Strange

You've come to the right place then.

Maybe, instead of getting annoyed you could just ask about the bits that you don't understand? I'm sure people will be happy to explain further. For example: Arcing doesn't happen in empty space. There needs to be at least a small amount of gas present. The electric field can then separate the atoms into icons and electrons - both of these can then carry the current as an electric arc. I assume there is some relationship between the density of the gas and the voltage needed to cause arcing but that is beyond my knowledge!

Of course. After all, it lets evolution happen!

You could try asking your local universities/colleges if they would allow you to do some experiments. You might have more luck contacting the lab technicians and getting them interested in a version(*) of your idea. Then you've got an expert in using the equipment and interpreting the results working with you. (*) I say "version" because if you mention "cure all diseases" then they will say "Okaaay..." while edging slowly out of the door without taking their eyes off you

That is pretty much the answer I expected! Do they get government funding? I thought it was all from fundraising and sponsors? There is some truth in that. But some sources do attempt to be unbiased, or at least to present more than one point of view. I think the BBC generally does this very well - they are criticised about equally by those on the left and this on the right. (My biggest problem is when they try to hard to be unbiased on topics like climate change where they will have a scientist and, for "balance", a loony right-wing ex-politician with an axe to grind about fox hunting.)

As far as I know, string theory builds on quantum theory and goes no further to "explain" entanglement than quantum theory does (*). The extra dimensions (if they exist) are "compactified" (which is why we are not aware of them) and so I don't see how they could explain any long distance effects. The same again, really. The uncertainty relationship between conjugate properties that allows quantum fluctuations appears to be a fundamental aspect of reality. I suspect that looking for a"reason" why the universe behaves like that is futile. FIFY. Again, the invariance of light speed is due to the nature of space-time. I'm not sure how extra dimensions would change that. Lorentz invariance applies equally to movement through those other dimensions. It seems to me that the fact that the laws of physics (e.g. Maxwell's equations) are the same regardless of whether you are moving or not, should be rather intuitive. There is no information transfer. No. Because: 1. There is no information transfer 2. The photon does not provide a valid frame of reference 3. The effects of entanglement are instantaneous in our frame of reference (not that of a photon - if it existed). 4. Entanglement occurs between particles with mass and therefore do not travel at light speed. (*) Entanglement is perfectly well explained in quantum theory - your reluctance to accept that is due to the fact it is counterintuitive and/or not being familiar with quantum theory. I would suggest Feynman's lectures on QED as one way of getting a better insight into non-locality. He doesn't talk about entanglement specifically, as far as I remember, but once the idea of non-locality (as captured in his sum of all paths method) is understood, then entanglement is just a straightforward extension of that concept.

I'm doing some background research for an article and came across a blog describing the USA's Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) as being "far right, alt-right". I am not that familiar with PBS. I have listened occasionally when in the US and hadn't noticed any particular bias. So is this opinion justified, outrageous or just indicative of the blogger's own biases? p.s. just read through to the end of the blog post inquisition and it ends with a ridiculous (but presumably deliberately provocative) straw man. Which, oddly, seems to be something someone on the far right would say. So I'm not inclined to take his opinion seriously. But I would still be interested in others' thoughts.

Interesting question. Because of the complex history of pronouns, I guess. Most didn't start off with an -s ending (and most still don't have one: mine, your, their, etc.). So I think "its" was a later invention and modelled on "his". There was a period when both -n and -s were being used as the possessive ending (as in mine, thine and non-standard yourn). And sometimes in combination (hisn).

No (other) possessive pronouns have an apostrophe. So good luck with that!

No. Conduction requires free electrons (or other charge carriers).

Do you mean emergent phenomena?

I think "desired" is a bit strong. It was just the standard assumption at the time. There was no reason to think otherwise.

And all of that useful information (which was included in the first reply) is lost when you reduce it to dimensional analysis.

Well you brought up the holographic principle in the context of a discussion of four dimensional space. Good grief. You have gone beyond making things up to spouting complete gibberish. The room I am in has a volume and the walls have an area.That does not equate to 5 dimensions. The 2D area of the walls is not an extra two dimensions, they are 2 out of the existing 3 dimensions.

Agreed. No one said it did. Agreed. So I'm not sure why you raised it in the context of a discussion of four dimensional space. What? Apart from the fact that appears to contradict your first statement, the holographic principle doesn't "create" dimensions. It describes to projection of information in a 3D volume onto the 2 dimensions that make up the surface of that volume. These are not "new" dimensions. They are 2 of the 3 existing dimensions.

As I didn't say either of those things, I'm not sure why you claim I did. The holographic principle states that the information within a three dimensional space can be encoded on a two dimensional surface. You referenced it in support of four dimensional space. If you can't see the inherent contradiction in your claim, then I don't know how to make it any clearer. But perhaps it would help if you explained (in your own words) what you think the holographic principle is. That might help me understand your claim that it equates to four dimensions instead of two.

And that connection is what the OP was asking about; i.e. why the acceleration is what it is for different masses.

Yes, of course. Governments around the world have banned the use of hydroelectric power. How could we not have noticed. (Although, hydroelectric has a much worse safety record than nuclear so maybe they should.)

But that doesn't tell you anything about the reason it has that velocity or acceleration. It certainly doesn't tell you that two objects with different mass must have the same velocity or acceleration. Because, of course, they can have any velocity or acceleration.

Just because Susskind has worked on both ER=EPR and the holographic principle doesn't mean that one is based on the other.

And so? We should stop trying to find one? Or do you mean there can be no explanation?

And you're saying it is impossible for the universe to have always existed. So, from the principium tertii exclusi we can conclude that the universe doesn't exist. Is that correct? Why should they need to? In our current cosmological models, they have only existed for about 13 billion years.

Hmmm.... yeah.... But I still don't find the argument from dimensional analysis very compelling - and it doesn't explain the reason, either. It just argues from the result: it's independent of mass because it is independent of mass.

This is almost inevitable for acronyms that are used frequently enough. I wonder how many people know what laser, radar and scuba are acronyms of (or even that they are acronyms). And why should they? They have become English words in their own right now. Even with more recent acronyms like RAM (which looks like an acronym because it is in caps) I'm sure there are a lot of people who don't know what it stands for. And I have seen increasing use of Ram and ram so this is on the way to becoming a word, as well. And then there is the opposite effect where some words that are not acronyms are treated as if they were. The most obvious one in my field is "flash" (a type of memory) which is often written as FLASH or Flash even though it is just the standard English word flash.

That argument doesn’t make sense to me. The acceleration due to gravity on the Moon is less than on Earth so mass obviously does play a role. And acceleration is dependent on force, which also doesn’t appear in your dimensional analysis.