Cap'n Refsmmat

Relativity of simultaneity has nothing to do with signal delay, or the time it takes for us to see something simply because it takes light a while to reach us.

But it does! ...although distance doesn't matter.

See also this thread.

Give me a break. Registering multiple accounts to (a) answer your own questions, presumably in hopes of making hypervalent_iodine look bad, and (b) give yourself some reputation points is quite clearly against the rules. Don't try to make up for your rudeness with trickery. We're not that stupid. Also, if you're going to pretend to be someone else, try changing your punctuation habits; the extra space before your exclamation marks is a bit distinctive.

Yes, you use up some of the magnet's energy (in the current circulating in it) to exert a force on any magnetic material nearby. You could use the magnet to run a generator, but it would get weaker and weaker until it stops, and it'd give you just as much energy as you put in.

I don't believe this thread has a purpose except to violate the religion forum rules. Closed.

Cut it out, please. If you would work with the people who try to help you, rather than insulting them, you might get somewhere. If there's a problem with their explanation, you could ask for clarification, instead of attacking their intelligence.

I don't know much about extensions to the standard model and other proposed new theories. I'm sure that if the results are confirmed, there'll be a rush of theorists determining whose ideas best match the data. It'll be interesting.

No, previous measurements have not given this result before: http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.0437 Seeing a particle moving over c is a new experience. Hence the alarm and caution.

CERN held a live conference today about the results: http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1384486 Remember: skepticism dictates concluding "I don't know", not "it must not be true." Absent evidence, your skeptical conclusion must be "well, let's see what happens," not "it must be a hoax!" Claiming a hoax is just as unfounded as claiming it must be true.

How do you know? No, it doesn't. Relative location has nothing to do with it. Where did you get that idea?

Right. I was just pointing out the difference with these neutrinos, which were detectable at higher than c. If CERN tried a publicity stunt like this, they'd lose all credibility in the scientific community. I doubt they'd risk that.

If you can detect them sooner than a light pulse, then they're transmitting the information faster than light. You could use Morse code, for example, and the pulses would reach the detector faster than light would.

Yes, because he understands the physics, and the physics depends on relativity of simultaneity.

Sets can have infinite elements, so this isn't an issue, I don't think. Another point would be to state God's infinite power this way: if you name any action, God has the power to do it. Hence God has the power to create matter, run the universe, and so on. However, you might say "make 2+2=5" or "make a burrito so spicy even He cannot eat it," and point to the fact that God cannot do those things -- but those are not descriptions of actions. They are statements which intrinsically describe nothing, because no action can satisfy their description. Hence they are not weaknesses of God. Anselm would retort differently: to commit illogic is a weakness, not a strength. If God could break the laws of logic, it would detract from His power.

Hit Browse, find the file you want, and hit Attach This File: That'll upload the file to SFN so others can read it.

You do realize the complete equation is just [math]E^2 = m^2 c^4 +p^2 c^2[/math], right? Nope.

Above the post editor, there's a little star button labeled "Upload/Insert". Just click the star and use the uploader to add it to your "library"; you can add items from your library to your post by going to the library tab, hitting "show" on the item you want to edit its details, and then hitting "Insert into Post". Adding keywords is just a matter of using words and phrases you think will be popular search terms; e.g. if you think people often look for nuclear walruses, you might ensure that your posts use those words frequently. It's an inexact science. I have future plans to promote the blogs more effectively on SFN and other sites, but I'm unfortunately very busy these days.

Saturation of some kind?

And what does that mean?

And how did time end up being 12? There's many other ratios that approximate pi; for example 201/64 is closer to pi than your example is.

What do you mean, time squared?

Where did the numbers 144.1994472645505 and 0.3178571072492 come from? What do they represent?

Where did you get the idea that the time lag for information about events is what causes relativity of simultaneity, or even has anything to do with it at all?

Er. "Events happening right now are simultaneous no matter what." "Okay, here's an example where changing reference frames causes events to no longer be simultaneous." "Makes perfect sense. Nevertheless, events happening right now are simultaneous no matter what." Perhaps you should elaborate further on the evidence for your claim. I'm not particularly impressed by your own contrived example, since it's easy to create an example that follows your rules, not relativity's.