swansont

Precisely. The hot-air balloon does not have to withstand the kind of pressure differential that leads to a significant force on the superstructure, which is the case for a vacuum device.

You haven't explained anything about what you mean by any of this. Your table of strange mesons does not appear to be mesons. What does column b represent? What does the rest of it mean? Why should an average value of all elements mean anything for electron binding energies? What is column e in the table of isotopes?

No. Mirrors and Morse code don't involve involve information about quantum states. You detect a photon or not, but you don't send information about its polarization. From your article — "Teleportation involves dematerializing an object at one point and transferring the precise details of its configuration to another location, where the object is then reconstructed." That's the journalist interpretation, so it's simplified. It's the information that is sent — that's what is meant by the "precise details of its configuration" means. If you have something on the other end, you can put it in the same state. If it's photons, you can create them, but if it's atoms, you have to have them there, at the ready, and the "teleportation" puts them in the same state. It's really unfortunate that Star Trek gets mentioned in most of the popular science articles. The trick here is that classical transmission of quantum information is limited to 50% fidelity for atoms and 67% for photons. If you don't know the state ahead of time, you don't know what measurement basis to use, and you can't recreate the state. Over the long haul, you'll get the numbers already mentioned. Quantum teleportation means you can, in principle, get the information with 100% fidelity. But it's all information. No matter is transported. Don't rely on journalists writing popular science articles to tell you what's going on. In this blog post I link to an interview with Jeff Kimble, who does this kind of atomic physics. Scientific American: What's the biggest misconception about teleportation? Jeff Kimble: That the object itself is being sent. We're not sending around material stuff. If I wanted to send you a Boeing 757, I could send you all the parts, or I could send you a blueprint showing all the parts, and it's much easier to send a blueprint. Teleportation is a protocol about how to send a quantum state—a wave function—from one place to another. (emphasis added) If the energy comes from somewhere it's not a perpetual motion machine. That doesn't violate the first law of thermodynamics.

Hundreds? Where are they? I think you mean "zero." There are hundreds of claims, but they all seem to not work when put to the test.

Quantum teleportation is about transmitting information, and not matter.

As opposed to your appeal to conspiracy that prompted it?

emphasis added That's just it, though. We don't know all of the facts. Things are claimed, but not corroborated, and when corroboration is asked for, all we get is complaint about persecution. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. "None" is, alas, quite ordinary. That's what gets material moved to speculations. And you know what? People don't generally get in my face on the street, spouting nonsense, and interrupting a discussion. And if they do, I'll damn well say, "Prove it!" to them if I want to. The thing about people on the internet claiming to be the next Fulton, Edison or Einstein is they're invariably wrong.

I think it's to differentiate the mass-energy from the photon energy in that blurb. Energy manifests itself in different forms, none of which a physicist is likely to call pure vs unpure. OTOH, photon energy is one form that is not associated with rest mass. It's purely the kinetic term of the energy equation. Mostly semantics, IMO.

Still not sure where you're going with this. Photons have momentum.

A problem with solutions other than "reduce the amount of CO2 produced" is the likelihood of unintended consequences. Systems are all interconnected. Attack the cause, instead of trying to mitigate it through other avenues.

"According to the greenies, the Earth is supposed to warm continuously and disastrously without taking any rest breaks." Um, no. This is a strawman. Am I surprised that this would appear in the Investor's Business Daily editorials? No. It's almost as far removed from a peer-reviewed journal as you can get. All data will have fluctuations. You can't trust science discussion, especially by scientists outside their area of expertise or nonscientists, that takes place on the editorial page. The penalty for manufacturing or repeating erroneous information and/or omitting other information is incredibly low and it happens a lot, in order to score political points.

Or moved to the thread where such discussion can take place http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=30304 This thread is about why posts get moved to the Trash Can, or Speculations. Specific subjects discussions are off-topic.

You've raised argumentum ad Merriam-Webster to an art form. Using different definitions of a word to support your argument and rebut another's is equivocation. You have to use the physics definitions of terms in a physics discussion. In QM, and particularly in the context used here, observation and measurement are similar in meaning. One can observe that a photon is red, or measure that it has a wavelength of 632 nm. Both require photons be emitted or scattered, which was the point.

That symmetry gives you conservation of energy. Rotational symmetry gives angular momentum and translational symmetry gives linear momentum.

Some of the conservation laws stem from continuous symmetries.

Zephir again suspended for multiple rules violations, 2.3.5b and 2.5. Two weeks

I'm not playing this game. I'm not your personal fact-checker. You have your treatise on magnetosynthesis/magnetrition, and it's up to you to back it up. It's quite possible your "contributions" to wikipedia get dumped for precisely this reason — unsubstantiated material.

I'm not playing this game. I'm not your personal fact-checker. You have your treatise on magnetosynthesis/magnetrition, and it's up to you to back it up. It's quite possible your "contributions" to wikipedia get dumped for precisely this reason — unsubstantiated material.

Your motion is the result of forces exerted on you (action forces), not by the forces you exert (reaction forces), but the forces we feel are often the ones we exert. The cat's motion is circular, thus it must feel a centripetal force. In that case, your motion isn't circular (or easily identifiable as such) so it isn't the best example. If you are in a car going around a circle, you feel like you are thrown out and pressing against the side of the car — that's a force you exert. But your motion is dictated by the force on you, which is pointed inward. In that frame, the centripetal and centrifugal forces are an action-reaction force pair, from Newton's third law, and the identification of the centrifugal force is the mixing of recognizing forces exerted by and forces exerted on.

What you call sneering dismissal and censorship is what I think most scientists would call lacking rigor and failure to provide testable predictions. IOW, it's dismissed because it's not science. You'd probably get the same reaction from a biologist if you asked him or her to dissect a piece of granite. I think it goes a little beyond that. Not only is the ether not necessary, it can't have the properties originally ascribed to it: the medium through which light travels, and the rest frame of the universe. The first part is unnecessary, but the second part can't actually exist. So whatever properties space has, it will only cause confusion to call it "aether," and yet that's exactly what has happened. I don't think it's correct to say that matter interacts with spacetime in GR. It's a classical theory which says that spacetime has a geometry that need not be flat. It's not a force, per se, because objects following a geodesic are obeying Newton's laws where no force is present. Science is about investigating how nature behaves, and not necessarily why it behaves this way. The postulates of relativity were not ad hoc.

Yes, yes, we are all duly in awe of your greatness. But the point of the thread was whether this was a legitimate refutation of the many-worlds interpretation. The answer was "no."

FTL tech is not an engineering issue.

Burden of proof is on the one making the original claim. You never gave any evidence you were correct. But OK, I'll humor you. "If you were to research information concerning the pineal gland, you would find it described mainly as a gland of unknown function." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pineal_gland First hit, and has a lot of information.

You really need to explain what that graph is, starting with the axes. Then what you mean by red and blue waves.

Discussion of AWT as it pertains to Maxwell's equations and EM has been moved http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=32772