Spyman

Bidin's results is refuted, the new interpretation is that it is "the most robust direct measurement of the local dark-matter density to date". Link: http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.4033v2

The cooking chamber is similar to a Faraday cage (but there is no continuous metal-to-metal contact around the rim of the door), and prevents the waves from coming out of the oven. The oven door usually has a window for easy viewing, but the window has a layer of conductive mesh some distance from the outer panel to maintain the shielding. Because the size of the perforations in the mesh is much less than the microwaves' wavelength, most of the microwave radiation cannot pass through the door, while visible light (with a much shorter wavelength) can. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_oven

LOL - and they know it is Bigfoot saliva because they have this great picture proof from the camera: I think the person responsible for the camera spitted on the lens to clean it before setting it up, but forgot to wipe it clean and accidently took this blurry picture when turning the camera on.

A Faraday cage or Faraday shield is an enclosure formed by conducting material or by a mesh of such material. Such an enclosure blocks external static and non-static electric fields. Faraday cages are named after the English scientist Michael Faraday, who invented them in 1836. A Faraday cage's operation depends on the fact that an external static electrical field will cause the electric charges within the cage's conducting material to redistribute themselves so as to cancel the field's effects in the cage's interior. This phenomenon is used, for example, to protect electronic equipment from lightning strikes and electrostatic discharges. Faraday cages cannot block static and slowly varying magnetic fields, such as the Earth's magnetic field (a compass will still work inside). To a large degree, though, they shield the interior from external electromagnetic radiation if the conductor is thick enough and any holes are significantly smaller than the wavelength of the radiation. For example, certain computer forensic test procedures of electronic systems that require an environment free of electromagnetic interference can be carried out within a screen room. These rooms are spaces that are completely enclosed by one or more layers of a fine metal mesh or perforated sheet metal. The metal layers are grounded in order to dissipate any electric currents generated from external or internal electromagnetic fields, and thus they block a large amount of the electromagnetic interference. See also electromagnetic shielding. The reception or transmission of radio waves, a form of electromagnetic radiation, to or from an antenna within a Faraday cage are heavily attenuated or blocked by a Faraday cage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage

That link sounds very much like perpetual motion which according to current knowledge is impossible. From your Link: "The motor takes power from a pair of battery packs, while recharging them at the same time. Simply put, car owners will never have to plug into a charging station, or pay to fill up." http://www.abc12.com/story/16477612/mid-michigan-company-invents-magnetic-motor-that-could-give-hybrids-a-boost A Google search found this: "TWM presents self-looping system with copious extra power for use" /../ "The update information Henry provided spoke of a motor that produced enough energy to loop back and keep itself running, while providing plenty of extra energy for external use..." http://pesn.com/2009/10/06/9501580_TWM_Technologies_free_energy/ Which further links to this: "I know this flies in the face the "laws of physics" however this is a new paradigm; we are using both sides of the magnetic field." /.../ "NOTHING IS LOST, FREE POWER IS AVAILABLE." http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Electromagnetic/TWM_Technology/eme1.pdf

I am not an expert on relativity but if time passes half as slow on the neutron star than for the outside observer, then an observer on the neutron star only measures one second for the small beam of light to reach the mirror at 'two light seconds away' and two seconds for it to also return back. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html

Apology accepted and thanks for the nice compliment.

Very good explanation CaptainPanic +1.

Yes, ~16.7°C represents a 30°F temperature difference and -1.1°C represents an actual temperature of 30°F. I may have misinterpreted the text in the Wikipedia article, but I still think it is phrased a little vague and that the author could have meant to make a statement that the waist temperature can be 1.1°C colder than the ground layer instead of a temperature difference between them of 16.7°C. I think that a difference of 16.7°C should cause the hotter air to raise and destroy any insulation borders, even if the sunlight would be strong enough to maintain that difference between the ground and waist level the temperature at the waist would raise fast, making the other statements of shallow layers and inefficient heat exchange somewhat incorrect or at least ruining the reasoning in the text. However, in my house where air is trapped and not entirely able to flow freely, it is normal with an difference of around 2-4°C between the floor and the ceiling, so a difference of 1.1°C between the feet and the waist when the ground is heated by sunlight therefore seems probable even outdoors. I admit that I am not an expert, neither on the English language nor on air temperatures and heat exchange, so I could very well be wrong on both the interpretation of the text and the possibility of shallow heat layers with temperature differences of 16.7°C caused by sunlight. But I certainly do not agree that my above reasoning is "bizarre and foolish", which makes me wonder why you express yourself with such rude manners?

In Astronomy and Cosmology: The thread is: Sun color related to atmospheric pressure? and Post #5 there.

Air is a very good insulator, it doesn't seem improbable with a temperature difference of around 1.1° Celsius (30°F) separated by a waist height.

I think you should reconsider, Extinction is not a hypothetical theory, it is the name for a confirmed phenomenon based on observational evidence from measurements and experiments on Earth since 1930 and by satellites in more recent times. In contrast Ruggero Santilli's IsoRedShift is definitely NOT established, verified and accepted by scientific consensus. You are free to retain your own opinion but the fact is that Extinction is confirmed and IsoRedShift is at best fringe science. "Ruggero Maria Santilli (born September 8, 1935) is an Italian-American physicist, and a proponent of ideas, some of which have been called fringe scientific theories." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruggero_Santilli Once again, you can have whatever opinion you want but the true fact is that dark matter is accepted by mainstream science. "Although the existence of dark matter is generally accepted by the mainstream scientific community, several alternative theories have been proposed to try to explain the anomalies for which dark matter is intended to account." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter (Bold by me)

Tired light is a class of hypothetical redshift mechanisms that was proposed as an alternative explanation for the redshift-distance relationship. These models have been proposed as alternatives to the metric expansion of space of which the Big Bang and the Steady State cosmologies are the most famous examples. The concept was first proposed in 1929 by Fritz Zwicky, who suggested that if photons lost energy over time through collisions with other particles in a regular way, the more distant objects would appear redder than more nearby ones. Zwicky himself acknowledged that any sort of scattering of light would blur the images of distant objects more than what is seen. Additionally, the surface brightness of galaxies evolving with time, time dilation of cosmological sources, and a thermal spectrum of the cosmic microwave background have been observed — these effects that should not be present if the cosmological redshift was due to any tired light scattering mechanism. Despite periodic re-examination of the concept, tired light has not been supported by observational tests and has lately been consigned to consideration only in the fringes of astrophysics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light The tired light effect was proposed by Fritz Zwicky in 1929 as a possible alternative explanation for the observed cosmological redshift. The basic proposal amounted to light losing energy ("getting tired") due to the distance it traveled rather than any metric expansion or physical recession of sources from observers. A traditional explanation of this effect was to attribute a dynamical friction to photons; the photons' gravitational interactions with stars and other material will progressively reduce their momentum, thus producing a redshift. Other proposals for explaining how photons could lose energy included the scattering of light by intervening material in a process similar to observed interstellar reddening. However, all these processes would also tend to blur images of distant objects, and no such blurring has been detected. Traditional tired light has been found incompatible with the observed time dilation that is associated with the cosmological redshift. This idea is mostly remembered as a falsified alternative explanation for Hubble's law in most astronomy or cosmology discussions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_redshift#Tired_light Extinction is a term used in astronomy to describe the absorption and scattering of electromagnetic radiation by matter (dust and gas) between an emitting astronomical object and the observer. Interstellar extinction—also called Galactic extinction, when it occurs in the Milky Way—was first recognized as such in 1930 by Robert Julius Trumpler. However, its effects had been noted in 1847 by Friedrich Georg Wilhelm von Struve, and its effect on the colors of stars had been observed by a number of individuals who did not connect it with the general presence of Galactic dust. For stars that lie near the plane of the Milky Way and are within a few thousand parsecs of the Earth, extinction in the V band is on the order of 1.8 magnitudes per kiloparsec. For Earth-bound observers, extinction arises both from the interstellar medium (ISM) and the Earth's atmosphere; it may also arise from circumstellar dust around an observed object. The strong atmospheric extinction in some wavelength regions (such as X-ray, ultraviolet, and infrared) requires the use of space-based observatories. Since blue light is much more strongly attenuated than red light, extinction causes objects to appear redder than expected, a phenomenon referred to as interstellar reddening. This is not to be confused with the quite separate phenomenon of red shift. http://en.wikipedia....tion_(astronomy) In astronomy, interstellar reddening is a phenomenon associated with interstellar extinction where the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation from a radiation source changes characteristics from that which the object originally emitted. Reddening occurs due to the light scattering off dust and other matter in the interstellar medium. Interstellar reddening should not be confused with the redshift, which is the proportional frequency shifts of spectra without distortion. Reddening preferentially removes shorter wavelength photons from a radiated spectrum while leaving behind the longer wavelength photons (in the optical, light that is redder), leaving the spectroscopic lines unchanged. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_reddening#Interstellar_reddening

You can stop bumping now, since EMField was permanently banned the 24th September. Link to announcement: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/29763-bannedsuspended-users/page__st__200__p__704057#entry704057

I think objects on the inside would be weightless as with Newtonian gravity but relative an outside view, time would appear to tick more slowly on the inside and light passing out through the walls of the sphere would be redshifted due to coming from a deeper gravitational potential. Length contraction is something real for the observer and not an illusion like aberration, if the pilot in the ship measures a shorter distance then gravity should behave as emitted from this measured distance. Is it not the other way around? When you move towards an object you have to angle the left and right telescope closer together to see the boundaries of the object in view, making it look smaller. Looking behind you you would have to angle the telescopes in a more forward direction to see the boundaries of the object which should make it look bigger. Aberration does not tell you how far away the walls are, so it can't be used to measure a size. You can see that you are inside a sphere where the skin is compressed in forward view and stretched looking out at the rear, like the rubber skin on that glass sphere you described. If there would be syncronized beacons on the inside sending signals so the ship can calculate the distance to the point of the wall it is looking at, then it should be possible to calculate what angle the ship will see the equator at and which diameter it would appear to have.

Despite theoretical arguments against the existence of faster-than-light particles, experiments have been conducted to search for them. No compelling evidence for their existence has been found. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon

I don't understand the need of a massless sperical shell? A spaceship without windows is passing through a stars gravity field at high speed and the pilot needs to keep a straight course, he pinpoints the star with his telescope but should he correct for the apparent angle or the true angle? AFAIK the apparent angle is only an illusion due to the finite speed of light and the speed of the observer. (There is no gravitational pulls from illusions but the true location of the body radiates a real force.) Light from location 1 will appear to be coming from location 2 for a moving telescope due to the finite speed of light, a phenomenon known as the aberration of light. As light propagates down the telescope, the telescope moves requiring a tilt to the telescope that depends on the speed of light. The apparent angle of the star φ differs from its true angle θ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_of_light I interpret aberration as that the observed photons are coming from point 1 and going straight down to the observer at the true angle, (simultaneously with gravity), while the telescope moves to the right with matching speed and angle such that the photons can get inside but don't hit its walls.

Claims that the theory of relativity which is now considered to be a cornerstone of physics is to be equal to "not know anything" about space structure is clearly ridiculous, there is no "aether" involved in accepted modern cosmology as the term is usually considered to be used and expanding space is a consequence of relativity even when the rate is not limited by the speed of light. The simple truth is that your "Vitruvian metric expansion of space and time" is disproved by current observations of the Universe around us. From your own quote: "We created a scale-invariant theory very like general relativity but with perfect relativity of size. However, our construction was not satisfactory, being unable to explain fundamental observational facts in cosmology." (Bolding by me.) Current observations and knowledge overwhelmingly support models that rely on space expanding through a change in metric. Link to Observational evidence The Big Bang theory is the current prevailing cosmological model that describes the development of the Universe for a reason. (And I don't apologize for that, it is not my fault.)

Apollo 11 Moon Landing Site Seen in Unprecedented Detail The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera snapped its best look yet of the Apollo 11 landing site on the moon. The image, which was released on March 7, 2012, even shows the remnants of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin's historic first steps on the surface around the Lunar Module. CREDIT: NASA/GSFC/Arizona State University http://www.space.com/14874-apollo-11-landing-site-moon-photo.html

The Wikipedia link about Redshift posted in the OP gives the following formulae for cosmological redshift in an expanding universe: [math] 1 + Redshift = \frac {Observed_{wavelength}} {Emitted_{wavelength}} [/math] If we pick a few numbers like: 10, 20 and 40 for emitted wavelengths at the absorption lines and choose a redshift of 2 then we can see that: Emitted ---------10--------20------------------40-- Observed -----------------------------30----------------------------60----------------------------------------------------------120------- When space is expanding and bringing objects more apart then the first and the last photon in a beam will get equally separated too. (In a twice as long beam the photons will get separated twice as much as in the shorter beam.) When the expansion is scalar then the difference between the absorbtion lines will also scale equally. (The *shift* in the separation between the lines has equal rate determined by the redshift factor.)

Indulging excessively in exercise that strain your arms can lead to severe pain.

Handwaving.

So instead of pointing out any logical objections or asking questions you just choose to reject it before you understand it. Oh well, maybe the river analogy was a failure, but it does explain how we can see galaxies actually moving away from us faster than light, it shows how some ants on the rope can make it when the expansion is deccelerating and why some ants won't make it if the expansion is accelerating. The rest of your post to me is expressed so vauge that I am unable to make either head or tails of what exactly you do or don't agree with. I am giving up on you now since I have no other choice than to agree with zapatos's post #192 (+1 zapatos).

Ok, the simplest explanation I have of how a changing rate of expansion can allow or prevent us from observing a distant object receding faster than light is the river analogy in post #147, did you have more questions or any logical objections against it? Yes, if unhindered all emitted photons will continue to traverse through space forever. The event when a distant galaxy is emitting photons now and the event imprinted in photons we receive now are entirely separate and different events. Yes, we expect to see all events between the event we currently are observing and the last event we will ever witness from that distant object. Wavelengths of lightbeams are increased proportionally to expansion of space, at the distant event horizon the redshift is increased to infinity. Yes, signals emitted with one seconds interval local time will get further and further apart when space in between them expands. I don't think the photon itself is considered to be stretched out over 400 thousand ly, my understanding is that it is one single particle somewhere along its wavelength. The actual detection of the photon is the only detection of the electromagnetic field this photon represents and since a photon only can be detected once there is no need for nullification at locations where it has not been and can not be detected. Yes, if unhindered all emitted photons will continue to traverse through space forever. If you consider the possibility of a cosmic horizon from which new photons are unable to reach us and that the distance between us and this horizon only contains a finite number of photons. Then the logical conclusion is that in this line of finite photons there must be one last and most distant.

Yes, I fully agree, the light beam will get redshifted towards infinity, far beyond possibility of detection. However on a side note, considering that the beam constitutes of discrete photons, we can conclude that the last photon in the beam must come from a location slightly on our side of the horizon. Just like a light source falling into a black hole, there will be a finite amount of photons emitted in our direction and the last one is from slightly above the horizon. I think that in both cases that last photon will reach us in a finite time. ----- tar, I see that you omitted to give me an answer AGAIN, how come you don't give me a straightforward answer? Yes, we can currently see objects receding from us faster than light, I have not said anything that is contradicting this. Your point is? Distant galaxies are like distant lamps, when stars in them dies they stop shining and then eventually we can't see them any more. So you agree that space between us and the Mars probe will NOT contain photons for the rest of eternity, from prior the event when the lamp got dark?