What about this new vibrating glove therapy? I guess that also only affects the symptoms, not the underlying causes, right?

https://news.yahoo.com/scientists-develop-glove-eliminates-parkinson-132644329.html

[removed]

How would the neutrinos perceive each other's (and their own) velocity relative to the start point?
The most cohesive answerer I can think of is that they would see the other neutrino as still at the start point, and therefore everything at the start would appear to be frozen in time.
Which makes sense, since no new information could catch up with them without going faster than light

Interesting. At the time I don’t remember them being described as microscopic. But it was many years ago.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

>how come we treat Parkinson's by flooding the brain with dopamine

That's the neat thing! You don't.

You flood the brain with stuff to make dopamine, which lets the surviving SNc neurons release more dopamine, essentially amplifying the signals of the ones that are left. If they all died, L-DOPA treatment wouldn't work. Again, the really important thing is the neurons, what inputs they get, how they process those inputs, and where they send their outputs, not which chemical they are releasing. In fact, most work on realistically simulating the activity of networks of neurons doesn't even bother to simulate neurotransmitters in any way, except to say "when this neuron fires, that one gets excited by +2millivolts after a delay of 2ms" or something to that effect.

So in the valve analogy, it's like we're increasing the water pressure so that the semi-busted toilet valve can still sort of function.

[removed]

The speed of light can be calculated using the vacuum permittivity ε0 and vacuum permeability μ0 established by Maxwell's theory: c2 = 1/(ε0μ0).

Einstein used this fact to show that the speed of light in a vacuum must be constant in every inertial frame, thus relative.

Because permittivity and permeability are constant in electromagnetic theory, c must have always been c.

[removed]

[removed]

Science is today not about why it's about how . That's a huge difference and the split started around that time. This split is what allowed modern science to exist before this there would be great discussions about why a stone should move where . Newton s work is all about measuring and equations, why something falls whether it's God's will or the Natural resting place of the stone doesn't matter so you can move on to measuring how fast or how predictable which is way more useful

[removed]

In an expanding universe things like distance and speed become ambiguous at large distances, with several sensible definitions that all give the same results under normal circumstances suddenly disagreeing. When it comes to distance, this is due to the expansion of space changing the scale of the universe while light is traveling towards us, so effectively changing things in the middle of our measurement. When it comes to speed, it is due to the difference between things moving apart because of their own motion, or things moving apart because new space appeared between them.

As a rough analogy for the former, imagine two ants separated by a piece of string they can walk along, but they're currently standing still. Now someone cuts the string and splices in a much longer piece of string between the ants. The ants didn't move, but now the distance between them (along the string = through space, in this analogy) is much longer. Does that mean the ants had a huge relative velocity when the splicing took place?

It's up to you, really, but I think most of us would prefer to factor out the expansion part and only include the moving part in the definition of velocity. In cosmology, this definition of speed is called peculiar velocity, and would not be particularly lage for two objects on opposite sides of the observable universe.

All of these complications go away if you only look at nearby objects. It's relative speed between two objects close to each other that's limited to 299792 km/s.

Ok

[removed]

Magnification is not a property of the glass alone, it depends both on the glass and the distances. You can choose the magnification based on these distances (three in this case: object to first glass, between glasses, second glass to eye or screen).

[removed]

[removed]

I'd also add that people more versed in metaphysics thought all things tend to move to their natural state, which for things being on earth

I got into physics because of Einstein, but I'm pretty well convinced Newton now was the real boss. If he were here today, he'd still be making groundbreaking contributions. Also worth mentioning his eureka moment was not realizing gravity was responsible for apples falling to the ground, but realizing that one and the same thing could explain that, the orbits of planets and ocean tides. The popular picture we have of him doesn't do him any justice at all.

They didn't have good math either. Newton (and others) made up calculus, but not just that.

Even the abstract notation of polynomials and equations, by using letters to represent variables, was kind of new in Newton's time. This was due to Viete, in XVI century, and I would guess it was one of most important inventions for math and science ever.

Imagine how it was to study equations by saying "the double of the square of a quantity plus three times the same quantity is equal to 5"

It will become continuously dimmer and redder, eventually moving into radio frequencies. If dark energy persists, the CMB frequency will halve (wavelength will double) every ~12 billion years.