Strange

Which are not fundamental, there is a limit to what you can deduce from such experiments. Remember that string theory is a purely mathematical model.

That makes zero sense.

Apparently.

That doesn't matter because the reflector consists of an array of retro-reflectors so the light is always reflected back in the direction it came from. (And the dispersion is far greater than the relative motion of the Earth and Moon.) It doesn't say anything about the Earth being the same object. That is some sort of metaphysical idea that isn't amenable to scientific tests. Rather like the Ship of Theseus or Trigger's Broom. All the experiment does is measure the distance between something we choose to call "the Moon" and something else we call "the Earth". It says nothing about the existential nature of those things (or whether anything exists outside our own thoughts). I think you might be overthinking the whole thing.

You invented him, only you know what he is looking at. I gave you an answer based on science. Maybe he is looking at unicorns swarming round the Pleiades. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment

The only supposition is the aliens you have invented. There is no supposition about the speed of light. Not even about it being the same a million years ago and a million light years away. We can actually test such ideas, you know.

Any gravitational or electromagnetic interactions at those distance are going to be negligible. But they will still take place at the speed of light.

Sorry, I don't know what you mean. What sort of interaction are you talking about?

All parts of the answer are. I could make one up that isn't based on what we know about time, space and the speed of light (if you prefer)... Yes. Because (as far as we know, currently) nothing can transmit information faster than light. Actually, now it is receiving light from the Earth as it was 1 million years ago. (There are obviously, some difficulties defining exactly what "now" means for such widely separated observers. But nothing that is significant to 1 million years.)

What medium? You are proposing a technology to make light travel instantaneously in both directions?

They are fundamental and not composed of anything (except string ).

No. He was there 1 million years ago. He is probably long dead (depending on the lifespan of these aliens). What he sees is the Earth as it was 2 million years ago.

As they say on wikipedia: Citation Needed. I don't believe anyone has ever made that challenge. But if they have it is because you are opposing mountains of evidence based on nothing other than opinion.

No, you were just talking nonsense. Not particularly funny.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86284-particle-detectors/

It is a purely relative effect. So speed is measured relative to something, and the difference in time is also relative to that. So, for example, if someone is travelling past you at 86% of the speed of light, you would see there clocks running at half the speed yours do. And, because it is all relative, they would see exactly the same (they would see your clocks running at half the speed of theirs).

It wasn't that statement that was questioned (as it is obviously true), it was the bizarre conclusion that "this means air cannot flow across the wings" that was derided (quite rightly). From that I have concluded you have nothing sensible to say and have not followed the rest of the discussion.

I don't expect they measure the mass in kg, either. But you can multiply by the appropriate factor to convert to whatever units you want; it doesn't change the equation.

Same as anything else: [math]\displaystyle m_o c^2 \left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}} - 1 \right)[/math]

Un-f'ing-believable.

Exactly like. And it can be argued (and has been) that, say, chihuahuas and great danes should be considered different species because of the reproductive barrier.

Of course you can.

Why bother with steam. Just insulate it and disconnect the power input. Let its own heat keep the reaction going. The article was interesting, but I was left with a few questions (mainly about methodology; they didn't seem to have full access to and control over the system they were measuring, for example). I was surprised by the very large power output measured when other reports I have read that tested the technology showed really small outputs. Also, even if there is an excess of energy, there doesn't seem to be any evidence that it is nuclear in source (e.g. no radiation measured). No. I will do neither of those. (Yet.)

As a professional writer, I would say that your long, rambling and often incoherent posts are the product of someone who has not yet mastered the craft of writing. So I assume you mean self-published. (There is less evidence for you being "strong in English" than there is for LENR. Note: not an insult but an ironic aside.)

Or, "sometimes." Or, "it has been known". But even "often" totally undermines the argument as it provides no reason to assume that this case s one of those. Especially as there is overwhelming scientific evidence for the "weather of mass destruction" (see what I did there).