J.C.MacSwell

Motion changes for photons requires forces as well. Not sure what is being described where there is no energy transfer. In a normal elastic collision there is still energy transfer, it's just that it is reversible.

In a theoretically frictionless (inviscid) fluid there are no shear forces. For, say, a rounded and symmetric body moving through a frictionless fluid it would have no net drag. Although the fluid would be displaced and therefore accelerated at the leading portion of the body, the fluid would transfer that energy back to the object on the trailing portion of the body. With friction there is an irreversible process and this cannot happen. Not only would the shear stresses in the fluid be transferred as drag forces along the sides of the body, but form drag would also be created from the differences in pressure that would result.

No. You cannot get any closer to the candy bar. You can run around the candy bar as much as you like, but you cannot get any closer at all.

I think it is generally assumed that any given Galaxy is close to being at rest with respect to the CMBR in the region of space it occupies, so that the redshift will give a reasonable estimation of it's distance away. The further away the less significant any local velocity affect on the redshift would be in a relative sense. (if that is what you are getting at)

For starters that is generally not accepted as a definition of mass... as it leads to thoughts like "tremendous gravitational pull due to its infinite density" and "black hole"... and it cannot reach the speed of light in any case.

If I remember correctly this had to do with orbits at relativistic speeds (high enough to be significant) so it was not the same thing. I briefly tried to search for it. It was something about whether gravitation was at light speed and how the lag would effect the result. Maybe Swansont will remember, but I think he said it happened at light speed, but that the effect was toward the current position. I do know (don't we all) that the results have to be consistent in all frames, both inertial and otherwise, when looking at the same events. Your original post surmised something that would not be, and I think that is the assumption that is incorrect (the gravitational pull directly toward the earlier position in that frame)

My understanding: In the reference frame you are using the gravitational vector points toward the current position (assuming no acceleration other than that of their convergence) That way the effect would be consistent in all frames. IIRC Swansont pointed this out to me in a thread a few years back.

As per Dr. Rocket: As an example: A very high (or infinite) resistance would mean very little (or no) heat.

They also condense at ambient temperatures...at higher pressures. edit: this is wrong see CP below

Same total length of wire? Are they in series, parallel, or what type of circuit are they in? Higher resistance does not necessarily mean more heat. Usually it means less current flow...and often that means less heat.

No they are not dimensions. They do have some properties that are based on dimensions.

Isn't that just the way it works? If the final charge velocity is not zero, then the initial wave train has less energy. It has done work and transferred momentum.

The Earth is actually moving wrt it, so it is not equal from every direction.

Just because life is biological does not mean it can break any laws of physics. So we at least know it is possible.

Sorry about that. I was supposed to pass them on but got a little side tracked with the stock market. J.C. April 1, 2015

And of course you have to cut those odds in half because in the colder half of the year in Canada the Wave would freeze due to the extreme cold as it reached the shoreline. http://www.hoax-slayer.com/frozen-tidal-wave-images.html

Yeah, without this very unusual property of water the world as we know it would be very different.

OK. I'll bite. How is it that something "new" and "fresh" has been held secret for "so long it makes you sick".

I'll knead to add them to my latest French Bread recipe.

All that said, there have been a few interesting threads in Speculations. There are also probably a few that could be good but unfortunately get overlooked due to the junk that gets deposited there and overall it is certainly worthwhile rather than just throw it all out entirely.

Higher gravity, or equivalently greater acceleration. With lower gravity or less acceleration time elapses faster.

Think of a light clock just outside the event horizon of a black hole positioned so that the light bounces radially. Obviously the "up tick" will ensure that this clock runs very slowly compared to a similar one at a safe distance. where gravity is stronger (or acceleration is greater) time runs slower.

That would assume preferred directions in space, with redshift visible in two dimensions but not in the third, thickness, direction. Where is the evidence of that?

Not absolutely sure about the weak interaction as I know (am aware of) there is a symmetry violation with it, but I think it would have to be as well, assuming time run backwards would get you back to an earlier starting point. (quantum uncertainty aside) http://www.lbl.gov/abc/wallchart/chapters/05/2.html (Interesting Feynman quote about meeting an Alien) But in classical mechanics all forces stay the same.

It does under time reversal. Dissipated energy converges, glass fragments combine into a glass with the combined kinetic energy to leap, still against the force of gravity, to land on the table. If Gravity was repulsive under time reversal the glass (and table) would be heading for the moon, and if other attractive forces were reversed everything would blow apart.