Strange

That seems to answer your questions! (I might bookmark that one. I just realised that it is 20 years since I worked on GPS systems...) It may need to be taken into account (altitude, at least) because it changes the relative gravitational time dilation. But shouldn't affect accuracy.

Does anyone? There are good reasons to think it is impossible. You would need to explain how every measurement made with wildly different techniques (from muon lifetimes to GPS to Hafele-Keating to Pound-Rebka to particle accelerators to ...) shows the same errors that just happen to exactly conform to the predictions of theory. How does that work? Exactly So you don't believe we can accurately measure anything but you are happy to believe this stuff you make up? Sounds about right.

And light does not accelerate and so it does not respond to force and so it has no mass.

If you try and use the Lorentz transform to convert between frames of reference when [latex]v = c[/latex] then [latex]\gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - c^2/c^2}} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - 1}} = \frac 1 0 [/latex] = undefined Therefore v=c is not a valid frame of reference and you cannot compare the speed of photons.

No. You can't compare the speed of photons because ... No. The speed of light is not a valid reference frame. Try it and you will end up dividing by zero.

We know that energy is given by: [latex]e = \sqrt{m_0^2 c^4 + p^2c^2}[/latex] (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/relmom.html#c4) When the rest mass [latex]m_0[/latex] is zero then the energy is just: [latex]e = p c[/latex] So: [latex]p = \frac e c[/latex] Or (using the relationship found by Planck: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod2.html#c3 ) [latex]p = \frac e c = \frac {h \nu} c = \frac h \lambda[/latex]

What you can imagine is hardly relevant. That is one definition. For massive particles. For massless particles it has a different definition.

Why? It is not a mess. It is the way science progresses.

You really need to learn how to judge the quality of your sources. If you are trying to learn, it is generally not a good idea to get your information from sites like that. Wikipedia has a good page on the experiment with references to good sources.

Any evidence for this?

It is purely a function of the difference in gravitational potential. So it doesn't matter how you got there.

If the question involves a category error. For example: "Is love green or banana-flovoured?"

Work out how much energy it would require to have any significant effect.

We can ignore the first part as being obviously nonsense. The neutrino was proposed in 1930 and first detected in1956: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino#Direct_detection There are now many neutrino detectors around the world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_detector They can be used for astronomy and also to test the predictions of the standard model and (hopefully) discover new physics.

You have never seen an electron or a neutron, either. If you want to discuss neutrinos, you should start a new thread.

That doesn't sound right. It would only reflect back "perfectly" if it were reflected from a mirror. In most cases, it will be mainly diffuse reflection. In other words, the light will be reflected in all directions. Which is why someone standing to the side can see the laser spot! And why it will work with an surface that is not perfectly at right angles. But, the detector does pick up that small fraction of the light that is reflected straight back to the range-finder. (Which I guess is what you meant.) I'm not sure I understand the OP's second option, though...

Apart from the fact we have seen it happen... https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/100201_speciation http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Observed_speciation

This was to explain that the spin of particles is quantised; i.e. the amount of angular momentum they have must be in discrete increments. To show how small those increments are, he used the example of the rate at which a top would spin if it had a spin of "1". (I don't know if the spin of a macroscopic object like that would actually be quantised or not, though...)

Either he doesn't give a shit or he doesn't exist.

I imagine largely the same, but the multi-body dynamics are probably a lot more complex in this case. (Plus there is always the hope that it might show some unexpected errors in GR...)

That is how we discovered neutrinos. Or, more accurately, why neutrinos were hypothesised. Other hypotheses considered at the time were that maybe energy isn't always conserved, or maybe it is only conserved on average.

For those with a genuine interest in the science around this (i.e. not David Levy), just came across this web page with some good info, including a cool animation of the orbits. http://www.galacticcenter.astro.ucla.edu/blackhole.html

We have had countless threads on your inability to understand the nature of evidence and the way science works. Don't drag this one into the same sewer of ignorance. Go ahead, keep telling yourself that science is all wrong and only you know The Truth. Just stop posting your idiotic ideas here. I am not going to answer any more of your ridiculous, ignorant and, quite frankly, increasingly deranged questions.

Neither of those are true. You are awesomely lacking in clue. (I just typed "cal 1900" at my computer and it came up with a "digital calendar" for that year.)

Or that they could go back in time and insert a leap day that wasn't there before. Even greater insanity!