's no problem exploring the idea in a scientific context, but you have to address the issue of how a tachyon would behave and interact, and deduce how we would detect such a particle. If they don't interact with normal matter, how would we ever know they exist?

For v>c the gamma term becomes imaginary, so that means the time dilation and length contraction are imaginary as well. I don't know what that means, physically. But there's a lot of physics that relies on the square of terms, so you're back to dealing with real numbers again. Switching the direction of time is a symmetry operation. There's charge, parity and time, and you can flip the time if you also flip CP, which is how you get antimatter looking like regular matter going backward in time. Assuming you can do the same thing to tachyons, then it just becomes a convention of what you call a tachyon and antitachyon, AFAIK.

I agree with the first point; that's an advantage this has over hydrogen. But the notion that we can expand capacity as demand increases glosses over the slow pace at which we can add green power (in the US at least, nuclear takes a long, long time). Even if the process is 50% efficient, that's a whole lot of capacity to add. Replacing gasoline consumption would represent over a TW of continuous power production in the US alone.

I do wish you'd learn how to use the quote button, which which is at the lower right of each post, and will automatically include the author's name. Edtharan wrote the above piece, which you appear to have attributed to me. No, it's speculation, and I fear you totally missed the point of the statement that you quoted.

Note the mention of imaginary mass and the difficulties it introduces. As an aside, this points out a problem with wikipedia. This is the first time I ever heard the term "bradyon." Someone has coined a new term, or dug up an obscure one, and injected it into the article. (Googling on it gets about 4000 hits. Tachyon gets 2,000,000). I think "bradyon" deserves to die (or perhaps die again). Even the youngest one, curls and all.

Given that basically the whole song is a collection of sayings and snippets from other songs, should you really be that surprised?

H-bombs have the tendency to melt things and blow them apart. Fusion for power is a much lower power application.

It's only carbon-neutral if your energy source doesn't produce CO2. I notice that this, and other articles I've read, gloss over the production method. "This plan has a minor hurdle, too; the electricity for driving the chemical processes, according to a white paper describing the overarching concept, would come from nuclear power." That's because, AFAIK, like hydrogen, this doesn't represent an energy source. It's a storage medium. "Roger A. Pielke Jr., a political scientist and blogger at the University of Colorado, has written for several years about the air-capture idea (and about why it hasn’t gotten equal billing with options like biofuels)." It hasn't gotten equal billing because biofuels are net energy producers. 2 CH3OH + 3 O2 → 2 CO2 + 4 H2O All you're doing (again, AFAIK, because the articles about this generally suck) is reversing this reaction. It will cost you, energy-wise. What you gain is a storage medium, assuming you have green energy already. That's idle, so you can use it for this. Am I missing something?

If you want to talk about the Casimir force go ahead and do that in the relevant physics forum. This thread is so elas can expand on his statement, which seems to be completely off-topic for the "time" thread it was posted in.

Let's try and stay on topic here. "Vacuum force" stuff has been moved http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=31256

aka prefrontal lobotomy Attributed to Dorothy Parker, popularized a little more recently by Tom Waits.

But gasifying a fossil fuel is not the reverse of the combustion reaction, whereas electrolysis of water and subsequent combustion is. i.e. fossil fuels are stored energy, water is not.

V=(331)*(sq.root of T)/273K has the wrong units, since you have a square root of temperature divided by temperature. 21.5 m/s is waaaay off for the speed of sound; it should be slightly higher at that higher temperature anyway. With practice you should learn to recognize reasonable and unreasonable answers, and it will help in cases like this. The correct equation is [math]c_{air} = 331.3 \sqrt{1 + \frac{\Theta}{273.15}}[/math] m/s, where [math]\Theta[/math] is the temperature in ºC

No, it would theoretically have achieved Q>1 if it had been loaded with the proper D-T mix. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JT-60 and AFAIK that still doesn't address how long the system would run under those conditions, so "sustained" is still a separate issue. (I included that word for a reason)

Yes, the difficulty will vary from school to school. There is a threshold, below which it will not get any easier, but some schools throw more material at you, at a faster pace, than others. You might want to consider, though, what fraction of students go on to grad school at places that have easier programs. It's probably lower. Grad schools are likely going to take this into account, and demand higher grades from students at schools that have easier programs.

You dropped a "v" from your last equation. Substitute your numbers back in to an equation and see if it holds. vf = vo + at Put in vo, a and t and see if you get -vo and why shouldn't this be in homework?

Particles are not conserved. n —> p + e + antineutrino

Or to eventually rule the world. Mwhuhahahaha! Oh, wait, that's more of a post-baccalaureate thing.

It's about having the ability. If you can do this to your own satellites, you can do it to someone else's.