text:
Cinderella and the Glass Slipper
None Listed
AbeBooks Seller Since February 28, 2001Quantity available: 1
AbeBooks Seller Since February 28, 2001Quantity available: 1
About this Item
Bibliographic Details
Title: Cinderella and the Glass Slipper
Publisher: M.A. Donohue, 1920
Publication Date: 1920
Binding: Hardcover
Store Description
James Frier, 822 South Iowa Ave. Washington, IA 52353, Phone 319-653-4514. Email firstname.lastname@example.com. . Please include Book Listing or ID number when you order. All books subject to prior sale. Method of Payment: Credit card orders should be made through ABEBOOKS or PAYPAL (Will send invoice if using PayPal). Personnel checks drawn on a United States bank (will hold book until payment is cleared), Cashier's check or Money Order (shipped within 3 days). Make Checks and Money Orders payable to F...More Information
Shipping costs are based on books weighing 2.2 LB, or 1 KG. If your book order is heavy or oversized, we may contact you to let you know extra shipping is required, especially orders from outside the USA.
Payment Methods
accepted by seller
Check Money Order Cash PayPal Bank Draft


text:
LPL Financial (LPLA) opened its new San Diego headquarters, Tower II at La Jolla Commons, on Wednesday. The independent broker-dealer — which also has headquarters in Boston and Charlotte, N.C. — says the structure is one of the largest net-zero energy commercial office buildings in the United States.
About 1,600 LPL Financial employees, who previously worked in seven office buildings in the La Jolla area of San Diego, are now based in the new 13-story facility.
"At LPL Financial, we are ambitiously working to be an employer of choice. As part of this commitment, we knew that our work environment needed to make an investment both in our employees and in the San Diego community," said LPL Chairman and CEO Mark Casady, in a press release.
"Utilizing advances in technology to create efficiencies is at the heart of what LPL Financial provides for its advisors and institutional clients…," Casady explained. "Leveraging technology and advanced materials to minimize our impact on the environment, while creating a positive work environment for our employees, is consistent with our values as a firm and indicative of our strong commitment to being a socially responsible corporate citizen."
The tower has three fuel cells to convert biogas into carbon-neutral electricity. Energy meters are located throughout the building, and surplus power is pushed back to the grid through San Diego Gas & Electric, according to the IBD. In addition, the tower has LED lights that automatically dim based on available natural light and sensors that turn lights off by detecting unoccupied offices.
In addition, 88% of the tower's water consumption, estimated at nearly 2.5 million gallons a year, is set to be recycled and used for irrigation and other building needs. On-site charging stations for electric vehicles are also available for employee use at no cost.
In addition, Tower II at La Jolla Commons also has an on-site health and fitness center with a certified wellness manager and a cafeteria featuring healthy food options.
LPL Financial serves more than 13,600 independent financial advisors, 4,500 licensed insurance agents and some 700 financial institutions. It has a total of roughly 3,000 employees in San Diego, Boston and Charlotte.
During a call with equity analysts in February, Casady explained that the independent broker-dealer is no longer pursuing any plans to form a bank holding company. It is, however, still considering the possibility of acquiring an industrial loan company.
Its stock is up about 13% so far this year, way ahead of the major equity market indexes.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co.
|Feist v. Rural
|Argued January 9, 1991
Decided March 27, 1991
|Full case name
|Feist Publications, Incorporated v. Rural Telephone Service Company, Incorporated
|499 U.S. 340 (more)
111 S. Ct. 1282; 113 L. Ed. 2d 358; 1991 U.S. LEXIS 1856; 59 U.S.L.W. 4251; 18 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1275; Copy. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 26,702; 68 Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 1513; 18 Media L. Rep. 1889; 121 P.U.R.4th 1; 91 Cal. Daily Op. Service 2217; 91 Daily Journal DAR 3580
|Case history
|Summary judgment for plaintiff, 663 F. Supp. 214 (D. Kan. 1987); affirmed, 916 F.2d 718 (10th Cir. 1990); affirmed, full opinion at 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 25881 (10th Cir. 1990); cert. granted, 498 U.S. 808 (1990).
|The white pages of a telephone book did not satisfy the minimum originality required by the Constitution to be eligible for copyright protection, and effort and expenditure of resources are not protected by copyright. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed.
|Court membership
|Case opinions
|O'Connor, joined by Rehnquist, White, Marshall, Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter
|Laws applied
|U.S. Const. Art. I § 8
Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States establishing that information alone without a minimum of original creativity cannot be protected by copyright.[1] In the case appealed, Feist had copied information from Rural's telephone listings to include in its own, after Rural had refused to license the information. Rural sued for copyright infringement. The Court ruled that information contained in Rural's phone directory was not copyrightable and that therefore no infringement existed.
Rural Telephone Service Company, Inc. is a telephone cooperative providing services for areas in northwest Kansas, with headquarters in the small town of Lenora, in Norton County. The company was under a statutory obligation to compile and distribute a "white pages" phone directory of all their customers free of charge as a condition of their monopoly franchise.
Feist Publications, Inc. specialized in compiling telephone directories from larger geographic areas than Rural from other areas of Kansas. They had licensed the directory of 11 other local directories, with Rural being the only hold-out in the region. Despite Rural's denial of a license to Feist, Feist copied some 4000 entries from Rural's directory. Because Rural had placed a small number of phony entries to detect copying, Feist was caught.
Prior to this case, the substance of copyright in United States law followed the sweat of the brow doctrine, which gave copyright to anyone who invested significant amount of time and energy into their work. At trial and appeal level the courts followed this doctrine, siding with Rural.
Ruling of the court[edit]
The ruling of the court was written by Justice O'Connor. It examined the purpose of copyright and explained the standard of copyrightability as based on originality.
The case centered on two well-established principles in United States copyright law: That facts are not copyrightable, but that compilations of facts can be.
"There is an undeniable tension between these two propositions," Justice O'Connor wrote in her decision. "Many compilations consist of nothing but raw data—i.e. wholly factual information not accompanied by any original expression. On what basis may one claim a copyright upon such work? Common sense tells us that 100 uncopyrightable facts do not magically change their status when gathered together in one place. … The key to resolving the tension lies in understanding why facts are not copyrightable: The sine qua non of copyright is originality."
Rural claimed a collection copyright in its directory. The court clarified that the intent of copyright law was not, as claimed by Rural and some lower courts, to reward the efforts of persons collecting information—the so-called "sweat of the brow" or "industrious collection" doctrine—but rather "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" (U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, cl. 8). That is, to encourage creative expression.
The standard for creativity is extremely low. It need not be novel, rather it only needs to possess a "spark" or "minimal degree" of creativity to be protected by copyright.
In regard to collections of facts, Justice O'Connor stated that copyright can only apply to the creative aspects of collection: the creative choice of what data to include or exclude, the order and style in which the information is presented, etc., but not on the information itself. If Feist were to take the directory and rearrange it, it would destroy the copyright owned in the data. "Notwithstanding a valid copyright, a subsequent compiler remains free to use the facts contained in another's publication to aid in preparing a competing work, so long as the competing work does not feature the same selection and arrangement," Justice O'Connor wrote.
The court ruled that Rural's directory was nothing more than an alphabetic list of all subscribers to its service, which it was required to compile under law, and that no creative expression was involved. The fact that Rural spent considerable time and money collecting the data was irrelevant to copyright law, and Rural's copyright claim was dismissed.
While the other justices joined Justice O'Connor's majority opinion, Justice Blackmun only concurred in judgement, but never filed a concurring opinion to explain his reasons.[2]
The ruling has major implications for any project that serves as a collection of knowledge. Information (that is, facts, discoveries, etc.), from any source, is fair game, but cannot contain any of the "expressive" content added by the source author. That includes not only the author's own comments, but also his choice of which facts to cover, his choice of which links to make among the bits of information, his order of presentation (unless it is something obvious like an alphabetical list), any evaluations he may have made about the quality of various pieces of information, or anything else that might be considered "original creative work" of the author rather than mere facts.
For example, a recipe is a process, and not copyrightable, but the words used to describe it are; see idea-expression divide and Publications International v Meredith Corp. (1996).[3] Therefore, you can rewrite a recipe in your own words and publish it without infringing copyrights. But, if you rewrote every recipe from a particular cookbook, you might still be found to have infringed the author's copyright in the choice of recipes and their "coordination" and "presentation", even if you used different words; however, the West decisions below suggest that this is unlikely unless there is some significant creativity carried over from the original presentation. A sufficiently novel, useful, and unique (i.e. non-obvious) recipe can be granted protection under patent law.[4]
Feist proved most important in the area of copyright of legal case law publications. Although one might assume that the text of U.S. case law is in public domain, Thomson West had claimed a copyright as to the first page citations and internal pin-point page citations of its versions of court opinions (case law) found in its printed versions of the case law ("West's citation claims"). West also had claimed a copyright in the text of its versions of the case law, which included parallel citations and typographical corrections ("West's text claims"). The text claim would have barred anyone from copying the text of a case from a West case law reporter, since the copied text would include West enhancements to which West claimed copyright.
In a pre-Feist case, West's citation copyright claim had been affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in a preliminary injunction case in 1986 brought by West against Mead Data, owner of Lexis. West v. Mead (1986);[5] however, in a case commenced in 1994 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found Feist to have undermined the reasoning in West v. Mead. West's citation claims were challenged in 1994 by legal publisher, Matthew Bender & Company and by a small CD-Rom publisher HyperLaw, Inc. HyperLaw intervened, joining Matthew Bender in the citation challenge and separately challenging West's text copyright claims. West was found by the Second Circuit in 1998 not to have a protectable copyright interest in its citations; neither to the first page citations nor to its internal pagination citations. See Matthew Bender v. West, Citation Appeal.[6] The Second Circuit thereby rejected the 1996 determination of a Minnesota district court in Oasis Publishing Co. v. West Publishing Co., 924 F.Supp. 918 (D. Minn. 1996), that the outcome of West is not changed by Feist.
In the same case, but in separate decisions in which Matthew Bender was not involved, HyperLaw successfully challenged West's text claims. Judge John S. Martin ruled in favor of HyperLaw against West in a U.S. District Court decision in May, 1996. Matthew Bender v. West, No. 94 Civ. 0589, 1997 WL 266972 (S.D.N.Y. May 19, 1997), aff'd, 158 F. 3d 674 (2nd Cir. 1998), cert. denied sub. nom. West v. Hyperlaw, 526 U.S. 1154 (1999).[7] West lost to HyperLaw in its appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and certiorari was denied by the U.S. Supreme Court.[8]
After the 1986 West v. Mead decision, Mead Data and Lexis were acquired by Reed Elsevier, a large English-Dutch based publisher. During the Matthew Bender v. West case, Reed Elsevier and Matthew Bender entered into a strategic relationship, culminating in Reed Elsevier's acquisition of Matthew Bender in 1998, just after the Second Circuit appeals were argued. Reed Elsevier now was on the side of West and filed an amicus brief opposing HyperLaw and supporting West. Thus, although the name of the case might suggest that Matthew Bender challenged West on the text claim, by the middle of the case Matthew Bender was on the side of West on the text issue. Reed Elsevier's support of West's claims to a copyright in text was consistent with the initiatives, discussed below, to sidestep Feist by implementing database protection, through legislation and treaties discussed below. Similarly, during the case, West was acquired by the Canadian-based international publisher, the Thomson Corporation.
Another case covering this area is Assessment Technologies v. Wiredata (2003),[9] in which the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a copyright holder in a compilation of public domain data cannot use that copyright to prevent others from using the underlying public domain data, but may only restrict the specific format of the compilation, if that format is itself sufficiently creative. Assessment Technologies also held that it is a fair use of a copyrighted work to reverse engineer that work in order to gain access to uncopyrightable facts. Assessment Technologies also created new law, stating that it is a copyright misuse and an abuse of process if one attempts to use a contract or license agreement based on one's copyright to protect uncopyrightable facts.
In the late 1990s, Congress attempted to pass laws which would protect collections of data,[10] but these measures failed.[11] By contrast, the European Union has a sui generis (specific to that type of work) intellectual property protection for collections of data.
Other countries[edit]
The applicability of copyright to phone directories has come up in several other countries.
In Canada, the appeal-level case of Tele-Direct (Publications) Inc. v. American Business Information Inc. (1997) 76 C.P.R. (3d) 296 (F.C.A.) reached a similar result to that of Feist. However, the Supreme Court partially backed away from the originality doctrine in CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada. Under the CCH ruling, someone may assert protection in a database where the facts are themselves not copied from another source. For example, a person may assert protection in a collection of her own recipes, but she may not assert protection in a database of facts about persons and their ancestry compiled from census records.
In Australia, the Federal Court decision of Desktop Marketing Systems v Telstra ,[12] followed the UK approach in Walter v Lane and ruled that copyright law did, in fact, follow the "sweat of the brow" doctrine. However, Desktop v Telstra held, as did CCH Canadian, that collections of facts must not be copied from other sources to be eligible for protection. In 2010, the Telstra decision was overturned in a ruling by Justice Gordon in Telstra v Phone Directories,[13] following the decision of the High Court in IceTV v Nine Network.[14]
Relation with treaties[edit]
Congress has been considering whether to implement a treaty negotiated at the World Trade Organization. Part of the Uruguay Round Agreement resulted in text which states, in Part II, Section 1, Article 10:
Compilations of data or other material, whether in machine readable or other form, which by reason of the selection or arrangement of their contents constitute intellectual creations shall be protected as such. Such protection, which shall not extend to the data or material itself, shall be without prejudice to any copyright subsisting in the data or material itself.
The text mirrors that of Article 2(5) of the Berne Convention, which applies to "collections of literary or artistic works".
This treaty provision is broadly in line with the United States Copyright Act and the Act's case law, which protects compilations of data whose "selection and arrangement" is sufficiently original. See 17 U.S.C. § 101 ("compilation" as defined by the United States Copyright Act includes compilations of data). The standard for such originality is fairly low; for example, business listings have been found to meet this standard when deciding which companies should be listed and categorizing those companies required some kind of expert judgment. See Key Publ'ns, Inc. v. Chinatown Today Pub. Enters., 945 F.2d 509 (2d Cir. 1991) (applying Feist). As such, implementation of this treaty would not overrule Feist.
See also[edit]
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 499
- Lists of United States Supreme Court cases
- Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volume
- List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Rehnquist Court
- Idea–expression divide
- Threshold of originality
- Sui generis database right
- ^ Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991).
- ^ Miller, Philip H. (1991). "Life After Feist: Facts, the First Amendment, and the Copyright Status of Automated Databases". Fordham L. Rev. 60 (3): 507–539.
- ^ Publications International v Meredith Corp., 88 F.3d 473 (7th Cir., 1996)
- ^ "The Law of Recipes: Are Recipes Patentable?" (Feb 10, 2012) IPWatchdog
- ^ West Publishing Co. v. Mead Data Central, 799 F.2d 1219 Archived 2005-11-29 at the Wayback Machine (United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, 1986)
- ^ Second Circuit - Citation Appeal: Matthew Bender v. West, 158 F.3d 693 (2d Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1154 (1999) .
- ^ District Court - HyperLaw Text Decision: Matthew Bender v. West, No. 94 Civ. 0589, 1997 WL 266972 (S.D.N.Y. May 19, 1997), aff'd, 158 F. 3d 674 (2nd Cir. 1998), cert. denied sub. nom. West v. Hyperlaw, 526 U.S. 1154 (1999).
- ^ Second Circuit - HyperLaw Text Appeal Decision: Matthew Bender v. West, 158 F. 3d 674 (2nd Cir. 1998), aff'g, No. 94 Civ. 0589, 1997 WL 266972 (S.D.N.Y. May 19, 1997), cert. denied sub. nom. West v. Hyperlaw, 526 U.S. 1154 (1999) Archived May 13, 2008, at the Wayback Machine
- ^ Assessment Technologies v. Wiredata, 350 F.3rd 640 Archived 2006-05-27 at the Wayback Machine (7th Cir., 2003)
- ^ H.R. 2652, Collections of Information Antipiracy Act 1998
- ^ Armageddon on the Potomac: the Collections of Information Antipiracy Act 1999
- ^ Desktop Marketing Systems Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Limited [2002] FCAFC 112 (15 May 2002), Federal Court (Full Court) (Australia)
- ^ Telstra Corporation Ltd v Phone Directories Company Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 44 (8 February 2010), Federal Court (Australia)
- ^ IceTV Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd [2009] HCA 14, (2009) 239 CLR 458 (22 April 2009), High Court (Australia)
Further reading[edit]
- Ekstrand, Victoria S. (2002). "Drawing Swords After Feist: Efforts to Legislate the Database Pirate". Communication Law and Policy. 7 (3): 317–341. doi:10.1207/S15326926CLP0703_04. S2CID 143547945.
- Ginsburg, Jane C. (1992). "No 'Sweat'? Copyright and Other Protection of Works of Information after Feist v. Rural Telephone". Columbia Law Review. 92 (2): 338–388. doi:10.2307/1123087. JSTOR 1123087.
- Thorner, Benjamin B. (1997). "Copyright Protection For Computer Databases: The Threat of Feist and a Proposed Solution" (PDF). Virginia Journal of Law and Technology. 1 (5): 1522–1687.
External links[edit]
- Works related to Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co. at Wikisource
- Text of Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) is available from: Findlaw Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)


text:
Difference between revisions of "Theory of relativity"
m (→Fallacious Claims of Experimental Verification of Relativity)
(→Political aspects of relativity: Obama did not author this article)
|Line 316:
|Line 316:
== Political aspects of relativity ==
== Political aspects of relativity ==
Some [[liberal]] politicians have extrapolated the theory of relativity to metaphorically justify their own political agendas. For example, [[Democratic]] [[President of the United States of America|President]] [[Barack Obama]] helped publish an article by liberal law professor [[Laurence Tribe]] to apply the relativistic concept of "curvature of space" to promote a broad legal right to [[abortion]].<ref>Tribe
Some [[liberal]] politicians have extrapolated the theory of relativity to metaphorically justify their own political agendas. For example, [[Democratic]] [[President of the United States of America|President]] [[Barack Obama]] helped publish an article by liberal law professor [[Laurence Tribe]] to apply the relativistic concept of "curvature of space" to promote a broad legal right to [[abortion]].<ref>Tribe argued that the [[Constitution]] should be interpreted to establish a right to federally funded [[abortion]] and that, more generally, ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' does not go far enough. They insisted that a relativistic "curvature of space" could achieve this result by expanding application of the [[Constitution]] based on its impact on personal choice. "The ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' opinion ignored the way in which laws regulating pregnant women may shape the entire pattern of relationships among men, women, and children. It conceptualized abortion not in terms of the intensely public question of the subordination of women to men through the exploitation of pregnancy, but in terms of the purportedly private question of how women might make intimately personal decisions about their bodies and their lives. That vision described a part of the truth, but only what might be called the Newtonian part. ... [A] change in the surrounding legal setting can constitute state action that most threatens the sphere of personal choice. And it is a 'curved space' perspective on how law operates that leads one to focus less on the visible lines of legal force and more on how those lines are bent and directed by the law's geometry." Laurence H. Tribe, The Curvature of Constitutional Space: What Lawyers Can Learn from Modern Physics, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1, 16-17 (1989).</ref> As of June 2008, over 170 law review articles have cited this [[liberal]] application of the theory of relativity to legal arguments.<ref>Search conducted by [[User:Aschlafly]] in the LEXIS database "US Law Reviews and Journals, Combined," conducted June 1, 2008.</ref> Applications of the theory of relativity to change morality have also been common.<ref>"Mistakenly, in the minds of many, the theory of relativity became relativism."[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38081]</ref> Moreover, there is an unmistakable effort to censor or ostracize criticism of relativity.<ref>Although the [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|liberally biased Wikipedia]] contains lengthy criticisms of the subjects of many entries, and even though publications like ''The Economist'' recognize the lack of scientific satisfaction in the theory (see, e.g., "Weighing the Universe," The Economist (Jan. 25, 2007)), Wikipedia's entry on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Relativity Theory of Relativity] omits one word of criticism.</ref>
Physicist [[Robert Dicke]] of Princeton University was a prominent critic<ref>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,943324,00.html</ref> of general relativity, and Dicke's alternative "has enjoyed a renaissance in connection with theories of higher dimensional space-time."<ref>"Initially a popular alternative to General Relativity, the Brans-Dicke theory lost favor as it became clear that omega must be very large-an artificial requirement in some views. Nevertheless, the theory has remained a paradigm for the introduction of scalar fields into gravitational theory, and as such has enjoyed a renaissance in connection with theories of higher dimensional space-time."[http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Glossary/Essay_bekenstein.html] </ref> Despite being one of the most accomplished physicists in the 20th century, Dicke was repeatedly passed over for a Nobel Prize, and in at least one case Dicke was insulted by the award being granted to others for contributions more properly credited to Dicke.
Physicist [[Robert Dicke]] of Princeton University was a prominent critic<ref>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,943324,00.html</ref> of general relativity, and Dicke's alternative "has enjoyed a renaissance in connection with theories of higher dimensional space-time."<ref>"Initially a popular alternative to General Relativity, the Brans-Dicke theory lost favor as it became clear that omega must be very large-an artificial requirement in some views. Nevertheless, the theory has remained a paradigm for the introduction of scalar fields into gravitational theory, and as such has enjoyed a renaissance in connection with theories of higher dimensional space-time."[http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Glossary/Essay_bekenstein.html] </ref> Despite being one of the most accomplished physicists in the 20th century, Dicke was repeatedly passed over for a Nobel Prize, and in at least one case Dicke was insulted by the award being granted to others for contributions more properly credited to Dicke.
Revision as of 18:31, 24 May 2011
See also Counterexamples to Relativity.
Relativity refers to two closely-related mathematical theories in physics:
- Special relativity (SR) is a theory which describes the laws of motion for non-accelerating bodies traveling at a significant fraction of the speed of light. As speeds approach zero, Special Relativity tends towards equivalence with Newton's Laws of Motion. Special Relativity was developed by Hendrik Lorentz, Henri Poincaré, and Hermann Minkowski,[1][2] and Albert Einstein.
- General Relativity (GR) is a theory which explains the laws of motion as viewed from accelerating reference frames and includes a geometric explanation for gravity. This theory was developed by David Hilbert and Albert Einstein as an extension of the postulates of Special Relativity.[3] A dramatic but later discredited claim by Sir Arthur Eddington of experimental proof of General Relativity in 1919 made Einstein a household name.
Unlike most of physics, the theories of relativity have discontinuities whereby the limit of a physical quantity as a variable (such as mass or velocity) approaches a fixed value is not the same as the physical quantity at the fixed value. For example, the limit of momentum as mass approaches 0 and velocity approaches the speed of light is not equal to the momentum of (massless) light.[4]
More generally, and also unlike most of physics, the theories of relativity consist of complex mathematical equations relying on several hypotheses. For example, at Hofstra University general relativity is taught as part of an upperclass math course on differential geometry, based on three stated assumptions.[5] The equations for special relativity assume that it is forever impossible to attain a velocity faster than the speed of light and that all inertial frames of reference are equivalent, hypotheses that can never be fully tested. Relativity rejects Newton's action at a distance, which is basic to Newtonian gravity and quantum mechanics. The mathematics of relativity assume no exceptions, yet in the time period immediately following the origin of the universe the relativity equations could not possibly have been valid.
Relativity has been met with much resistance in the scientific world. To date, a Nobel Prize has never been awarded for Relativity.[6] Louis Essen, the man credited with determining the speed of light, wrote many fiery papers against it such as The Special Theory of Relativity: A Critical Analysis.[7] Relativity is in conflict with quantum mechanics,[8] and although theories like string theory and quantum field theory have attempted to unify relativity and quantum mechanics, neither has been entirely successful or proven.
Unlike Newtonian physics, in which space and time intervals are each invariant as seen by all observers, in SR the only invariant quantity is a quadratic combination of space and time intervals (x2 - c2 t2). The (assumed) instantaneous transmission of Newtonian gravitational effects also contradicts special relativity.
In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle suggests that virtual particles can sometimes travel faster than the speed of light which would violate causality, but "[t]he only known way to resolve this tension involves introducing the idea of antiparticles."[9] Consequently, in 1928 Paul Dirac derived the Dirac equation, one of the first quantum mechanical equations compatible with special relativity, by which Dirac predicted the existence of antimatter. Four years later, antimatter (the positron) was discovered by Carl Anderson, as successfully predicted by relativistic quantum mechanics. Quantum field theory, a generalization of quantum mechanics, is fully compatible with special relativity but not with general relativity, and still lacks a vital piece: evidence of the graviton.
- 1 Special Relativity
- 2 General Relativity
- 3 Lack of evidence for Relativity
- 4 Fallacious Claims of Experimental Verification of Relativity
- 5 Predicted consequences of the Theories
- 6 Variable Speed of Light
- 7 Pending research
- 8 Political aspects of relativity
- 9 References
- 10 External Links
Special Relativity
Lorentz and Poincare developed Special Relativity as way of understanding how Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism could be valid in different frames of reference. Einstein famously published an explanation of Poincare's theory in terms of two assumptions (postulates):
- The speed of light is constant for all (inertial) observers, regardless of their velocities relative to each other.
- The laws of physics are identical in all inertial reference frames.
In layman's terms, these two assumptions can be restated as:
- It is impossible ever to transmit information faster than the speed of light.[10]
- The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, in every location throughout the universe.
- The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, no matter how fast something is traveling (in the absence of acceleration).
Or, in more concise, clearer terms, these assumptions are this:
- there is no action at a distance (because that would make observations dependent on the frame of reference)
- space and time are completely symmetric throughout the universe (because otherwise frames of reference would not be interchangeable)
When the assumptions are stated clearly as above, the weaknesses in the theory are more apparent. There is action at a distance in quantum entanglement and apparently also in gravity, as no gravitons can be found. However, no information has yet been transmitted via quantum entanglement, so while non-locality violates the spirit of relativity it is consistent with it if relativity is limited to the transmission of information. Quantum field theory, an attempt to partially reconcile quantum mechanics with relativity, is incomplete at best. As to the second assumption, it is contrary to the arrow of time, which illustrates the lack of symmetry in time. Logical defects include the incoherence of relativistic mass (see discussion below) and the lack of relativistic constraints near the beginning the universe (see above).
Special Relativity (SR) was initially developed by Henri Poincaré and Hendrik Lorentz, working on problems in electrodynamics and the Michelson-Morley experiment, which had not found any sign of luminiferous aether, which was believed to be the substance which carried electromagnetic waves. Special relativity alters Isaac Newton's laws of motion by assuming that the speed of light will be the same for all observers, despite their relative velocities and the source of the light. (Therefore, if A sends a beam of light to B, and both measure the speed, it will be the same for both, no matter what the relative velocity of A and B. In Newtonian/Galilean mechanics, If A sends a physical object at a particular velocity towards B, and nothing slows it, the velocity of the object relative to B depends on the velocities of the object and of B relative to A.)
At low speeds (relative to light-speed), the Lorentz-Poincare relativity equations are equivalent to Newton's equations. The famous equation E=mc2, describes the relationship between energy and the rest mass of a body.
Under relativity, particles at low mass and low speed can be accurately approximated by classical mechanics (such as Isaac Newton's laws of motion). At the two extremes, modeling the behavior of electrons requires that relativistic effects be taken into account (the chemically significant phenomenon of electron spin arises from relativity), and the course light passing through a region containing many massive bodies such as galaxies will be distorted (classical mechanics, in which light travels in straight lines, does not predict this). These are both experimentally confirmed (electron spin was known before relativity arose, and telescopic observations confirm that galactic clusters distort the paths of the light passing through them).
Many scientists have indicated problems with the postulates of special relativity. Paul Davies, formerly of Macquarie University and now at the University of Arizona believes that the speed of light has changed over time. Since the speed of light is a constant speed 'c' this indicates problems with the theory light speed. Other engineers and scientist have written about problems in the basic set of special relativity equations. Based on the ideas of not Einstein but of the scientist Fitzgerald as well as others, a length contraction effect was predicted as an explanation of the failure of the Michelson Morley experiment. This idea was taken up by Hendrik Lorentz and shown by others to be a useful mechanism by which theory could be forced into conformance with experimental results. However, in 2005, Michael Strauss a computer engineer invalidated much of Special Relativity theory by showing clear contradictions in the theory. relativity
General Relativity
General Relativity is a theory of gravity that is compatible with Special Relativity. Einstein explains a thought experiment involving two elevators. The first elevator is stationary on the Earth, while the other is being pulled through space at a constant acceleration of g. Einstein realized that any physical experiment carried out in the elevators would give the same result. This realization is known as the equivalence principle and it states that accelerating frames of reference and gravitational fields are indistinguishable. General Relativity is the theory of gravity that incorporates Special Relativity and the equivalence principle.
General Relativity is a mathematical extension of Special Relativity. GR views space-time as a 4-dimensional manifold, which looks locally like Minkowski space, and which acquires curvature due to the presence of massive bodies. Thus, near massive bodies, the geometry of space-time differs to a large degree from Euclidean geometry: for example, the sum of the angles in a triangle is not exactly 180 degrees. Just as in classical physics, objects travel along geodesics in the absence of external forces. Importantly though, near a massive body, geodesics are no longer straight lines. It is this phenomenon of objects traveling along geodesics in a curved spacetime that accounts for gravity.
At one time the anomalous precession of Mercury's perihelion seemed to support the Theory of General Relativity, but increasingly accurate measurements show a divergence of the data from the theory.[11] There are other explanations based in Newtonian gravity, such as factoring in the pull of the other planets on Mercury's orbit. One Newtonian explanation requires a slight alternation to the precise inverse-square relation of Newtonian gravity to distance, which is disfavored by mathematicians due to its inelegance in integrating.
British Historian Paul Johnson declares the turning point in 20th century to have been when fellow Briton Sir Arthur Eddington, an esteemed English astronomer, ventured out on a boat off Africa in 1919 with a local Army unit to observe the bending of starlight around the sun during a total eclipse. Upon his return to England declared that his observations proven the theory of relativity. In fact recent analysis of Eddington's work revealed that he was biased in selecting his data, and that overall his data were inconclusive about the theory of relativity. The prediction was later confirmed by more rigorous experiments, such as those performed by the Hubble Space Telescope [12][13][14]. Lorentz has this to say on the discrepancies between the empirical eclipse data and Einstein's predictions.
- It indeed seems that the discrepancies may be ascribed to faults in observations, which supposition is supported by the fact that the observations at Prince's Island, which, it is true, did not turn out quite as well as those mentioned above, gave the result, of 1.64, somewhat lower than Einstein's figure.[15]
The prediction that light is bent by gravity is predicted both by Newtonian physics and relativity, but relativity predicts a larger deflection.
Special relativity is the limiting case of general relativity where all gravitational fields are weak. Alternatively, special relativity is the limiting case of general relativity when all reference frames are inertial (non-accelerating and without gravity).
Lack of evidence for Relativity
The Theory of relativity assumes that time is symmetric just as space is, but the biggest early promoter of relativity, Arthur Eddington, coined the term "arrow of time" admitting how time is not symmetric but is directional. The passage of time is tied to an increase in disorder, or entropy. The Theory of relativity cannot explain this, and implicitly denies it, specifically allowing for theoretical time travel (e.g., wormholes) and different rates of passage of time based on velocity and acceleration.
Claims that relativity was used to develop the Global Positioning System (GPS) are false. A 1996 article explains:
- "The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein's general theory of relativity would seem to require - transformations to and from the individual space vehicles (SVs), the Monitor Stations (MSs), and the users on the surface of the rotating earth, and the geocentric Earth Centered Inertial System (ECI) in which the SV orbits are calculated. There is a very good reason for the omission: the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter - less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth."[16][17]
This article, which was published in 1996, goes on to propose relativistic corrections that might be used to design more accurate GPS systems. Clocks on board GPS satellites require adjustments to their clock frequencies if they are to be synchronized with those on the surface of the Earth.
Tom Van Flandern, an astronomer hired to work on GPS in the late 1990s, concluded that "[t]he GPS programmers don't need relativity." He was quoted as saying that the GPS programmers "have basically blown off Einstein."[18] Asynchronization can be easily addressed through communications between the satellites and ground stations, so it is unclear why any theory would be needed for GPS. But other obscure physicists having no connection with GPS design claim that Van Flandern is wrong about GPS, and insist that relativity provides the best explanation for its timing adjustments.[19]
Some internet articles claim that GPS timing differences confirm the Theory of Relativity or its Lorentzian counterpart (which uses a preferred frame of reference). GPS clocks run slower in the weaker gravitation field of the satellites than on ground stations on Earth, with the effects predicted by general relativity far outweighing the effects predicted by special relativity. However, the articles claiming that the slower GPS satellite clocks confirm relativity do not address the effect, if any, of the weaker gravitational force under Newton's theory on the GPS satellite clocks.
Currently, GPS satellites are synchronized to Coordinated Universal Time by radio signals from the ground; therefore, they cannot currently be used to test general relativity.[20]
There are claims that the effects of relativity have been observed with the frequency shift of the signal being sent back to Earth several times as various spacecraft have dipped into the gravity wells around massive objects such as the sun (see image at right)[21] or Saturn[22]. A satellite called Gravity Probe B was put in orbit about the Earth to examine the effects of frame dragging and geodetic warping of space[23][24], but the results were inconclusive. Note, however, that Newtonian mechanics also predicts deflection of light by gravity, and in the initial theory of relativity it predicted the same amount of deflection.[25] Adjustments to the theory of relativity resulted in a prediction of a greater deflection of light than that predicated by Newtonian mechanics, though it is debatable how much deflection Newtonian mechanics should predict.
None of the NASA spacecraft incorporates predictions of relativity into their own timing mechanisms, as Newtonian mechanics is adequate even for probes sent deep into space.[26]
A decade of observation of the pulsar pair PSR B1913+16 detected a decline in its orbital period, which was attributed to a loss in energy by the system. It is impossible to measure the masses of the pulsars, their accelerations relative to the observers, or other fundamental parameters. Professors Joseph Taylor and Russell Hulse, who discovered the binary pulsar, found that physical values could be assigned to the pulsars to make the observed decline in orbital period consistent with the Theory of General Relativity, and for this they were awarded the 1993 Nobel Prize for Physics, which is the only award ever given by the Nobel committee for the Theory of Relativity.[27] In 2004, Professor Taylor utilized a correction to the derivative of the orbital period to fit subsequent data better to the theory. At most, assumptions can be made and altered to fit the data to the theory, rather than the data confirming the theory.
The perihelion of Mercury's orbit precesses at a measurable rate, but even after accounting for gravitational perturbations caused all other planets in the solar system, Newton's theory (assuming a precise inverse-square relationship for distance) predicts a rate of precession that differs from the measured rate by approximately 43 arcseconds per century. General relativity was developed in part to provide an estimate for this rate of precession that better matches observations.[28] [29] [30] Newton's theory can also explain this perihelion by factoring in the gravitational pull due to other planets or making tiny adjustments to parameters in the gravitational equation.
General relativity predicts twice as much bending in light as it passes near massive objects than Newton's theory might predict.[31] This phenomenon is known as gravitational lensing. A large number of instances of gravitational lensing have been observed, and it is now a standard astronomical tool.[32] [33] [34] Note, however, that the extent of bending of light predicted by Newton's theory is open to debate, and depends on assumptions about the nature of light for gravitational purposes.[35]
In 1972, scientists flew extremely accurate clocks ("atomic clocks") around the world in both directions on commercial airlines, and claimed to observe relativistic time dilation; the eastbound clock gained 273 ns and the westbound clock lost 59 ns, matching the predictions of general relativity to within experimental accuracy.[36] However, the inventor of the atomic clock, Louis Essen, declared that the experiment was inaccurate.[37] Dr A. G. Kelly examined the raw data from the experiment and declared it inconclusive.[38] The Nobel Committee chose not to honor this experiment for the significance that was claimed.
Despite censorship of dissent about relativity, evidence contrary to the theory is discussed outside of liberal universities.[39]
Fallacious Claims of Experimental Verification of Relativity
The different effects predicted by special relativity, compared to classical formulations, are extremely tiny. Most relativistic effects are negligible at the speeds of ordinary phenomena observed by humans. The effects only become significant when the speeds involved are a significant fraction of the speed of light, which is meters per second—such speeds are called relativistic. (However, it's worth noting that ordinary magnetism can be considered an effect of relativity, dictated by the need for electrostatic theory to be correct under relativity. The speed of light in fact appears in the formulas (Maxwell's Equations) governing electricity and magnetism, though these equations were developed long before relativity was proposed.)
Because the effects of relativity are so tiny, scientists have been devising sophisticated and sensitive tests ever since the theory was formulated in 1905. In fact, at the end of Einstein's original 1905 paper "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend its Energy Content?", he speculates on the possibility that the equation , which would normally be very hard to verify, could be verified with the extremely high energies of the newly-discovered phenomenon of radioactivity.[40]
Another prediction of special relativity was time dilation in rapidly moving objects. Some have suggested that this effect is verified in the anomalously slow decay of relativistic cosmic muons, but other explanations are possible for this effect. Similarly, the assertion that time dilation must be taken into account in all high-energy nuclear physics experiments is rarely backed up by specific examples with data.
Predictions of general relativity turned out to be more obscure and difficult to test. The two most famous predictions were the bending of light in a gravitational field and the precession of the perihelia of orbiting planets. The first of these was famously tested during a total eclipse in 1919. That test was somewhat muddled by an incorrect initial calculation, by several people including Einstein himself, of what the effect would be, and some "cherry picking" of the data to be used [41]. The data selection could be considered "manipulation" or "fudging", by a person (Arthur Eddington) who had a personal stake in the outcome. His analysis techniques would not pass muster today.
It should be noted that pre-relativistic (Newtonian) physics may also predict a bending, of half the observed value, depending on whether one uses the 17th century "corpuscular" formulation or the 19th century "wave" formulation.
Nevertheless, it has been verified with ever-increasing precision in subsequent eclipses, and in the observations of quasar 3C273.
The second "classical" test of general relativity was the advance of the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury. There are many complex effects contributing to this, including gravitational perturbations from other planets and the effect of the oblateness of the Sun. These are hard to calculate accurately, but, by 1900 it was known quite accurately that there was an "anomalous" precession, that is, a precession beyond all other known effects, of 43 arc seconds per century. This is a very tiny effect, but astronomical measurements were sufficiently accurate by that time to show it clearly.
This created quite a problem—physicists by then were accustomed to having their theories check out very accurately. One proposal that was made, by Simon Newcomb and Asaph Hall, was that the exponent of the radius in the gravitational formula wasn't exactly 2. He showed that, by choosing an exponent of , the precession, as a fraction of a full orbit per planet's year, is . By setting to .000000157, that is, an exponent of 2.000000157, Newcomb was able to get a precession of .000000078 revolutions per Mercury year, or 43 arcseconds per Earth year. Unfortunately, any such fudging of the exponent gives the same precession, per planetary year, for any orbiting object. This would have given the Moon a very noticeable precession, which was not observed. There may have been another effect working against Newcomb's theory. There is sometimes "intellectual inertia," a reluctance to accept new theories. This would have been particularly evident in the case of Newtonian gravitation, because the Newtonian formula, with its exponent of exactly 2, can be integrated exactly, in closed form. In fact, the invention of calculus, and mathematical physics in general, was largely founded on Newton's exact closed-form solution for an inverse square force field, and the demonstration that it exactly matched Kepler's laws. Mathematical physics would have had a very rocky start if this weren't the case. Giving up the exact Newtonian formulation, with its exponent of exactly 2, did not come easily.
While Newcomb's theory, and general relativity, don't lead to closed-form solutions, both theories can be solved numerically to as much precision as one desires.
General relativity was developed to predict this extra precession, in the amount of revolutions per planet's "year", where is the planet's average orbital speed.[42] More accurate, modern measurements of Mercury's precession differ slightly from the calculated combined effects of planetary perturbation, equinoctial precession, solar oblateness, and general relativity. The reason for this is not known.
The following table show some approximate parameters for the planets. Note that Mercury has the smallest orbit, the fastest speed, and the highest gravitational pull. Precession of planets other than Mercury is extremely hard to measure, but measurements of the actual anomalous precessions are in good agreement with the last column of the table.[43]
|Period, seconds x 106
|Semimajor axis, meters x 109
|Speed, meters/second x 103
|Gravitational force, Newtons per kilogram
|Anomalous precession, arcseconds per (Earth) century, pure Newtonian mechanics
|Anomalous precession, Newtonian with exponent of 2.000000157
|Anomalous precession, general relativity
As the 20th century progressed, more tests of general relativity were proposed. One was the Shapiro effect, involving time delay in radio signals passing through the gravity well of the Sun or a planet. Various spacecraft have confirmed this.
Another is gravitational time dilation. This is an effect separate from the time dilation of special relativity. It was tested by the Pound-Rebka experiment in 1959.
Later in the 20th century, even more subtle phenomena were tested. One was the phenomenon of gravitational radiation, or "gravity waves". These waves are incredibly difficult to observe, and have never been observed. But extremely dense binary pulsars radiate gravitational waves with sufficient energy loss that, even though we can't detect the waves from Earth, we can see the effect of the energy loss from the radiation. The extreme precision of the timing of pulses from pulsars makes it possible to observe their energy loss with great accuracy. Observations by Hulse and Taylor of the pulsar pair known as B1913+16 confirmed the energy loss consistent with the predicted radiation.
Two other effects, geodetic precession (also known as "de Sitter precession"), and frame dragging (also known as the "Lense-Thirring effect") were tested by the "Gravity Probe B" satellite early in the 21st century[44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51]. The precision required to observe this was phenomenal. The results were announced on May 4, 2011.
Predicted consequences of the Theories
Time dilation
One important consequence of SR's postulates is that an observer in one reference frame will observe a clock in another frame to be "ticking" more slowly than in the observer's own frame. This can be proven mathematically using basic geometry, if the postulates are physically true without exception.
The length of an event , as seen by a (relative) stationary observer observing an event is given by:
- is the "proper time" or the length of the event in the observed frame of reference.
- is the relative velocity between the reference frames.
- is the speed of light (3x108 ms-1).
Evidence for time dilation was discovered by studying muon decay. Muons are subatomic particles with a very short halflife (1.53 microseconds at rest) and a very fast speed (0.994c). By putting muon detectors at the top (D1) and bottom (D2) of a mountain with a separation of 1900m, scientists could measure accurately the proportion of muons reaching the second detector in comparison to the first. The proportion found was different to the proportion that was calculated without taking into account relativistic effects.
Using the equation for exponential decay, they could use this proportion to calculate the time taken for the muons to decay, relative to the muon. Then, using the time dilation equation they could then work out the dilated time. The dilated time showed a good correlation with the time it took the muons to reach the second sensor, thereby supporting the existence of time dilation.
The time taken for a muon to travel from D1 to D2 as measured by a stationary observer is:
The fraction of muons arriving at D2 in comparison to D1 was 0.732. (Given by )
Since (from the equation for exponential decay) then
This gives the time for the proportion of decay to occur for an observer who is stationary, relative to the muon.
Putting this into the time dilation equation gives:
This is in good agreement with the value calculated above, thereby providing evidence to support time dilation.
Time Dilation and Creation Science
For a more detailed treatment, see Starlight problem#Humphreys.27_model.
Creation scientists such as physicists Dr. Russell Humphreys and Dr. John Hartnett have used relativistic time dilation to explain how the earth can be only 6,000 years old even though cosmological data (background radiation, supernovae, etc.) set a much older age for the universe.
Length contraction
When two inertial reference frames move past each other in a straight line with constant relative velocity, an observer in one reference frame would observe a metre rule in the other frame to be shorter.
The length, , of an object as seen by a (relative) stationary observer is given by:
- is the "proper length" or the length of the object in the observed frame of reference.
- is the relative velocity between the reference frames.
- is the speed of light (3x108 ms-1).
Mass increase
For decades the theory of relativity taught that as a body moves with increasing velocity its mass also increases.[52]
Under this view, the mass, , of an object as detected by a (relative) stationary observer is given by:
- is the "rest mass" or the mass of the object when it is at rest.
- is the relative velocity of the object.
- is the speed of light (3x108 ms-1).
Since speed is relative, it follows that two observers in different inertial reference frames may disagree on the mass and kinetic energy of a body. Since all inertial reference frames are treated on an equal footing, it follows that mass and energy are interchangeable.
There is a logical difficulty, however, to an increase in relativistic mass. Such increase would only exist in the direction of motion, and the rest mass would remain intact with respect to a force applied in a direction orthogonal to velocity. Neither mass nor energy is a vector, and the notion of the mass of an object having different values depending on the direction of an applied force is illogical. In recent years most physicists have shifted away from Einstein's original reliance on relativistic mass and his suggestion that mass increases. Instead, most physicists today teach that
where is the momentum defined by , is the standard Lorentz factor, and is the proper time. Force F defined this way is a vector and thus can handle the directional aspect of the relativistic effects better than the concept of relativistic mass can.
The abandonment by physicists of the concept of relativistic mass, however, has the consequence of undermining the traditional claim under relativity that
also popularly known as
Now a concept of the 4-momentum of a particle is taught, such that the square of the magnitude of satisfies:
in any inertial reference frame. The magnitude of the 4-momentum, in any inertial frame, equals the rest mass of the particle (in units where ).
Variable Speed of Light
The Theory of Relativity implies that physical constants like the speed of light have remained constant. But at least one study suggests that physical constants, and possibly even the speed of light, have changed as the universe has aged.[53]
"For the first time, scientists have experimentally demonstrated that sound pulses can travel at velocities faster than the speed of light, c. William Robertson's team from Middle Tennessee State University also showed that the group velocity of sound waves can become infinite, and even negative. ... Although such results may at first appear to violate special relativity (Einstein's law that no material object can exceed the speed of light), the actual significance of these experiments is a little different. These types of superluminal phenomena, Robertson et al. explain, violate neither causality nor special relativity, nor do they enable information to travel faster than c. In fact, theoretical work had predicted that the superluminal speed of the group velocity of sound waves should exist. 'The key to understanding this seeming paradox is that no wave energy exceeded the speed of light,' said Robertson."[54]
"A team of researchers from the Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) has successfully demonstrated, for the first time, that it is possible to control the speed of light – both slowing it down and speeding it up – in an optical fiber, using off-the-shelf instrumentation in normal environmental conditions. Their results, to be published in the August 22 issue of Applied Physics Letters, could have implications that range from optical computing to the fiber-optic telecommunications industry."[55] Both slowing down and speeding up of light within a substance other than a vacuum is made possible, because the light travels through the material, and that material affects the speed of light, i.e. a photon hits an electron, which then exits and emits a slightly lower energy photon out in the direction that the original photon was traveling, thus maintaining conservation of momentum. No matter how transparent an object may appear, it radically impacts the speed of the light traveling through it, as demonstrated by the refractive production of a rainbow by a crystal, which Newton himself discovered.
"A pair of German physicists claim to have broken the speed of light - an achievement that would undermine our entire understanding of space and time. ... Dr Nimtz told New Scientist magazine: 'For the time being, this is the only violation of special relativity that I know of.'"[56]
Pending research
Today some physicists are working on hypothesizing how general relativity might have related to the other three forces of nature during the first fraction of a second of the Big Bang. Two of the more commonly studied attempts are string theory and loop quantum gravity, but they have failed to produce any evidence that science mandates a science must have, and both typically take large amounts of work to even conform to what scientists believe. Critics increasingly point out that string theory and loop quantum gravity are largely untestable and unfalsifiable, and thus potentially unscientific under the principles of science advanced by Karl Popper.[57]
Relativity continues to be tested and some physics professors remain skeptical of the theory, such as University of Maryland physics professor Carroll Alley, who served as the principle physicist on the Apollo lunar project.[58]
Political aspects of relativity
Some liberal politicians have extrapolated the theory of relativity to metaphorically justify their own political agendas. For example, Democratic President Barack Obama helped publish an article by liberal law professor Laurence Tribe to apply the relativistic concept of "curvature of space" to promote a broad legal right to abortion.[59] As of June 2008, over 170 law review articles have cited this liberal application of the theory of relativity to legal arguments.[60] Applications of the theory of relativity to change morality have also been common.[61] Moreover, there is an unmistakable effort to censor or ostracize criticism of relativity.[62]
Physicist Robert Dicke of Princeton University was a prominent critic[63] of general relativity, and Dicke's alternative "has enjoyed a renaissance in connection with theories of higher dimensional space-time."[64] Despite being one of the most accomplished physicists in the 20th century, Dicke was repeatedly passed over for a Nobel Prize, and in at least one case Dicke was insulted by the award being granted to others for contributions more properly credited to Dicke.
There has been little recognition by the Nobel Prize committee of either theory of relativity, and particularly scant recognition of the Theory of General Relativity.
Government Support for Relativistic research
The Theory of Relativity enjoys a disproportionate share of federal funding of physics research today.[65] In at least one case that research has been unsuccessful. The $365 million dollar LIGO project has failed to detect the gravity waves predicted by relativity.[66]
- ↑ "German mathematician who developed the geometrical theory of numbers and who made numerous contributions to number theory, mathematical physics, and the theory of relativity." Hermann Minkowski -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia
- ↑ Hermann Minkowski, Biography
- ↑ "[T]he German mathematician David Hilbert submitted an article containing the correct field equations for general relativity five days before Einstein."Nobel Prize historical account
- ↑ Discontinuities in General Relativity are also well-recognized. See, e.g., [1]
- ↑ http://people.hofstra.edu/Stefan_Waner/diff_geom/tc.html
- ↑ Increasingly the Nobel Prize Committee has attempted to relate its physics awards to Relativity in some way, including perhaps 20 of the more recent prizes.
- ↑ http://ephysics.fileave.com/physics/Essen/oxford5-essen.pdf
- ↑ For example, Relativity claims that space and time are smooth and continuous, while quantum mechanics suggests otherwise. [2] Relativity also denies action-at-a-distance, while quantum mechanics suggests otherwise. Relativity denies any role for chance, while quantum mechanics is heavily dependent on it.
- ↑ http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2004/wilczek-lecture.pdf (p. 102)
- ↑ This assumption is commonly restated in this manner. For example, a discussion of hypothetical tachyons talks "about using tachyons to transmit information faster than the speed of light, in violation of Special Relativity."[3] However, there is some question whether the Theory of Special Relativity really restricts faster-than-light communication of information.
- ↑ Counterexamples to Relativity.
- ↑ Hubble Gravitational Lens Photo
- ↑ Gravitational Lensing
- ↑ [4]
- ↑ Lorentz, H.A. The Einstein Theory of Relativity
- ↑ http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf
- ↑ Some do claim that relativity is "vital" to GPS even though GPS developed independently of theoretical predictions and theoreticians disagree about how the relativistic effects for GPS should be calculated. See id. See also [5]
- ↑ http://archive.salon.com/people/feature/2000/07/06/einstein/index.html See also [6], where Van Flandern discusses how relativistic corrections might improve GPS accuracy.
- ↑ Ibid.
- ↑ "General Relativity in the Global Positioning System." Neil Ashby, U. of Colorado
- ↑ Saturn-Bound Spacecraft Tests Einstein's Theory
- ↑ Encounter with Saturn confirms relativity theory
- ↑ NASA Gravity Probe B mission page
- ↑ Gravity Probe B project page
- ↑ http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-03/6-03.htm
- ↑ There is no reported reliance on relativity by any space probe.
- ↑ http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1993/press.html
- ↑ http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node98.html#SECTION032121000000000000000
- ↑ http://www.alberteinstein.info/gallery/pdf/CP6Doc30_English_pp146-200.pdf
- ↑ http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/336k/lectures/node117.html
- ↑ http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-03/6-03.htm
- ↑ http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/features/news/grav_lens.html
- ↑ http://astro.berkeley.edu/~jcohn/lens.html
- ↑ http://www.iam.ubc.ca/~newbury/lenses/glgallery.html
- ↑ http://cosmictimes.gsfc.nasa.gov/1919/guide/gravity_bends_starlight.html
- ↑ Hafele-Keating Experiment
- ↑ Louis Essen, Electron. Wireless World 94 (1988) 238.
- ↑ A. G. Kelly,Reliability of Relativistic Effect Tests on Airborne Clocks, Monograph No.3 Feb.1996, The Institution of Engineers of Ireland, ISBN 1-898012-22-9
- ↑ http://scitizen.com/screens/blogPage/viewBlog/sw_viewBlog.php?idTheme=8&idContribution=922
- ↑ This is perhaps the most famous, most widely quoted, and least understood equation ever written. It is not related to quantum mechanics.
- ↑ Einstein's Luck, John Waller, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-860719-9
- ↑ That is a simple approximation, designed to relate the precession to the planet's speed relative to the speed of light. A more accurate approximation is , where a is the semi-major axis and e is the eccentricity.
- ↑ http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm
- ↑ http://prl.aps.org/accepted/L/ea070Y8dQ491d22a28828c95f660a57ac82e7d8c0
- ↑ http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/306430
- ↑ http://www.nap.edu/html/gpb/summary.html
- ↑ http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/73870/title/Gravity_Probe_B_finally_pays_off_
- ↑ http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/
- ↑ http://einstein.stanford.edu/
- ↑ http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/space-flight/the-gravity-probe-b-bailout
- ↑ http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/06/nasa-concludes-gravity-probe-b-space-time-experiment-proves-e/
- ↑ For example, this was taught as recently as in the 1991 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica.
- ↑ James Glanz and Dennis Overbye, "Cosmic Laws Like Speed of Light Might Be Changing, a Study Finds," August 15, 2001.[7]
- ↑ http://www.physorg.com/news88249076.html
- ↑ http://www.scienceblog.com/light.html
- ↑ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/08/16/scispeed116.xml
- ↑ See, for example, Not Even Wrong, by Peter Woit
- ↑ http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/21jul_llr.htm
- ↑ Tribe argued that the Constitution should be interpreted to establish a right to federally funded abortion and that, more generally, Roe v. Wade does not go far enough. They insisted that a relativistic "curvature of space" could achieve this result by expanding application of the Constitution based on its impact on personal choice. "The Roe v. Wade opinion ignored the way in which laws regulating pregnant women may shape the entire pattern of relationships among men, women, and children. It conceptualized abortion not in terms of the intensely public question of the subordination of women to men through the exploitation of pregnancy, but in terms of the purportedly private question of how women might make intimately personal decisions about their bodies and their lives. That vision described a part of the truth, but only what might be called the Newtonian part. ... [A] change in the surrounding legal setting can constitute state action that most threatens the sphere of personal choice. And it is a 'curved space' perspective on how law operates that leads one to focus less on the visible lines of legal force and more on how those lines are bent and directed by the law's geometry." Laurence H. Tribe, The Curvature of Constitutional Space: What Lawyers Can Learn from Modern Physics, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1, 16-17 (1989).
- ↑ Search conducted by User:Aschlafly in the LEXIS database "US Law Reviews and Journals, Combined," conducted June 1, 2008.
- ↑ "Mistakenly, in the minds of many, the theory of relativity became relativism."[8]
- ↑ Although the liberally biased Wikipedia contains lengthy criticisms of the subjects of many entries, and even though publications like The Economist recognize the lack of scientific satisfaction in the theory (see, e.g., "Weighing the Universe," The Economist (Jan. 25, 2007)), Wikipedia's entry on Theory of Relativity omits one word of criticism.
- ↑ http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,943324,00.html
- ↑ "Initially a popular alternative to General Relativity, the Brans-Dicke theory lost favor as it became clear that omega must be very large-an artificial requirement in some views. Nevertheless, the theory has remained a paradigm for the introduction of scalar fields into gravitational theory, and as such has enjoyed a renaissance in connection with theories of higher dimensional space-time."[9]
- ↑ The Democratic Congress insisted on the $250 million LIGO project despite substantial criticism by scientists that it was wasting scarce research dollars. John Travis, "LIGO: a $ 250 million gamble; Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory; includes related article," Science p. 612 (Apr. 30, 1993). "Adding to the acrimony is LIGO's $ 250 million price tag, which some hold responsible for NSF's recent funding woes." Id.
- ↑ http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2002/sept/gravitywaves/index.html
External Links
- The Einstein Theory of Relativity, by H.A. Lorentz.
- Relativity Calculator - Learn Special Relativity Mathematics The mathematics of special relativity presented in as simple and comprehensive manner possible within philosophical and historical contexts.


text:
Floyd protest: Hundreds protest in Rehoboth Beach FridayFloyd protest: Protestors confront policeFloyd protest: Protestors march through Wilmington on FridayFloyd protest: Protestors gather at courthouse
Floyd protest: Hundreds gather in Wilmington Friday nightPrivate security helping to protect BPG property in WilmingtonProtestors focusing on more than FloydSurf fishing at Delaware State Parks
Philadelphia protest: Police gas protestors marching against police violence on freewayRaw video: Philadelphia protestors sprayed with pepper spraySix women come forward about harassment at New Castle County Police DepartmentRep. Blunt Rochester reacts to racist hack of Zoom meeting.
Watch Next
Jeremy McDole protest: Protesters arrive at state buildingJeremy McDole protest: March continues through the streets of WilmingtonFirefighter speaks about rescuing swimmers from Murderkill


text:
Why go anywhere else if you have computer or console related issues to talk about?
Use this control to limit the display of threads to those newer than the specified time frame.
Allows you to choose the data by which the thread list will be sorted.
Order threads in...
Note: when sorting by date, 'descending order' will show the newest results first.
Forum Rules


text:
How Do I Find Inner Peace?
When you learn how to look, where to center the focus of your attention, and how to experience the actual reality of your own being, you begin to sift through the maelstrom of thought and find that inner peace and wholeness that make all of life complete and perfect.
Have you ever really studied the needle of a compass?
It is a paragon of poise, dancing and spinning with grace and perfect balance on a single point.
You may be noticing how fragile and weak this appears, yet that perfect balance and sense of direction guides great expeditions and explorers who quickly become lost without it.
Your life can be like that compass needle, where from the lightest touch you can discover the inspiration that clearly and wisely guides you, or you may feel like your compass needle has fallen from its center point and it rattling around on the floor of the case, loose, off its mooring, static, devoid of the energy and direction that gives it life.
With the right tools and insight you could reposition your compass needle in its rightful place, at home in its freedom and function, and you can learn the same kind of techniques to gain clear insight into the issues that govern your own life.
Here are the prerequisites: 1) You have to be sufficiently open minded to learn something new. It's not entirely new, you are rediscovering your own identity, but if there is a hard crust of conventionality that refuses to yield, you may never find it. 2) You have to be willing to devote sufficient time to experiencing the wholeness of life, and your own identity. Learning any skill can take some practice and an understanding of the basic principles that govern its operation, but what can you tell me that is more over arching in importance, relevance, power, harmony, joy and effectiveness than understanding the nature of your own identity and finding inner tranquility?
How Do I Find Inner Peace? Your Secret Treasure Within, A Step-By-Step Guide, Beginner to Advanced, by Daniel M. Dreifus gives you techniques, insights, ideas and understanding to discover your greatest gift. Nothing can replace the value of inner calm, not fame, accomplishment, relationship, wealth or work.
Is Peace Possible?
Let me share a secret with you. Not only is it possible, you can open a new way of seeing the world that is practical and will increasingly become indispensable to you. You don't have to be subject to discordant conditions as you find the techniques and truths, that allow you to access deeper aspects of your own being. Go to the step by step guide.


text:
Warriors Orochi 3 HYPER
Warriors Orochi 3 Hyper to have over 130 characters
The already expansive cast of Warriors Orochi 3 has been further expanded for the Wii U's Hyper edition.
Warriors Orochi 3 HYPER headlines
Tecmo Koei Wii U titles all day-one digital - report
According to GoNintendo's interpretation of a 4Gamer report, all Tecmo Koei games released on Wii U in Japan will launch day-and-date on the console's eShop. The three Japanese Wii U launch titles are all cheaper online than at retail, too – Warriors Orochi 3 Hyper (¥7,140 retail, ¥6,300 eShop), Romance of the Three Kingdoms XIII […]
Wii U: 'CPU is less powerful than Xbox 360 & PS3, causes challenges' - Tecmo
Wii U's CPU is less powerful than those found in Xbox 360 and PS3, Dynasty Warriors producer Akihiro Suzuki has revealed. The developer has also explained why this causes challenges when developing games for the platform.


text:
Blame The Hat
Hate to see pitchers show up their fielders, even on a dumb play. But even in that context, more power to John Lackey. If he'd gone over and thrown either Erick Aybar or Chone Figgins to the ground after their collective moronity in the bottom of the first in the Bronx, I wouldn't have made a citizen's arrest.
7 Comments
Any thoughts on taking Pedro out of the game, anyone? I didn't see the game, but looking @ his numbers just now, it looks like he pitched a fantastic game. 1-0, Phillies in the lead, when he left the game.
It must have been a heart wrenching loss for Phillies fans.
"I can see how Sandy Koufax won twenty-five games. What I don't understand is how he lost five." – Yogi Berra
"Citizen's arrest", you say? Does this mean you were at that game on a damp, chilly day, when you had a cold/flu? I know the series is exciting, but do take care of yourself, first. 🙂
Regarding the miscommunication, perhaps players need to use hand signals in situations where it's hard to hear a teammate's voice?
Loved the "Get Smart" Cone of Silence reference, BTW. That show will always be a classic.
As for the Phillies/Dodgers series, I don't mind if those coincidences are a dumb reason to pick the Dodgers. I'll take anything that even remotely resembles a reason for Philadelphia losing. LOL!
Incidentally, if they do ultimately lose this year, could you continue to avoid Phillies home games in future seasons? 😀
On a more serious note, feel better soon!
It's funny how all these "fundamentally sound" teams like the Twins and the Angels suddenly get the jitters when they have to play the Yankees, the most fundamentally solid team in baseball.
Was it A-Rod round third on that play? Maybe he pulled another one of his "Ha" moments like he did in Toronto a few years ago.
Not only did Lackey show up Ayaba, but Scioscia gave him an earful in the dugout.
Believe me, I love the fact you're picking the Dodgers over the Phillies, but you seem to have forgotten 1983 (perhaps you were not actually alive in '83, and are now a zombie?). The Orioles and a young Cal Ripken, Jr. defeated the Phils in the Fall Classic that year.
In fact, further research has shown that the team Philadelphia defeated 3-1 in the NLCS to reach the 1983 World Series, was in fact, the Los Angeles Dodgers. So the Dodgers are trying to get payback not only for last year but for 26 years ago too!
Keith's comments about Lackey reminded me of a story about the Yankees. David Wells was pitching when Derek Jeter, then still a youngster, made an error, and Wells glared at him and threw his hands up in the air. When the inning was over and Wells got back to the dugout, Joe Torre grabbed him, pulled him into the runway, and told him that he had never seen Jeter do that when Wells threw a bad pitch, nor had he seen opposing players do that when Jeter had gotten a big hit or made a big catch to save Wells. Wells got the message and apologized to Jeter.
As to how and when the Phillies win, if their legendary announcing team had found out, the crew would have been Harry the K, Whitey, and KO! But as a Dodger fan, I'll just say, thanks, Keith, for not going to a game this year. We need all the help we can get.


text:
Muskrat Falls hydroelectric project clears major hurdle
Stephen Harper announces $6.3B loan guarantee in Labrador Friday
- Muskrat Falls has a projected budget of $7.4 billion
- Loan guarantee is expected to lower the cost of borrowing for Labrador megaproject
- Prime Minister Stephen Harper pledged support for guarantee during last year's election campaign
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has announced a federal loan guarantee for the controversial Muskrat Falls hydroelectric project, clearing the final major hurdle to launching the hydroelectric project.
Harper announced in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Labrador, this afternoon that the federal government has signed a deal with the governments of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, and their provincial energy companies, Nalcor and Emera.
"The Lower Churchill projects will receive the support they need to move forward, which will have significant economic and environmental gains due to a substantial reduction in greenhouse gas emissions," said Harper.
A number of politicians were on hand for the announcement, held at 5 Wing Goose Bay Military Base, including Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Kathy Dunderdale, Nova Scotia Premier Darrell Dexter, and federal cabinet ministers Peter Penashue and Peter MacKay
The guarantee will substantially lower the costs of borrowing for the project. It will cover project-related debt of up to $6.3-billion. It applies to the Muskrat Falls Generation Station, plus three transmission links, the Labrador transmission interconnection, the link from Labrador to Newfoundland, and the link from Newfoundland to Nova Scotia.
The loan guarantee will be valid for 35 to 40 years.
It will be managed by Natural Resources Canada, and the Government of Canada will work with a financial adviser to "ensure that the support provided to the projects is financially responsible to Canadian taxpayers"
Dunderdale has said final approval of the guarantee will clear the way for what is called sanctioning of the project, or the formal green light.
Harper pledged the loan guarantee during the 2011 federal election campaign.
The guarantee effectively is the last piece of a complex puzzle that the Newfoundland and Labrador government has been assembling for years to generate power on the Churchill River and launch the $7.4-billion project.
Although the loan guarantee will substantially lower borrowing costs for the project, it will be up to the project proponents to seek other arrangements for the remaining $1.1-billion in financing.
But even without the loan guarantee, Newfoundland and Labrador was moving ahead with Muskrat Falls, to the consternation of opponents who see the project as financially ruinous or environmentally risky.
Protesters, Quebec government voice opposition
A group of protesters outside the gates of the base said earlier this afternoon that they were disgusted with what they called a lack of consultation over the entire Muskrat Falls project.
They have accused the federal and provincial governments of stealing from Labrador and not listening to various aboriginal groups.
"I think it's a slap in the face for the equality and justice that we as Labradorians have been seeking for many years," said protester Petrina Beals. "They're continuing to do the same things that they have done over the years and they're totally disregarding what's happening in our region, and not listening or talking to the people."
The Quebec government has also made it clear that it is furious about the loan guarantee.
Alexandre Cloutier, Quebec's intergovernmental affairs minister, said Quebec never received that type of help from Ottawa for its hydroelectric development.
"The federal government is acting against a Quebec interest using Quebecers' money to deploy a federal grant to Labrador and that will have a bad impact on the Quebec economy," fumed Cloutier.
He added that Quebec has been looking at its legal options to fight the deal.
Interprovincial politics have played a key role in Muskrat Falls, as Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia have partnered to find a way to deliver power to other markets while bypassing Quebec.
Muskrat Falls project work already started
Earlier this year, Nalcor — Newfoundland and Labrador's Crown energy corporation — began clearing forests to build roads and infrastructure for the Muskrat Falls site outside Happy Valley-Goose Bay. Nalcor has argued that costs would mount substantially if it waited a year before launching that preliminary work.
It will take several years to dam Muskrat Falls and build a generating station, which will pump out 824 megawatts of power. Much of that will be funnelled by subsea cables from Labrador to Newfoundland, with as much as 40 per cent of the power marked to head to Nova Scotia by an additional set of subsea cables.
Nova Scotia connection vital
Halifax-based Emera Inc. is a partner in the Muskrat Falls project, and will be responsible for marketing its share of the energy.
Muskrat Falls has come in for steady criticism from a number of groups, some alleging that it has not undergone an independent review through the Public Utilities Board, which ruled this winter it could not proceed because Nalcor had turned over too little information in time for it to meet a government-imposed deadline.
Other concerns have been raised about whether Newfoundland and Labrador, which is poised to launch the most expensive project in its history, can afford the debt load that will come from the project, and whether ordinary ratepayers will in effect be footing the costs of the project.
As well, the leaders of Newfoundland's Liberal and New Democratic parties have threatened to filibuster technical legislation that will need to be introduced to clear the way for Muskrat Falls.
They have also criticized Dunderdale for setting only a couple of hours for formal legislative debate of Muskrat Falls, and at that through a private member's bill.
Cheapest option available: Dunderdale
But Dunderdale, who has said Muskrat Falls has undergone intense scrutiny by experts and the public, has consistently said Muskrat Falls represents the cheapest option to supply power to Newfoundland and Labrador consumers.
The government has launched a public relations campaign to help persuade the public that Muskrat Falls represents a stable source of renewable energy that will be cheaper than relying on alternatives, including burning oil at the Holyrood generating station the government would soon like to decommission.
Muskrat Falls has been more than three decades in the making, and is a key part of what is known as the Lower Churchill energy project. The current plan does not involve another site at Gull Island, which if developed could generate substantially more power.
Newfoundland and Labrador has had a strained relationship with Quebec for decades, due largely to the 65-year contract with Hydro-Quebec over the Churchill Falls generating station. Under that deal, which expires in 2041, Newfoundland and Labrador sells power at a flat, inexpensive rate to Quebec, which has been able to resell the power to other markets while keeping the profits.


text:
(PRWEB) April 24, 2014
It is no secret that the heart is the ultimate symbol of love. Keeping the heart healthy is a splendid way to show love and to show others that one cares about them. However, the brain is just as an immense a player in one's emotions and the magnetism one feels towards those one loves. A complex cocktail of chemicals formed in the brain entices one to fall in love—and stay there. As a result, Xocai's XoLove Bites are the perfect "love food."
As the category creator and world leader in healthy chocolate, the true vision of Xoçai Healthy Chocolate is to transform and improve individual lives worldwide through its exclusive and healthy chocolate products.
Xocai's proprietary cold-processed dark healthy chocolate is nature's ideal food. Chocolate is such a dominant vehicle for demonstrating one's love for others, that entire holidays (e.g. Valentine's Day) virtually revolves around it. Best of all is that the Xocai XoLove Bites combine the best of Xocai's healthy chocolate with established ingredients like L-arginine and Maca to boost energy and emotional well-being, enhance sexual health, and improve quality of life.
Adam Paul Green of Detroit, MI is a highly successful MXI Corp; Xocai Healthy Chocolate Ambassador, who is happy to announce the Xocai XoLove-Bites launch special offer to Saitama, Japan distributors. This offer is only for a limited time, with the Hashtag# Kakao
Chocolate Intrigue – A Fascinating White Paper on the Origin of Chocolate
About MXI Corp: Established in 2005, Marketing Xocolate International Corporation (MXI-Corp) is the world leader in great tasting, healthy, dark, chocolate products. MXI Corp was founded upon the same solid foundation that the Brooks' family used to build their enormous Pure Delite Low Carb Chocolate company (circa 2000) which had retail sales in Wal-Mart, 7-Eleven, Rite-Aid and Walgreen's of over $300,000,000. All MXI products are focused on potent doses of delicious, antioxidant-rich Belgian cacao. MXI-Corp believes that the high levels of natural antioxidants and Polyphenols that are found in its cacao can provide a viable solution to individual nutritional needs. The Xoçai™ (sho-sigh) line, which currently includes nine products, is manufactured utilizing a cold-press process, which preserves the nutritional values of the company's proprietary blends of vitamins and minerals. MXI is recognized as the category creator and world leader in healthy chocolate. The vision of Xoçai is to transform and improve individual lives worldwide through its unique chocolate products. One unique element of the company's formulations is their proprietary high-antioxidant blend of cacao, açaí and blueberries, called XoVita™. The Xovita ingredient combination is exclusive to Xoçai. Nevada-based MXI-Corp is a privately held company. Xoçai's nine chocolate products have the highest ORAC (antioxidant-measuring test) and flavonoid rich products available on the market. The Brooks family, owners and operators of MXI-Corp, have total combined chocolate sales of more than $1 billion. MXI Corp is now operating internationally in 41 countries. Adam(at)adamPaulGreen(dot)com http://www.adampaulgreen.com/partnership 1-801-809-7766
Xocai Healthy Chocolate White Paper - 2013
Adam is Searching for 6 Entrepreneurs


text:
Use Wi-Fi
Learn how to connect to an open, secure, or hidden Wi-Fi network. You can also create a new Wi-Fi network.
Connect to a Wi-Fi network
Click in the menu bar, then choose a network. If Wi-Fi is off, click , then select Turn Wi-Fi On.*
If you connect to a public Wi-Fi network, a window might appear with terms and conditions you're asked to agree to before you can connect.
Connect to a secure Wi-Fi network
Secure Wi-Fi networks are password-protected and have by their names.
- Click in the menu bar. If Wi-Fi is off, click , then choose Turn Wi-Fi On.*
- Choose a network.
- Enter the password, then click Join. If you don't know the password to the Wi-Fi network, contact the network administrator.
Connect to a hidden network
- Click in the menu bar. If Wi-Fi is off, choose , then choose Turn Wi-Fi On.*
- Choose Join Other Network.
- Enter the network name. Make sure you enter the network name correctly.
- If the network is secure, choose the Security type, then enter the password.
- Click Join.
Learn what to do if you can't connect to a hidden network.
Create a Wi-Fi network
If you have Internet service at your location, you can connect an AirPort base station or a third-party router to your modem to create a Wi-Fi network. Use the setup guide for your AirPort base station, or check your third-party router's manual for help.
* If you don't see the Wi-Fi icon in the menu bar, you can add it back. Choose Apple () menu > System Preferences, click Network, click Wi-Fi, then select "Show Wi-Fi status in menu bar".
Use Personal Hotspot
With most carrier plans, you can share the cellular data connection of your iPhone or iPad (Wi-Fi + Cellular) with your Mac.
Use Ethernet
To connect to the Internet over a wired connection, connect an Ethernet cable between your router or modem and the Ethernet port on your Mac.
Some Macs require an Ethernet adaptor like the Belkin USB-C to Gigabit Ethernet Adaptor, or the Apple Thunderbolt to Gigabit Ethernet Adaptor.


text:
Stone Gargoyle: Class 4 (this ghost takes up a 2x2 square)
To Hit: 5+
To Trap: 2 Ghostbusters (no more than 2), 1 stream each (see Special).
When Hit: Moves 1 space towards attacking Ghostbuster
When Missed: Moves 2 spaces towards closest Ghostbuster
When trapped: Nothing (See Special)
Special: (Destroyed) When trapped, immediately place this entity into the Spirit World.
Each Ghostbuster can only apply 1 stream to this entity.
The Ghostbusters who trap this entity each gain 2 XP instead of 1 XP.


text:
I Need 3000 Dollars Right NowIf you want to get a fast 3000 dollar loan with bad credit today, where do you think you can borrow $3000 from lenders who don't mind the fact that you have a low credit score? When your credit rating is fair or just poor, sometimes that may not be enough to convince mainstream lenders such as banks and financial institutions to give you a short term installment loan of 2000 dollars, so what chance is there to borrow $3,000 with guaranteed no credit check?
You can skip the bank if you are looking for 5000 direct installment loan lenders for bad credit. There are hardly any online banks that offer bad credit personal loans with no cosigner required and any attempt to apply for a 4000 dollar loan will only likely damage your credit records further.
Where To Borrow 3000 With Bad CreditSo, the question is, who can lend me 3000 dollars now? Although you may not be able to find a low interest installment personal loan, you should be able to get short term loans from direct loan lenders that give instant guaranteed loans for people with bad credit or no credit history at all. If your credit is really bad, such as below 600, there are few places for you to borrow money with no credit check and it is rare for you to get a 3000 dollars unsecured loan with bad credit.
But you are not without any alternative as direct payday loan providers do offer a short term cash advance which you can borrow 500 to 1000 dollars with your paycheck as collateral. You do not need good credit to get an online 300 dollars payday loan for 30 days but you do need to have income to qualify for them. Showing them your past payslips for the last 3 months or a letter of appointment from your company should suffice and if you need a payday loan for self-employed, they usually want to check your tax returns for the past 2 years.
3 Month Installment Loans With Bad CreditAlthough you cannot find 3000 dollars payday loans since it is illegal for lenders to offer more than 1000 dollars, there are some payday loan companies that offer short term 3 month installment loans with bad credit, or 90 day installment loans as they call it. It is something of a gimmick or to get round the ruling on payday lending which caps the amount of money that payday loan providers can offer to consumers. Anyhow, with these unsecured installment payday loans, it is possible that you may find the solution if you need to borrow 3000 dollars and pay back by monthly installment repayments.
When getting a monthly installment loan for 3000 dollars, be sure to compare the interest rates and make sure you are able to afford the repayments as the longer you stretch your repayment, the more interest you need to pay. The recommended debt to income ratio is to keep it below 30-35% so look at your own finances first before you take out any long term loan.