swansont

Oscilloscopes don't generally detect signals that high. Make sure yours does. One usually uses a network or spectrum analyzer. Scan the input frequency and measure the output — you should be able to map out the resonance. But you have to be sure your antenna does not have a resonance as well, or that you've calibrated it to account for that.

We base it on work because work and energy are directly related. Work is the transfer of energy.

Robots is too general a term - you can have micro electrical-mechanical (MEMS) devices, but the idea of a self-contained, autonomous device made of just a few atoms is science fiction. Sub-atomic? No, I don't think so. Heisenberg difficulties.

Sorry, I thought you meant you were studying this. Magnetic fields are generated by moving electrical charges. Stationary charges have just electrical fields, but that interaction doesn't just go away when there's motion, it just looks a little different. At a fundamental level, they are actually the same interaction: electromagnetic. More on magnetic fields.

Circular accelerators have the advantage of being able to re-use the pathway multiple times to attain higher speeds. There are linear accelerators, such as SLAC (Stanford Linear ACcelerator) The speed of light as a limit is a consequence of relativity and not just something noticed experimentally. This gives the advantage of being able to test relativity effects at all speeds, and finding agreement with theory, which gives added confidence that the "speed limit" is valid. The speed of the earth is irrelevant to a measurement being made on the earth — you always measure with respect to the frame you are in. Someone making a measurement somewhere else would take this into account, but c would still not be exceeded.

deuterium has one neutron.

No, I don't think so. We've already had threads on glass being a liquid — it's not.

Gotta do an experiment before you can give it any credibility.

Electrons were already known to exist. Since an atom is neutral, the rest of the atomic material has to be positively charged.

Fields add, so you need unpaired electrons to end up with a net field in an atom.

Magnetism is how an electric field manifests itself in a moving frame of reference.

You have to account for all of the energy and all of the mass inany reaction you consider. In fission, for example, the products have less mass than the reactants, and the mass difference shows up and kinetic energy of the fission producs and photons. The actual equation is E2 = m2c4 + p2c2 Motion shows up in the momentum term as part of the total energy. For an object at rest it reduces to E = mc2

No. The rest mass is unchanged, and even in the (ugh) relativistic mass analysis, the energy of motion comes from outside the ball — energy is added to the system. (That changes, however, if you look at a self-propelled object, but it also gets more complicated to analyze.)

At least you didn't go with the alien mind-controlling-ray scenario.

And related to this, I'm speculating that it probably takes a certain amount of time to complete the reaction, so there would be a "dead time" during which photons would not trigger a reaction. Without seeing the graph I wouldn't be surprised if was an exponential buildup shape at that point, asymptotic to the level where all of the chloroplasts are undergoing a reaction.

No rest mass is gained, period. If you want to use archaic definitions for mass, you should define them at the outset. Otherwise I can say that it changes color when you kick the ball but that I've redefined things so that color = speed.

Norman Rockwell? Norman Rockwell? Are you freaking kidding? The aliens must have erased my memory, 'cause I don't remember that one at all. Try Orson Welles.

The problem is that just linking to another page and saying, "tell me if I'm wrong" doesn't differentiate you from loads of crackpot-spammers who think they've toppled relativity, quantum mechanics or evolution. Starting out with "I'm not scientifically credentialed but" doesn't help you at all.

In space no one can hear you scream. Or tidy up, for that matter.

Faith doesn't enter into it. Science is, by its very nature, self-correcting. You follow the ideas that are confirmed to be correct, not the people that propose them. Some people get more consideration because they are right a lot more often than they are wrong and have great insight, but you never just take them on faith if you are doing science.

The force on a charged particle is the cross product of its velocity and the direction of the field F = qv X B Making anything like the appropriate fields for confinement of a plasma will not be possible in a light-saber geometry.