booker

OK, a frame of reference of velocity c isn't inertial. Why is this a problem, other than that others get real upset about it?

What invalidates it?

The OP's distrust of waves pretty much sums-up Borh's Copenhagen theory of quantum mechanics. No objective reality it attached to probability amplitued, but only to the values measured. This is made evident in his answer to the EPR paper, "Can Quantum Mechanics be Considered Complete?", or some title close to it. On the other hand he wants to replace them with objective particles... This doesn't seem to work at all, but then again Einstein seems to have advocated them.

The speed of time can be purchased on Ebay.

Then do the math yourself taking v-->c, or read about it. Singular solutions in one coordinate chart are not singular in another. If you want more nonsense, in your words, consider an observer over your local event horizon. Surely we can take limits, or we can limit our discussion to physics without calculus

Well, they have the same units. A couple is independent of the choice of origin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Couple_(mechanics)

Doh!

Good catch, big314mp! I hadn't thougth of flipping the fan over on the shaft with the motor turning the other way. It turns the usual tractor fan into a pusher fan. This is what you were thinking, right?

This is nonsense. That's pretty much it. Let's say you were to somehow travel unaccelerated, along with the peak of a lightwave. From source to destination no time will have elapsed. No distance will have been covered. Since you are interested in this sort of thing, you might want to consider what two observers would have to say about spacetime from the perspective of two different wave crests. Do they perceive that they are cojacent to each other, a finite distance away, over the horizon? As I understand it, P.A.M. Dirac had something to say about this sort of inertial frame. If you follow this language, start with a Lorentz bost in the x direction. Take the eigenvalue of the matrix. This will result in a change of coordinates to (x+ct, x-ct, y, z). In this coordinate basis a Lorentz boost is a contraction along one dimension and a dialation along the other. It seems to be the coordinate system useful in examining the conditions where v-->c.

Family abuse. There had developed a certain kind of abusive behavior such that parents of good intent and children are under the threat of separation, financial ruin, and incarceration by those who claim superior understanding should they apply disiplinary rules of their own. Did this abusive behavior result from bad upbringing by their parents? Does this behavior result from the observation of sadistic parents?

"Probability distribution" is a qualification of "radom", isn't it? Wavicle is a pop-science term that seems to have been born of the misunderstanding in order to simultaniously combine particle-like and wave-like characteristics to the same thing. Parhaps you're thinking of a wave packet, but the Schrodinger equation isn't confined to describing wave packets alone.

You have some confusion about hilbert space and space, or spacetime. Hilbert space doen't span space. It's an abstract space of probability amplitudes. The magnitude of the vector squared is the propbability that the particle will have some particular value when measured. I think DH could expain it to you better.

It would jump to the motor case, if close enough. If close enough or attached to the housing or large enough, I imagine the motor might run rough, stop, or fail to start.

Quartile, Does your original question have anything to do with two particles like electrons or photons measured at two distant places in space, usually by Alice and Bob?

CP, More than that, the gas in the bubble itself can flow. So I wounder how this effects the boundry layer, if it can be called such. In the case where the viscosity of the gas is taken to the zero limit, the profile of the boundry layer doesn't seem to drop to zero at the interface as it would with a solid sphere but remain at a value determined by Stoke's law of ideal fluids. This would seem to imply that the boundry layer would remain attached from nose to stern. With the velocity of the fluid undiminished from nose and stern, the profile drag should be zero. In addition, would there is no self-sustaining oscillation in the wake, the induced drag would be zero, where the ideal case of zero viscosity gas is still in force. It's hard to imaging where any drag would come from to slow the bubble down at all! Am I missing some crucial factor?

No. I'm a fraud. Not to mention, obnoxious, combative and egotistical

You're getting some erronious information. AC motors come in a variety of flavors. A motor you think is AC, might be a universal motor. I think ceiling fans have univeral motors The most common are induction motors. *Some* will spin and deliver power either way depending on how they are started. I don't think you want to go messing with their internal wiring if you have to ask how they work. Besides, the fan blade won't work reversed.

Sean Carroll's Spacetime and Geometry: An Introduction to General Relativity is a renowned text, available in an unfinished version online, and well worth the purchase. Reread my edited, previous post. My intent was to see how an element of a mainstream theory--in this case General Relativity--presented in bad language, would be torn up by those taking the role of skeptics. But I flubbed it. I'd recalled erroniously, it seems, that size of the universe, or at least an increase in it, is well defined, rather than observer dependent.

The red shift of distant galaxies is not due to the relativistic Doppler effect, as commonly believed, but the metric of spacetime. The metric, after a couple derivatives obtains the connections that tell us how vectors are to be compared over distances. It is the intervening metrics of an expanding spacetime that cause the red shift. Yeah, the universe really is expanding, but the red shift isn't Doppler in origin. You can read about it here http://http://preposterousuniverse.com/grnotes/ beginning on page 63. It's interesting that a partial, illiterate explanation of this prompted a hostile response. Edit: My posts got scrambled. But anyway, thanks for playing. This is your temporary crackpot, comming clean. And the Universe really is expanding for all I know--just not due to the relativistic Doppler Effect.

By the way, what's this "We" business. The others have given up, seeing the error in their ways. Edit: Cept Captain Reffsmat. Excuse me captain.

That is logical falacy number 15, my good man, with a little bit of #1 thrown into the mix previously. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ I think I've put the burden of proof (your words) on Edtharan concerning this Dopper business. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect My good sir, please read my previous post.

For the first part of my argument, I will demonstrate the falacy in comparing velocities. We might ask ourself, how do we compare velocities? Why, we put the little arrows side by side and see if they match. I shall call this rematching. But things are not so simple as they seem. If I rematch one arrow with another around the entire Universe it changes direction. If I rematch an arrow with another arrow in a straight line, a different answer is had. It all depends on what I call rematching trajectories This can be understood quite simply by flying from Amsterdam to New York. If you fly west to New York you are still moving west when you get there. If I have to go to Georgia first I am flying a little bit south as well as west. In completing the circuit to New York, but have kept track of a little arrow initially pointing to the west, it will no longer point west on arriving in New York. Now with a leap of faith we can assume the arrow is a velocity so that any two velocities depend on the matching trajectory to get to the rematching nexus.

On an aside, can you prove this. I hear this a lot. No one ever seems to bother saying why the burnden falls one way or another. They just take it on faith I suppose. But not to worry, I will be composing a demonstration to my claim. For your part, I wouldn't mind a proof of your-burden-of-proof argument, so much as you claim the burden of proof is on yourself.

I know what sicence is. It's not unlikely, it's *highly likely* as I am showing. This is all about 'vectors'. Vectors are like arrows. You point an arrow in a direction and it moves that way in space *and* time. Vectors have a length and a direction. Light follows these vectors, so you don't need Doppler shift. It's all very clear if you can follow the physics.