Strange

I think that is the problem with this description. It is trying to explain time dilation in terms of a mechanical process. Like all analogies, it fails when taken too literally. No.

This is the original paper: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL067342/full

If there is no sense that the subject is attempting to move it versus not attempting to move it then all we are left with is confirmation bias: it moved, therefore I was trying to move it. It didn't move, therefore I wasn't trying. Obviously the latter. You need to be able to say "I am trying to move it now" or "I am not trying to move it now". In the double blind trial, these should be randomized so there is no pattern to be detected. (People are amazingly good at detecting non-random patterns in tests like this.)

You mean the natural numbers then. Just because they have a beginning (0 or 1) doesn't mean they must have an end (they don't). You should look at Cantor's diagonal argument. Not only does infinity exist, but there are different types of infinity; for example, the set of real numbers is infinitely larger than the set of integers.

I know it is off-topic, but I am fascinated. Do they? And why? OK. Forget that. You answered it in your other (nearly identical) thread. Apart from that, what ajb said. I think you need to study the concept of limits.

So his description is based on the idea that gravity curves spacetime and therefore the light has to take a longer path, and therefore each "tick" (reflection) takes longer. This is an interesting perspective although I don't know how realistic it is. However, why would it be any different for left-right versus up-down paths? They would be equally curved by gravity (ignoring the minute effect of the varying height). The path of the light is longer, therefore the "ticks" are slower, therefore time is seen as running slower.

There are not 49 particles. And there are not 92 elements. So we can dismiss the whole construct.

In this case a blinded trial would be one where EE could not see the wheel but announces to to experimenter, "OK I am moving it now" or "I am not moving it". The experimenter notes how often his claim is correct. A double blind trial would be one in which EE silently records when he is moving it or not. And the experimenter silently notes whether the wheel is moving or not. This could be done with a third person using a clock and, at intervals. saying things lie "Test 32; 10:11AM". EE notes whether he is moving it. The experimenter notes whether the wheel is moving or not. Later the two records are compared. The advantage of the double blind trial is that it removes confirmation bias (for or against) by the experimenter. There could, of course, be other ways of doing a blind or double-blind trial.

To paraphrase Louis Renault, "I'm shocked - shocked - to hear that."

I suspect most chargers use switch-mode converters rather than transformers. Also, you would need some extra circuitry to generate 12V AC from the DC, and then put that through a transformer. But you can get inverters that will do all this for you. For example (just the first search result): http://www.amazon.co.uk/Universal-110V-Power-Inverter-Adapter/dp/B0015TOTNY Or: http://uk.rs-online.com/web/p/dc-ac-car-power-inverters/7059882/

Where is this stated? It sounds wrong. Can you provide a source? What time do you think expansion started? This page shows that expansion was occurring from the the initial inflationary period onward. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe I assume (the statement is too vague to be sure) that at this time there would not have been any such clusters. Maybe not even stars or galaxies. What sort of timescale are you talking about? This is not true. The early universe was much more homogeneous than it is now. Therefore expansion would have occurred everywhere. It is only when the large scale structures formed, that some parts become more gravitationally bound. Perhaps because you don't know as much as you think you do.

I can't access that so can't comment on it. You might want to read about the Pound-Rebka experiment, which looks at exactly this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment

The map that was posted in the other thread looks pretty good: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=82142 The lighter colours show higher concentrations of CO2. You can click on the image to get a much larger version. But is that not what you need? As to altitude, to avoid further argument, perhaps you need to clarify what range of altitudes you are interested in. A quick search found this paper: http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/11/2455/2011/acp-11-2455-2011.pdf It is pretty complex, I have only skimmed it but it seems to indicate that the variation with altitude (up to about 25km) is very small. This may vary with location and time of year. Which is apart of the problem: what seems like a simple question is actually pretty complex. Hope that helps. And I hope you get better answers this time ...

So you agree you won't get a square wave out. How do you plan to regenerate a square wave after this?

Yes, magnets will exert a force on the electrons (because they are moving). This is how the electron beam is made to scan the screen in a CRT monitor. Only changes in the electron beam could generate a current in the coil. You would also need to work out, roughly, what the magnitude of this would be and whether it would be detectable. My guess is it would be pretty small, but I don't really know.

Controlled and blinded experiments. Of course. Although, obviously, EE will never accept the results. He will just think that it makes it "too hard".

No. Because you are wrong. About almost everything. But thanks for playing. Since when has trolling been science?

So that is no evidence, then. OK. If you don't care about your readers, they probably won't care about you or your ideas. With no evidence and no theory presented, there is no reason to waste time on it. Grow up. Stop pretending to be a martyr.

Your posts have done nothing but cause confusion to the OP. It would therefore be helpful (to everybody) if you stopped your irrelevant posts.

1. Do you have any evidence for any of these claims? 2. The font you have chosen makes your text almost illegible. Please don't do that. (Not that there is anything worth reading, as far as I can see).

I am happy to admit to giving you a negative vote. It is time you stopped behaving like a child.

Or it is particularly sensitive to external influences. This is not a personal comment, but as the "subject under test" your opinions are not credible. Especially when you have made it clear that nothing will change your mind. You need to do a blinded test. And you need others to eliminate extraneous causes (or "make it harder" in your parlance).

There are dozens of papers listed. Have your read them all already? I'm impressed.

Several related papers have been published: http://www.willamette.edu/cla/physics/faculty/watkins/ http://tatania.phsx.ku.edu/feldman/cv/cv.html You can search for them. For example: http://arxiv.org/abs/1411.6665 http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.0631

It appears to be made-up nonsense with no basis in reality. It gets more bizarre and detached from reality as it goes on. Why not study a little science? It is a fascinating subject. That is your job. Until you have a testable model that makes accurate predictions, there is no reason for anyone to take you seriously. It certainly doesn't seem to be.