Cap'n Refsmmat

In related news, the experiment is being re-run with a different setup to gather better data: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15471118

Apparently there's another demonstration today: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-10/28/cold-fusion

You can also watch videos and do practice exercises at the Khan Academy: http://www.khanacademy.org/ You can pick some exercises to start on and see how difficult they are to decide where you should start.

No, there is not. GPS receivers do not transmit signals to GPS satellites. There's merely a signal going down which receivers passively detect and make computations based on. Yes. Do you have an equation for the aether velocity at a given point? One which gives a numerical result, combining the factors you describe here?

There's no up signal in GPS, only a down signal, so there's nothing to cancel out. Do you have an equation for aether velocity at a given point? It would be trivial to determine the effective average velocity of light from a GPS satellite and determine the predicted error of normal GPS location measurements in your theory.

This is a difference in position of roughly 80 feet over a mile. Taking half that (to get just the difference from "true" of light traveling down), we find that a GPS signal transmitted from a satellite would indicate we are 95 miles higher in altitude than the correct value. It seems like this is easily detectable.

On what scale (in meters per second) is the variation in the velocity of the speed of light that your model predicts for light traveling straight up or down?

The iron filings form themselves into lines because each is slightly magnetized by the field, so the end of each filing is attracted to the end of the next, forming them into lines. It's not like the magnetic field is actually concentrated into little lines. I don't really know about solar dynamics, so I can't answer that question. Magnetic fields can store potential energy, but the field is continuous.

You mean when you take iron filings and spread them around the magnet, making little magnetic field lines?

I believe the correct answer is "Yes."

Quantized lines are merely a representation of the field -- the actual field does not come in lines. We simply represent a magnetic field as lines when drawing it, with denser lines representing a stronger field.

Yes. Mine has physical constants and conversions, and you can download various equation packages. A calculator is a pretty poor user interface for a reference manual, though, and there's a number of clever user interface ideas for manipulating equations and combining them on a computer.

How does one explain the photoelectric effect via darkons? Or Compton scattering? Or X-ray imagery? Or radio?

An excellent approach would be to explain an experiment which demonstrates phenomena explained by ring theory and such. Quantum mechanics tends to be introduced through explanations of the double-slit experiment, for example, so perhaps you have a similar canonical experiment you can explain in depth. Preferably with mathematics.

Well, one could replicate the handbook concept. Sell "formula bundles" designed for a specific field, containing the sort of information a printed handbook would have. You could get the same information in a form much easier to manipulate and search.

This can actually happen. There is miRNA that can survive being eaten and digested: http://www.nature.com/cr/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/cr2011158a.html Incidentally, I think standard-issue kit for time travelers should be a world almanac or history textbook that can be used to authenticate their claims of time travel. I mean, if I went back to 1843, I'd bring a few archived newspaper copies from the days after I arrive, along with an iPhone with a chess app. (A handheld device which can beat nearly any chess player would almost certainly convince them of my magical abilities, if not my time-traveling powers.) Is this common, in the future? I'd like to know before I get older. Incidentally, what does the blood-brain barrier have to do with digestion?

Posted on behalf of Evenda Dench. This survey is not run by SFN or its staff. What do you think about the development of new pharmaceutical medicines? Evenda Dench, a PhD candidate at The University of Western Australia, is conducting an online survey as part of research investigating the attitudes held by the general public towards the development of new pharmaceutical medicines. Please contribute and have your say about this topic by following the survey link below. The survey should only take about 10 minutes to complete. http://edu.surveygizmo.com/s3/672676/medicines Forwarding this information to any or all of your personal and professional networks will also help to increase the number of responses collected and your support would be sincerely appreciated. The greater the number and diversity of respondents who take part in this survey, the better will be the overall representation of public attitudes about the development of new medicines. All responses are anonymous, and any individual information collected will remain confidential. This research will not be used for marketing purposes in any way. Following statistical analysis, the results of this survey will be published and made available in 2012 at http://www.communicatingscience.org/. If you would like more information about this survey or the research project, please contact Evenda Dench at evenda.dench@uwa.edu.au. Approval to conduct this research has been provided by The University of Western Australia, in accordance with its ethics review and approval procedures (RA/4/1/4786).

The Earth is quite clearly square. http://members.dslextreme.com/users/rogermw/square_earth.html

Moved to Suggestions, Comments and Support. I'm curious: is there a lot of good research on the science of music? I can't say I follow the field particularly well. Generally our criteria for adding a new section is demand: if there are many discussions on the topic, we'll consider opening a new section for it. You might consider starting discussions on your favorite questions in the field to see if there's interest.

Are you suggesting it's a bad thing that scientists modify their models to account for new evidence? If the model can be modified to explain all the available evidence, why is that bad?

How do you propose to communicate without your lips, teeth, gums, tongue, and jaw? I'm also not sure how you plan to have functioning eyes without eyelids, tear ducts, or a cornea. I also understand that dialysis patients don't particularly enjoy the process. For many of these problems (nails, hair, earwax, etc.), surely it would be easier to pay someone to handle them for you, while you sit in a recliner watching your favorite televised entertainment.

Moved to Speculations, since, er, this is clearly not what most Earth scientists would say. Do you have any geological analysis or systematic collected evidence to support your hypothesis? You have explanations, but you don't back them up.

When [math]x\neq 0[/math], I think that method works just fine. (When [math]x=0[/math], the first equation becomes undefined because of division by zero.)

Sure. But it's not that a particle moving twice as fast is seen to move twice as far before decaying; it's that a particle moving a few percent faster lives very much longer, when it's moving very close to the speed of light. An example is the cosmic ray muons in the link above. Despite their high speed, the muons should almost all have decayed by the time they reach the Earth's surface. But somehow most of them don't decay.

Hm. How do you have the notifications settings set up, and what method (immediate, digest, etc.) do you choose when subscribing to a thread?