Strange

What do you mean by "light way"? The distance light travels? Or wavelength? Or ...? (And there is no such thing as "cosmological force"; I assume you mean the metric expansion of space)

That has been explained repeatedly and at great length by many people in several different ways. There is nothing to speculate about. This is basic, schoolboy physics. There was an excellent YouTube video (in one of the many other threads on essentially the same subject) showing the paths taken by a ball thrown in a rotating frame, as seen from each frame of reference. I can't find exactly what you are asking for, but this is close: http://www.edcoogle.com/question/1033/why-is-the-centripetal-force-called-a-pseudo-force

All theories, all evaluations of the safety and efficacy of technology (electronics, medical procedures, food additives, whatever) are based on the best of our knowledge, by definition. Maybe a long-term study of the effects of WiFi or mobile phones will show them to have deadly effects, but there is currently no reason to think that is the case: there is no evidence of significant harm and no mechanism for harm. In some cases, there are known mechanisms for harm, so the risks are evaluated more seriously. The problem still seems to be that there are a small number of subjects where you think your opinion that they are more dangerous than the evidence suggests should be taken seriously. If I were to insist, just as vociferously, that there weren't enough long term studies looking at the effects of Bluetooth, for example, (and in particular, that so far they have only looked at the effect on the brain) and that therefore the safety of this technology hasn't been established and we should assume it might be dangerous, would you think that was reasonable?

That horizontal acceleration is where pretty much all the fuel goes. So using a little bit of fuel to get up to altitude is easy than building a massive glass tube. Even if that would work - which it wouldn't: get a cardboard tube, put a ping-pong ball at the bottom and place the tube vertically on the ground. Does the ping-pong ball rise?

Yes, it was defined as the length of a metal rod in Paris. You want to go back to a poor quality standard like that. Why?

Was their area of expertise? Were there other people looking at the potential economic impacts (which I wouldn't expect a biochemist or biologist, for example, to have any special knowledge about)? Maybe the long term research is ongojng? (After all, it takes a long time, by definition.) But it does sound, again, as if you are assuming GMOs are dangerous when there is no evidence of that (and no particular reason to assume they are dangerous). Yes, we should be cautious with new technology. Yes, there should be more research and testing, particularly in the longer term. But unless you have some reason to suggest they are dangerous, or some mechanism by which they could be, it sounds like you are over-reacting. No me. In fact I have never heard anyone demanding that. <shrug>

But the meter is defined by how far light travels in a second! So you can't use that to define the unit of time.

Great example: if the cup is slid across the table, it is obvious that the force is in direction of motion. There is obviously no force in the other direction pushing the tea up the cup. Just like the circular motion example.

This raises lots of interesting questions. First, it is important to understand that neither we nor the other galaxies are moving away from each other through space (1). It is (slightly) more accurate to say that the amount of space between them and us is increasing. In other words distances are being multiplied by a scale factor over time. So everything was once much closer together. If we see light from galaxies that was emitted about 13 billion years ago, then those galaxies were about 4 billion light years (2) away when the light was emitted. But the light took 13 billion years to reach us because the space it was travelling through was constantly expanding (so it is like the light was trying to swim against the tide). Now, those galaxies are about 45 billion light years away (3). Note that the "faster than the speed of light" thing isn't a problem, because nothing is moving through space that fast. That limit comes from special relativity which just deals with local motion in non-curved space-time. The expanding universe is described by general relativity. (1) Or at least, not significantly: there is some local motion. For example, our galaxy might collide with Andromeda in a few billion years (2) I think ... from memory (3) Ditto

Then why not submit it to some journals to find out.

Why wouldn't we ask for evidence of potential harm? If there is no such evidence (and there is evidence of safety) why would you continue to believe they are harmful? This seems to be another example of you thinking that your personal opinions/fears don't require evidence while demanding that others produce evidence that you are wrong. Is that an example of the "law" you are trying to name? Or is it a different one?

Some recent research has shown that (some) painkillers also reduce emotions: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/apr/14/paracetamol-may-dull-emotions-as-well-as-physical-pain-new-study-shows So, presumably, there are some common pathways.

I see the thread has moved on a long way but ... No it isn't. Your personal philosophy (baseless opinion) on the nature of time has nothing to do with the subject of this thread, or how time is described in GR. In the same way that we have extent in the 3 spatial dimensions, we also have extent in the time dimension. It is meaningless (in the context of GR) to talk about either "movement through time" or "time flowing".

It sounds as if you might be confusing inertia (the resistance to an applied force) and momentum. Velocity is relative and therefore so is momentum. The velocity and momentum is given by the original source if that is what you are measuring the velocity relative to. If you know measure the velocity relative to the Earth, then the velocity (and momentum) will depend on how fast it is moving relative to Earth. If you measure the velocity relative to your space probe travelling alongside at the same speed, then the velocity and momentum will be zero. What does "velocity accumulated locally" mean? Only very loosely. The Higgs field is only responsible for a small proportion of the mass of matter. And, even though it contributes a tiny amount of the mass of atoms, it is not responsible Newton's laws of motion.

So, as you have chosen a completely arbitrary number why not stick with the definition of the second that we already have.

The argument seems to come down to: "There is no evidence of damage but there must be some because ... RADIATION!!!!!"

Do you understand what time complexity is? What function do you want to calculate the time complexity of? Perhaps you could clarify the question you are asking.

That bolded sentence is a pretty standard interpretation of SR, where you can consider the Lorentz transform as a rotation between the spatial and temporal dimension. It is the rest of his "this isn't maths but you can do maths with it" nonsense that is more contentious.

As far as I know, yes. Who care what cretinists accept. Of course. Loads. As wheels have never evolved, it isn't really possible to answer that. No.

Because sorting a longer list, for example, takes more time than a short list. How much longer depends on the sort algorithm. Are you asking about the time complexity of log(n) and sqrt(n)? If so, I'm not sure it is possible to answer this without knowing how they are implemented. If not, I'm not sure what the question is ....

Why is 1kg of universal significance? (Interestingly, the kg is the only unit that is still defined in terms of a physical object, rather than fundamental constants.)

That doesn't make much sense. If the observer is moving through time, then you can define a speed at which it is moving. Which means you must need a second sort of time to measure that rate of "movement". This is why the 4D space-time view is static: nothing "moves" through time. The object has a "world line" which defines all the places-times at which it exists. The only supposition is your invented alien. The fact that light takes a billion years to travel one billion light years is not supposition. Perhaps you should take that conclusion as an indication that your mental model doesn't correspond to reality in any way.

It even has great big unmissable dotted lines showing the path of the ball in both frames of reference. But I guess Rob missed those.

Didn't xyzt's post answer this in sufficient detail?

That makes no sense.