granpa

it keeps the layers of skin from sliding past one another and forming a blister

I heard it was from eating spinach. or having really long hair.

unifying relativity and QM would be trivial if the speed of light were infinite (everything would interact with everything else virtually instantly)

quantum mechanics postulates the existence of a "quantum" of space. A smallest possible unit of space. this unit of space would not be observer independent. google "double special relativity"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_velocity The magnitude of an object's four-velocity (in the sense of the metric used in special relativity) is always equal to c (it is a normalized vector). Only its direction can change. For an object at rest (with respect to the coordinate system) its four-velocity points in the direction of the time coordinate.

actually my posts were not deleted. I confused this thread with a similar one on another forum

uh, the four velocity of everything, even massive particles, is always c.

the energy density of any field is proportional to the square of the field intensity. except that its negative for gravity and positive for electric and magnetic fields http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_energy

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=314080

the reason the total energy is said to be zero is because gravitational potential energy is considered to be negative. I also note that my posts have been deleted. regardless of whether the total energy is zero or not, something cannot come from nothing. there had to be something there to start with from which the universe sprang

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html Einstein ...In the 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: . . . according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [. . .] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position In special relativity, the speed of light is constant when measured in any inertial frame. In general relativity, the appropriate generalisation is that the speed of light is constant in any freely falling reference frame (in a region small enough that tidal effects can be neglected). In this passage, Einstein is not talking about a freely falling frame, but rather about a frame at rest relative to a source of gravity but a 'freely falling reference frame' cannot be global.

and if you use some fancy smancy math to twist thing around I am sure you can make it mean that but the simple truth is that its only constant locally.

all of which is just your long winded way of saying that the speed of light is constant when measured locally.

it is constant 'locally'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation The speed of light in a locale is always equal to c according to the observer who is there. The stationary observer's perspective corresponds to the local proper time. Every infinitesimal region of space time may have its own proper time that corresponds to the gravitational time dilation there, where electromagnetic radiation and matter may be equally affected, since they are made of the same essence (as shown in many tests involving the famous equation E=mc2). Such regions are significant whether or not they are occupied by an observer. A time delay is measured for signals that bend near the Sun, headed towards Venus, and bounce back to Earth along a more or less similar path. There is no violation of the speed of light in this sense, as long as an observer is forced to observe only the photons which intercept the observing faculties and not the ones that go passing by in the depths of more (or even less) gravitational time dilation.

no. to a far away observer, light near a black hole travels slowly. but a local observer is equally time dilated so he would not notice. light speed is constant only locally.

arthropods probably dominate most planets. neurons are very inefficient at processing data so insect brains cannot develop human intelligence. however on other planets neurons are probably much more efficient at processing data. even here on earth there are probably ciliates, that in the billion years since multicellular organisms evolved, have evolved much more efficient data processing capabilities. But even though they are more intelligent they cant compete with multicellular organisms. just like mammals couldnt compete with dinosaurs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetar Magnetars are primarily characterized by their extremely powerful magnetic field, which can often reach the order of ten gigateslas. A 10 gigatesla field...has an energy density of 4.0×10²⁵ J/m³, with an E/c² mass density > 10,000 times that of lead.

you can think of permeability and Permittivity as the springiness of space

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2011/06/08/researchers.discover.superatoms.with.magnetic.shells

I read about it in science news many years ago while I was looking through old copies of the magazine

sometimes whole molecules act like giant atoms. so it would in theory be possible to increase the mass. but not decrease

http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.3880

thats really interesting. I was assuming that 10,000 km of liquid helium would be far too thick but now I'm not so sure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing#Forcing_Due_to_Atmospheric_Gas

I get the impression that you didnt download and read the pdf that I linked to.