zztop

Did you look at the post just above yours?

No, it isn't. It is full fledged crackpot. Stop posting rubbish.

Based on his quoting the Van Flandern crank, he's asking exactly what I answered to. BTW: if the Sun disappeared instantly, the effects on Earth would be felt 8.5 minutes AFTER its "disappearance". The obverse: if another "Sun" appeared instantly, next to the current Sun, its effects would be felt on Earth....8.5 minutes after its "appearance".

Please stop quoting cranks, the speed of gravity is "c".

Here is a good synopsis.

He has been retired by the faculty. Due to being an (in)famous crank.

Tombe is yet another internet crank, it is time you stopped.

Yes, they all feel [latex]F=2 \pi G \rho m[/latex]. Read here. It is a standard exercise given in intro to physics.

According to the excellent video posted by "arc", the initial implementation by Edison DID have "local" power plants. In this age of cyber-terrorism it makes perfect sense to move away from central power plants and from distribution grids.

...because monochromatic light has a much shorter coherence length than white light. One needs short coherence light in order to calibrate the setup (make the arms have equal length). Only AFTER MM calibrated the setup, they could afford to use white light since the long coherence length can no longer affect the measurement. White light had the advantage of making very sharp fringes with a very distinct central fringe. ...which only make the fringes harder to read. ONLY if one were naive enough to use eyeballing in order to determine fringe "move". ...which is precisely why eyeballing is not used in modern MMX.

Agreed, since all solar "power plants" come with their own inverters in order to be able to pump the energy back into the AC grid.

Your point is about to get a lot stronger with the advent of solar energy. In effect solar panels constitute a "personal" power plant. They produce DC current which, unfortunately, needs to be transformed (at significant energy loss) into AC because of the fact that the appliances can only work off AC.

Not exactly: [latex]G - BLv = 0[/latex] Yes. Meaning that [latex]i[/latex] must be 0.

There is one more thing to consider: at equilibrium, the em induced voltage [latex]-BLv[/latex] will cancel out the battery voltage [latex]G[/latex] so, the speed [latex]v[/latex] is ....? And the current [latex]I[/latex] in the wires becomes....? And the Ampere and Lorentz forces become equal to...?

Correct. Yes, the Lorentz force is [latex]\vec{F_L}=L\vec{I}X\vec{B}[/latex] and it opposes the Ampere force. The absolute value of the Lorentz force is [latex]F_L=LIB[/latex] Yes.

You have TWO currents , of equal absolute value and OPPOSITE senses.

Correct, so far. Now, what causes the conductor to move and in what direction will it move? There is a force, called Ampere force....What is its direction, what is its expression? There is another force that RESISTS the move of the conductor. It is called the Lorentz force. What is its direction and expression? Do the two forces cancel each other?

This is extremely disappointing considering that I contributed nearly 100 items to his list.

Correction: it is the COORDINATE-dependent speed of light that "becomes anisotropic". PROPER speed of light is isotropic (and equal to "c" in vacuum). PROPER light speed in a uniformly accelerated system as well as in a uniformly rotating system is also isotropic and equal to "c". In other news , the Flinders University finally unloaded the Cahill embarrassment. They finally got the crank out.

Sigh The remark from the John Baez website is very poorly phrased. The class of theories he's talking about is the class of "test theories" " -Edwards -Robertson-Mansouri-Sexl -Standard Model Extension By virtue of being test theories, they inherently must ASSUME that light speed is anisotropic and they assign a set of parameters in order to model the said anisotropy. Experiments constrain these parameters to values that disprove the initial assumption of anisotropy. As to Reg Cahill, a quick look at his publications and at " " and at the Telesio-Galilei"academy" says it all.

Hint: the determinant of the system must not be zero

Tr Triangle cosine rule teaches us that: [latex]R^2=S^2+T^2-2S*T*cos x[/latex] where x is the angle between S and T. I'll let you figure why R is horizontal

Of course you are "correct", you never give up in your nonsense.

+1. I give up. When one plays with crap one gets dirty. You have a very poor understanding of Hammar's experiment. Read here

Total rubbish. Disproved 82 years ago by Hammar experiment.