Recent content by Rebound

I contend the person the OP refers to is poorly acquainted with the scientific method and should just avoid making such statements as he did. Additionally, the following pretty much puts paid to the idea that atoms are not in and of them selves physical objects...

Hi, This website claims, "The Khan Academy is a not-for-profit 501(c)(3) with the mission of providing a world-class education to anyone, anywhere." http://www.khanacademy.org/ It includes material on many subjects; I posted it here because I had to pick something, but I believe it has...

I disagree. In any event, I believe you took the expression a little more to heart than I intended. It was not intended as an insult, but rather to indicate the 2 ideas are self-contradictory.

I may be wrong, but it would seem to me that red-shift in and of itself contradicts your assertion.

I'm not convinced of this statement and I believe therein lies the problem.

The main thing is this: Dark matter is called matter because it is affected in the same way as other stuff by gravity. No matter that we know of has any of the properties associated with dark energy. You may say, well if we don't know what dark matter really consists of how do we know it doesn't...

If I recall correctly, one of the first empirical observations was done using 2 synchronized atomic clocks, one of which stayed on the ground and the other taken up in a plane. Although the actual difference in the time measured was very small the clocks were accurate enough to measure it.

That "dark" has been used to describe them should not be taken to mean they are related. The term dark matter is being used to describe matter that is known to exist despite knowledge of what it actually consists of. Dark energy is a far more vague idea. It is more or less just a place holder...

I think this should answer your question but you ought to read it carefully: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence

Precisely. Hence the plethora of theories intended to provide a completely new framework, e.g. Loop Quantum Gravity and String Theory.

Possibly. But I think it is more likely that is not possible to describe the universe at the smallest scales within the framework of General Relativity. It is cannot take into account the various aspects of quantum weirdness in a self-consistent manner. For example, a major problem with...

Sadly, this is more or less what Einstein worked on unsuccessfully for most of the latter part of his career.

The simple answer is yes. It's the ol' equal and opposite reaction thing. You will be motionless with respect to the elevator regardless of how fast it goes. When you jump, you exert a force on the floor and it exerts a force on you. Unfortunately, if you're trying to survive such a fall, the...

Simply put, the only variables in the calculation are the masses of the 2 objects and the distance between them. (Of course, this assumes an isolated system or one in which other objects are too distant to influence it.) Other forces may act to overcome some or all of the influence of gravity...

Thanks for the reply. I'll see what I can do.