swansont

Which is the first thing you have to look at. Given YT's observation, can you confirm that the number is "oddly large?" Perhaps it's related to the strangely large number of bank robberies that take place in banks.

Do you realize that "theories" are as good as it gets in science? Yes we have a theory that it's nuclear fuson, which means there is a bunch of evidence that supports the theory. Nothing is ever proven, deductively, because that's not how science works. But one reaches the point where the evidence is so great that to withold provisional assent would be perverse (to paraphrase S. J. Gould) We can consider the case closed, and not have to reinvent the wheel, or reconfirm that round things roll.

Actually I don't think they do. The generally run, not walk, in the other direction when someone proposes a controlled test. The few that do submit, and fail, generally complain that the controlled conditions somehow interfere with their powers.

Absolutely. You can believe in anything. Even things that aren't actually true. That's a problem with going with belief instead of evidence. Unrealistic by your measure. Evolution makes no prediction about the creation of the universe or generation of life. Those are separate theories.

And herein lie the problems of depending on a creationist site to learn science - they like to lie, and don't know much science. The residence time of salt in the ocean is ~60 million years. But that doesn't make it the age of the earth. The salt removal rate is lowballed by the creationists to make it look like it's not in equilibrium. More

This is demonstrably false. One example: Take a can of mixed nuts. Shake it. The nuts will not be randomly distributed. And not with the large nuts on the bottom, as one might think would be caused by gravity. They will preferentially be on top.

Even if you take the position that the process cannot be explained by science, you can still demonstrate whether a psychic can do better than chance at determining results in a controlled test.

Did the first tell you the object was assumed to be at rest? Knowing the assumptions present in a derivation is very important, as it indicates when the resulting equation is and is not valid.

There is no such law. There is a law of conservation of energy, however. Can you show that the energy in the universe has not always existed, or that it can't be accounted for before the big bang, when we don't know what the laws of physics were then?

Not knowing what the answer to how, exactly the brain evolved or how it works is not the same as demonstrating evolution to be wrong. There are plenty of things science has yet to explain. That's why there are still jobs for scientists. The feeling that it seems too complex to be explained is just argument from incredulity, and is a logical fallacy. You can't draw a valid conclusion from such an argument.

I think you'll find that many scientists agree that we don't know what the laws of physics were before the big bang.

TV is only several hundred lines, and even HDTV is limited to just over 1000. Bad comparison. The diffraction limit of our eye is somewhere around 1200-1500 dpi when the image is at the typical nearpoint. Any limiting of a good digital camera is due to blowing the picture up too big, i.e. lowering its resolution, or a limited quality printer.

Well, you're wrong. If you move fast relative to me, or are in a gravitational well, and we compare our clocks, they will differ. This has been verified by experiment. Perhaps you have heard of the GPS system? The clocks onboard the satellites have to be adjusted to run slow relative to clocks next to them when they're on the ground, because once in orbit the decrease in the gravitational potential speeds the clock up. The motion slows it down, but that's a smaller effect.

Also one's position in a gravitational field.

In the wonderful world of introductory physics problems, ropes are usually massless and don't stretch, unless that's the specific problem under scrutiny.

Then what you mean by 'time as a dimension' is not what a scientist would mean. You can vary the passage of time, which is one part of relativity. This is predictable, repeatable and has been/is continually tested.

By Newton's first law, since the velocity is constant, the net force must be zero. Since T is not zero, what does that tell you about the presence of other forces on the car, in the horizontal direction?

Objects can grow or shrink, so saying an object has only one set of dimensions is inaccurate. And for something that does shrink or grow, one could write a function of the variables x,y,z and t to describe its various properties. Time is a dimension. Wishing does not make it not so.

f represents linear requency, and $\omega$represents angular frequency. They are different by 2$\pi$, and the energy equations imply

I have responded, thus far, because most of your posts ask a question, and I thought perhaps you were sincere in your inquiries. But I don't have the patience for what I see to be dishonest discourse. I have to conclude that losfomot was right, and you are just trying to create an argument from nothing. IOW, you are trolling. I obviously gave you too much of the benefit of doubt. I'm done.

No, that would be a bit of revisionist history. The current dispute arose from the definition of centrifugal force (post 26), which is not accurate. My response was post 29, and the point was that dictionaries are not guaranteed (or even likely, in some circumstances) to give you accurate technical definitions. In that post (26), you claimed the centripetal force definition did not exist. It was only later that you discovered your typo and posted the definition of that word. (post 32) In post 38 I agreed that their definition of centripetal was correct, but noted that acceleration was incorrect, from a technical standpoint, as support for my argument. I have to ask, was this trip really necessary?

The discussion of whether a lay dictionary is a technical resource? How is it not relevant?

A rotating mirror is a way to measure the pseed of light, but I don't think anyone has used that to try and measure the small shifts you want to try and do - you're right, you'll never see that small of a change. The Michelson interferometer experiment of Michelson and Morley

Well, they're looking down, right. So when one yells, "Omigod! I'm blind!" you know you've found them.