Lightknight said:
The idea that the speed of light is a local constant would lend to some examples like that being basically useful. Any variances would be small enough to be inconsistent. But this would certainly explain why I didn't have a ton of coursework that used the constant.
Eh? The light speed in vacuum is not only a local constant - it's a basic one. All of todays physics builds upon the idea that the speed of light is a fundamental constant. In fact, the observation (for instance seen in the Michelson-Morley experiment from 1887) that the
speed of light is constant even though one moves (which should change the speed relative to you) forms the backbone on which special
(and by extension, general relativity, too) is build.
Granted, there are theories which predict that some of the most fundamental constants aren't constants but change slightly on cosmic timescales. For all intents and purposes, however, current physics rests upon the assumption that those are indeed constant - and this also includes general relativity which explains for instance why light can be bend by gravitational effects and somesuch.
As an addition, I recalled that you can indeed also write your energy-dispersion E = \sqrt{(m_0 c^2)^2 + (pc)^2} in the form E = mc^2. The crucial point is that in this case the mass m is not the rest mass m_0 of the particle but m = m_0 * gamma where gamma is the gamma factor [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_factor] known from special relativity that includes the relative speed of what you are looking at to the speed of light. So you can write the energy in the short form if you are careful what you mean with the mass here.
BiscuitTrouser said:
Not to mention the entropy rule is only correct in a closed system.
A nitpick: what you are talking about is an isolated system. In physics one usually differentiates between,
Isolated systems: No energy and particle exchange with the environment
Closed systems: No particle exchange with the environment
Open systems: Both energy and particle exchange with the environment
Just to make sure you use the right terminology
gamernerdtg2 said:
Again, I am not into quantum theory. They use the word "created" but then they also use "implications" which I take to mean that it's not scientific fact. There is sort of a mystic quality to the last observation that I appreciate. Perhaps science will prove this to be completely false. I simply can't look at this information without being "affected" or with a "heart of stone" or "like a machine spitting out answers to questions" as though the topic of the universe is vapid (again, I'm referring Charles Darwin).
Quantum theory is a complicated mess. There are various interpretations to what the stuff that the math says actually means. Suffice to say, though, the effects you cited - virtual particle production through the energy time uncertainty, the vacuum not as an empty void but a boiling sea of virtual particles - is sort of a basic phenomenological interpretation to explain stuff that happens when you couple Quantum Theory with Special Relativity in the Quantum Field Theories that form the backbone of elementary particle physics today.
So while there is considerable freedom in trying to find out what the math means it's very much certain that predictions build upon it work. For instance, the transistors in your computer were in essence build upon predictions from Quantum Mechanics.
gamernerdtg2 said:
I agree that the OP is blatantly biased, but wow this is great information! You know, the carbon dating thing has always been "accepted" as not 100% accurate. I wasn't thinking about that...
I'd be careful with that. It seems to be a common argument to from the creationist sides to push their own agenda by making up shit that supposedly disproves "carbon dating" and somesuch. Bassik a geologist had, to my knowledge, wrote some interesting posts to disprove some of those claims back in the day - most notably that some specific dating techniques which where never meant to be applied to larger timescales don't work on those scales, implying that others don't work, too which is obviously a fallacy.
EDIT: Also BrassButtons is correct with regards to the post you quoted. Be very careful about what it says.
