Strange

Yes, that is what I said. If you apply the force to the centre of mass, there is no rotation. As your later digram shows. The force has to be offset from the centre of mass.

As pointed out, if you apply a force to the centre of mass, there will be no rotation. As pointed out, you can try this yourself with a ruler. As previously explained, the electric and magnetic fields associated with the Sun are very, very small at the distance of the Earth. Immeasurably small, I suspect. So there would be, effectively, no force. Does your compass rotate to follow the Sun during the day? No. They have angular momentum. This is (confusingly) called "spin". They do not spin. No torque is transferred. No force makes them spin.

On that day, the rover used its alpha spectrometer. That is a contact instrument but I don't know if it would leave a mark like that in the dust. As the NASA pictures isn't labelled "Amazing mark found on Mars surface!!!!" I can only assume it is something expected.

Part of the reason they make the contiguous distinction may be to exclude clones as "an organism". For example, there are populations of plants (and, i think, simple animals) which are all genetically identical. But because they are physically separate, they are counted as individual organisms.

I often don't use it because it's clumsy. I haven't noticed that. So maybe it is a correlation between how irritated I am by a poster and noticing whether they use the quote function or not .... But some people do things like copy the text and make it bold or coloured. If they can do that, why not stick it into a quote box; it's just a button click. It make it much easier to distinguish what is copied and what is their text. If you can't work out who is being quoted it suggests to me that you haven't read the thread well enough to comment soundly on it anyway. For me it is less about who is being quoted then what is being quoted. When people make no effort to separate the previous comment from their reply it can be hard to work out what they have added.

There seems to be a correlation between how far from reality someone's pet theory is and their inability to use the quote function. I have noticed this on several forums. I haven't come up with a plausible hypothesis yet. (Not one that is printable, anyway.)

I don't think so. His hypothesis is that the universe was created by quantum fluctuations in a false vacuum. Or something. As there is no real evidence the universe was created, it is all a bit moot. You might be thinking of Nikodem Popławski http://www.insidescience.org/content/every-black-hole-contains-new-universe/566

QUOTE BUTTON! I didn't mention differentials or integrals. Because I can't understand where the equations came from without a derivation. It is completely unhelpful to just write an equation down without explaining it. Because of the way it was derived. And because it has been tested by experiment. It is nothing to do with Einstein. Anyone could have derived it. As you say, the experimental data is the important thing. You don't have either a derivation or any evidence. Therefore there is nothing to consider. That is just the way the universe works. Why is a philosophical question. I wasn't kidding. I thought it might be force, mass and velocity. Without any context it could have been anything. (We use V for volts where I live.) With no derivation and no evidence, I assume you just made it up so there is nothing to rebut. You might as well have written F = λ + x2 * pi / h *c3 Just random symbols. That doesn't make sense. No need to take it seriously then. Then it isn't science.

"Continued contact" doesn't really make sense. It is not like putting your hand in water so it is in "continued contact" with the water. Light does not "contact" your eye. It enters it and disappears. Light enters your eye. It is absorbed by the retina (the light ceases to exist at that point) which generates signals to your brain. If the light source is continuous (e.g the Sun) then you will continuously absorb light. If the light is not continuous (e.e. a pulsed LED or flashing neon sign) then you will not continuously absorb light. But normally, you get a constantly changing input of light from multiple sources. You still seem to be thinking in terms of some uniform field of "transparent white light" out there. That is not how it works. You can imagine light as waves, particles or even rays. It comes from a sources, bounces off one or more things and, if it enters our eyes, we see those things. As a practical demonstration of how this works, take a look at ray-tracing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_tracing_%28graphics%29 The reason that this is able to produce photo-realistic images is because it models the way light works.

Yes it is. (And, once again, you have veered from asking questions to making irrational speculations.) I'm not sure if that even means anything. But you can't see the change in light unless it enters your eyes. (Because it is "transparent" remember.)

Very obviously, it does. If it doesn't get into your eyes, you can't see it (this is what you have wrongly described as "transparent"). And if the object doesn't reflect light, then you won't be able to see it. Light does not have to be continuous. Turn your light off: the light stops. Many LEDs are pulsed - you can see this as a flicker when you move your eyes. And, when you get right down to it, light is broken up into photons. So not really continuous at any level. This appears to be completely irrelevant. Also, if you mixed paint like this, you would end up with black.

Errr... kind of. Radio transmissions modulate either the frequency (FM) or the amplitude (AM) of the transmitted "carrier" signal in order to transmit sound. Sigh. Not several frequencies from one. White light is a mixture of frequencies. A prism spreads the different frequencies out at different angles. Nothing to do with angular momentum.

Yes, by sending different frequencies out in different directions.

NOOOOOO!!! Firstly, the energy of what? Energy is not measured in degrees. And the energy of the light around you is not constant. And almost certainly not 0.

The spectrum (mix of frequencies) is modified by absorption / reflection. I don't know what that means. Some energy is absorbed at some frequencies. I have absolutely no idea what that means. Yes, the medium can absorb some light of certain frequencies as well. Air doesn't absorb much over short distance. But coloured, glass for example, absorbs some frequencies.

The only thing that normally varies the "strength" (amplitude) of the light is how much of it is absorbed by a particular surface. The fact that different frequencies are absorbed to a different extent is what gives things their colour. Light is not modulated as it travels from the object to your eye.

The speed of light (in a vacuum) is always constant. The speed of light through a medium depends on the refractive index of the material. (And, strictly speaking, photons always travel at c through the medium.) The speed of light appears to have nothing to do with what you are saying about white, colours, sight, etc.

I don't know what the North Pole has to do with it. What do you mean by "modulate"? (It appears to be a on-standard use of the word.) And "indecent" is an amusing spelling error. Sometimes. Not always.

I guess "modulate" is another of those words you don't understand. A sine wave (e.g. light) can propagate in a medium. But it can only be modulated in a non-linear medium.

No. Absolutely not.

You cannot apply a force to light; it has no mass. No, it just reflects and refracts the light sending different frequencies in slightly different directions. It doesn't change the energy or cause it to "bunch up".

A rainbow consists of light reflected from mass (rain drops). Transparent is the wrong word. There is no set frequency. It is not constant. Apart from that...

OK. Better. But the "sea of EMR" and your repeated use of the word "constant" is misleading. There is light going to and from objects all the time. It is not "static". Yes, we see through reflection. But there is no "constant" to be different from. There is continuously changing light arriving at your eyes.

"So called" because it is an incorrect and misleading term. I am struggling to see what your mental model of light is. You seem to be thinking that there is a constant "sea" of light out there and we only see things when that is disturbed - like ripples on (transparent) water. Is that something like it? (If so, it is completely wrong.)

You are mixing up (at least) three different things. 1. The light we see when it enters our eyes; this is white when it is an equal mixture of all colours/frequencies. 2. The light we can't see because it is "passing by" - not going in to our eyes. However, if someone else sees or measures this, we can still know it is white light. 3. The fact that light doesn't interact with light. This is the trouble with using the word "transparent". You are being confused by your misuse of the word. No. If it were a single, constant frequency then it would be a single pure colour.