Strange

True. But it is also rapidly disappearing! That thread confirms what I thought: relativistic mass does not increase gravitation (see post #6 for example).

True. Although it may be difficult to write the "how to build it" if you don't really understand how it works! (If you have only got it working by trial and error, for example.) Having skimmed (very briefly) some of Rossi's patent applications, I got the impression (perhaps wrongly) that he was trying to "fudge" some of the details of how it worked (and therefore how to build one) either because he didn't want to give anything away, or perhaps because he was confused about how it works.

Yes, you are right. I was wrong. Again. The pulsar can be considered a clock in the Earth-bound twin's frame of reference. The other twin will see it "tick" faster (overall) and so get the same number of pulses.

The point is you can only patent things that are novel, and that you have invented. If something is published, then the patent office have no way of knowing that you invented it. Even if you claim to be the one who published it - to keep things simple, they have a blanket ban on patenting anything previously published (i.e. not novel). This can be (as I pointed out above) be useful if you want to ensure no one else can patent something: just make the information public (the best way of doing this is to file a patent application as that guarantees the patent office will see it if someone tries to patent it in future; but it isn't free). As for technology that defies known physics, there is nothing in principle stopping that. I believe the USPTO introduced a specific ban on perpetual motion machines to avoid wasting time (there is "beyond known physics" and then there is just plain stupid). There is a requirement that there should be a working model, but I have never seen that enforced. (And it could be tricky to test as, for example, Rossi claims to have working device but no one else has been able to confirm it.) Part of Rossi's problem might be that he wants to file a patent without fully disclosing how it works. You can't do that. It might also be because (if it does work) he doesn't rally understand how it works. And you can't file a patent on that basis because it must provide enough information for someone else to reproduce the results.

I don't think so. They have observed the pulsar for different amounts of time and so will have different counts.

By that logic, there is no difference between 10 and -10. Try telling that to your bank next time you go overdrawn!

Japanese or Chinese (it means Finland).

You definitely have an extra zero there: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=17.843*149597871000

I get something pretty close (1.9818 x1030 kg) Your value for the radius (26692748122530) seems about 10 times too big. And you haven't squared the period (2365200000).

It would appear so, as the experiment you reference confirms the predictions made by theory. Too much effort to provide a link? Here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v511/n7511/full/nature13559.html?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureMagazine It is an architectural term. It means the paths formed by people walking across lawns or open areas, rather than using the paved paths created for them. It was used in an article as a metaphor (i.e. it has no real significance) for the fact that particles take the path of "least resistance" rather than a straight line. http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/27133.aspx And why have you posted this interesting bit of science in "Speculations"? <sigh>

Huh? Where do you think the Sun's gravity stops!?

For example, posts 32, 35, 40, 46 which, like others,you have simply ignored because they contradict your idea.

The question was about what happens in the frame of reference of the spring balance and the mass. In this context, there is no change in mass and thus no change in the measured weight (at constant velocity). Someone observing the box containing the spring and mass whizzing past, could observe an increase in relativistic mass of the object, because of its kinetic energy. But this doesn't affect the spring balance, which measure rest mass. This is the same as the question as to whether an object moving near the speed of light will gain enough mass to become a black hole: the answer is no, because again this depends on the rest mass. This is one reason why many people avoid the concept of relativistic mass; it can just confuse people. As to the gravitational effects of the relativistic mass of a fast-moving object: that is actually very complex because the equations of GR don't just use mass and energy, but also momentum, pressure, energy flow ... the closest I have heard from people who could do the math is that it would be hard to work out but it might all cancel out. But the two objects would be so far apart in a short time that it becomes irrelevant anyway.

1. Unless you can quantify these supposed "uncertainties" there is nothing to discuss. 2. There is little value considering individual photons in this context as almost nothing is measured from individual photons(*). It is much more practical to use the classical view of light. (*) About the only example I can think of is the measurement of the position of the moon using the Apollo reflectors. In this case, of the octobazillions of photons from the laser on Earth, just a handful are reflected back to the detectors.

Phew!

You have shown to be wrong in both your facts and your reasoning multiple times by multiple people. <shrug> The fact you choose to ignore it says more about you than any science.

No. Because the photon does not have a valid frame of reference. No. Because the photon does not have a valid frame of reference. Possible. Perhaps inevitable that some light from the Earth will be moving parallel to some light from a distant star, I suppose. There is no connection between them. Why should there be? And as neither of them are in a reference frame, then they cannot be in the same one. I kind of see what you are thinking now. It is wrong because there is no reference frame. It is also wrong because, even if that were a valid reference frame, it would just be one of an infinite number for every possible direction that light could move in. And these would all be different for different observers. So, in at least three ways: not a reference frame and not absolute.

Do you really believe this? Are you completely unaware of all the times you simply reject explanations simply because you don't understand them, or because you think something you have made up is better? This is really important. Really, really important. There is no (single) stationary observer. Any observer can be taken as stationary (as long as they are not accelerating) and everyone else moving relative to them. I assume because the observer is moving relative to it (I haven't watched the video*). Imagine someone bouncing a ball across the width of a moving train carriage. For the person on the train, the ball goes backwards and forwards at right angles to the wall, but for someone stationary on the platform, the ball will do a zig zag path (because the train is moving). * Because it is a video. No. No. No. It appears contradictory to you because you don't understand it. Stop putting yourself at the center of the universe and assuming that you are correct and everything else is wrong.

Yes. But you clearly didn't read what I wrote (as you misquote it). Bye.

You will never move on while you continue to assume that any such inconsistency is with ideas that have been developed and tested by hundreds, maybe thousands, of people over decades or centuries. Instead, you need to consider that the inconsistency may be with the way you learn half facts and try to put them together in meaningless ways. You have never been banned for trying to understand. You show little evidence of attempting to understand anything. You have been banned for being disruptive and insulting when people continue trying to educate you. This forum was started by someone, like you, who was continually rejecting scientific answers: http://www.spacetimeandtheuniverse.com/ You clearly don't want to know what science says (I'm not sure why you keep asking). So perhaps you want some crackpot, pseudoscience forum where people talk nonsense: http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/index.php http://www.anti-relativity.com/forum/index.php Or maybe something more extreme: http://www.godlikeproductions.com What is it with the ignorant and their hatred of books? Have they become symbols of those who are willing to work hard and learn? People here are not just parroting what they find in books. There are people here who do the research that gets written in the books. Even those of us with limited science knowledge have often recreated many of the basic experiments that led to current scientific theories. This is why we accept science because we have tested it ourselves. What have you done? Said "I don't understand it so it must be wrong." (And then you claim not to be arrogant. Pffft.) Your "100% factual" is typically 33% wrong, 33% made up and 33% misunderstanding.

Er, no. That can't be right. Otherwise you could use that measurement to determine your speed. And speed can only be measured relative to something else.

You are confusing the "chance" (more accurately, frequency) with which something happens in a deterministic universe, with the probability of a specific event happening. In a deterministic universe, the probability of a specific event, X, is either 0 or 1 (it either happens or it doesn't and nothing can change that) even if the "chance" (as you define it) of events like X happening is non-zero and dependent on other factors.

Yes, presumably: IT'S ALL A JOKE!! Hilarious. </sarcasm> Shroedingerscat, a life in comedy is not for you. (Nor science, I suspect.)

Better not to look then. If the outcome is determined, I'd rather not know. If you can change the probability, then it isn't predetermined.

Why? If you are going to get knocked down, then it makes no difference if you look or not. And if you aren't, then ditto. [in a deterministic universe] I have lived in a country where this was the predominant attitude. Nobody wore seatbelts (or bought insurance) because if it was your time, then it would happen anyway.