Strange

Surely, no one but the author (or his mum) would defend it at all.

That is not a good thing.

It might also be something to do with the wavelength of the sound (which might depend on the circumference, for example) being longer than the diameter of the thing...

I don't. It is yet another in the long line of crank theories that will change nothing.

That is my understanding, as well. Note that, while this may be true, it is not the reason that nothing can escape from a black hole.

Is there any "leftover energy"? And what evidence do you have that it is dark energy?

As has been explained: it is the theory of relativity. The ball and you always have the same relative velocity as the box accelerates and so you will not see it increase in mass. To assume it does, assumes you think that the velocity is relative to some absolute frame of reference. Relative to you, in the box, there is no change in velocity. (I assume you mean electron and positron.) This is very ambiguous. If, as in the first question, you are in the box then there is no relative velocity between you and the particle-antiparticle and the energy of the photons will be 511keV. But if the box is moving relative to you, then the energy of the photons (as measured by you) will be greater.

I will leave someone else to try and explain that. All I can say is that it means flat in the sense of "not curved" rather than two dimensional. You mean the stripe across the middle? I think that is where the background noise is drowned out by the signals from our galaxy (the milky way).

What math do you expect? What we know about the dangers of acceleration is purely from experiment (and accident). Some references here: http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2004/YuriyRafailov.shtml I'm sure Google will find many more if you search for something like how many gs can human survive

Maybe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrestrial_gamma-ray_flash (That Wikipedia page is particularly badly and confusingly written, but it looks like there is a possibility that some gamma ray flashes are produced by lightning.)

Could you tell us which peer-reviewed journal this interesting result has been published in?

It is a way to sell self-help books to the gullible.

Well, if it gains mass then it must slow down to conserve momentum. There really isn't much more to say. (Spinning, relativistic mass, AC, wires, motors, are all irrelevant. The only thing that matters is conservation of momentum.)

Sad. Just very, very sad.

I didn't say anything about a "directional vector". In fact I didn't say any of the things you claim. Please stop making things up and stop making strawman arguments and just do the math. You have had it explained in many different ways. You just don't get it because you appear not to understand the basics of physics. (Or maybe you are deliberately pretending not to get it, for the craic. I don't know and I don't care.) Go and learn about the conservation of momentum and then apply it to your system.

It might be a better use of your time if, when you have doubts, you made an effort to learn something about the subject. Just making things up that appear to make sense to you is never going to be very productive. You could start by investing 30 seconds or so understanding how the "quote" system on the forum works. It is no more difficult than colouring everything red. And a lot easier to follow.

From: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong Your attempts to explain or describe what you are thinking are incoherent because they appear to be based on ignorance and misunderstanding of the basic principle of physics. Attempting to explain why your system will not work is impossible because you fail to understand and/or wilfully misinterpret basic physics and the explanations.

No. Why do you say that? You seem to be the King of Non Sequiturs. I'm sure you could. Why don't you?

The phrase "not even wrong" comes to mind ...

You still haven't addresses the analogy of the two skaters: as they pass one another, they pass a mass from one to the other. What happens? Do they speed up or slow down? If so, why? If not, why not? Can you see the similarities (identity) between this and your model? If not, how is it different? It has nothing to do with wires or motors. It is purely to do with the transfer of energy. The mechanism doesn't matter. You could use lasers. Or throw golf balls between the wheels.

To add to that, we just switched from "an arbitrary definition of the metre which was used to measure the speed of light" to "an arbitrary definition of the speed of light which is now used to measure the metre".

You are, again, making purely subjective judgements. You decide the broken glass is "non clever" but look more closely: look at that incredibly sharp edge; like a surgical instrument. And look at the curve of that edge. Beautiful. Definitely clever. As for that pebble, nice at is is, it is all that remains of the most fantastic sculpture of children playing with a dolphin that appeared to be flying. It was truly marvellous. Most of it is turned to grit and dust apart that dull little pebble. Definitely not clever.

I don't think this project is primarily intended to develop AI. It is mainly for medical research, to better understand how the brain works. It is basically the equivalent of the US program: http://www.nih.gov/science/brain/ I suppose that knowledge could help develop an AI (although I'm not convinced).

Of course there is a physical cause: you are transferring momentum. (Look again at the ice skaters throwing a bowling ball to one another. Demonstrate that it is wrong, if you think there is no physical cause.) Walking away saying, "I don't understand it so I win" is grossly dishonest. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pigeon_chess

Not imaginary: conservation of momentum. http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/momentum/u4l2b.cfm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum That should enable you to comply with imatfaal's request (and, hopefully, understand where you are going wrong).