swansont

Photoelectric effect is basically the same as photoionization of an atom, for a single photon. Photon in, electron out. edit: an LED is not doing this

On what, specifically?

But one thing you notice is that such leaders are always around. Before this it was Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-il, Nicolae Ceaușescu, Pinochet, Idi Amin, Khaddafi, and more, and that’s only going back ~50 years I don’t think I was saying BISS, or really making an argument (or advocating a position) as much as I was poking holes in what you were presenting.

Plenty of people without expertise participate here. The ones doing it successfully generally ask questions to fill in the gaps in their knowledge rather than pontificate in areas where their knowledge is deficient, and defer to those who know more.

Aging is a biological process. Time is time. Time passes at a different rate (i.e. frequency) in different reference frames Because that’s what happens in the Doppler effect. Red shift is shifted toward longer wavelengths and blue shift toward shorter. It’s observed to happen, so there’s no point in denying it.

Physical time? You keep using expressions like this, and they make no sense. The speed of a wave is frequency*wavelength The frequency increases by the same factor as the wavelength decreases. These terms cancel. The speed of the wave is the same. These are the same thing And you’re wrong. The speed of the wave is constant (it’s right there in the math) since both frequency and wavelength are changed.

That’s not what pop-science is. At least that’s not what most people mean by it. You can get science studies on places like arxiv, but it’s not written for the general public. They are preprints of articles that end up in journals. Definitely not meant for the general public. pop-sci typically removes most of the math, and with it, a lot of the rigor and ability to actually do science with the information If models aren’t getting it wrong, why do we need new ones?

I don’t know what you mean by “simultaneity must vary physically” Things are simultaneous or not, and it’s a temporal effect. Events that are simultaneous in one frame are not simultaneous in other frames. The earth twin sends out a continuous signal at some frequency, with some wavelength. The space twin travels at some speed, and sees this signal as red-shifted - they get the crest of one wave, but have moved away before the next crest can reach them, so they measure the signal with a longer wavelength and lower frequency. Then they turn around, and are now moving toward the source. They get the crest of one wave, but have moved closer before the next crest reaches them. Since the signal was sent continuously, this happens immediately - the light is already there to be detected. They measure the crests as being closer together and with a higher frequency. Blue-shifted. I can’t fathom why you think this would not happen as soon as they started moving toward earth.

I’m not sure what this even means. c being invariant has certain consequences, two of which are time dilation and length contraction Physics is chock full of mathematical constructs, so it’s not like this is a strike against physics. It’s not relativity, either. It’s a straw man of relativity. You’re the only one here saying the earth ages suddenly, and you’re not a credible source on the topic.

And when it’s a scientist it’s often slanted toward the views of individuals who make themselves available, but are commenting on topics outside their area of expertise, like Michio Kaku. Or just don’t have the background to understand the nuance that’s involved. (which the author might lack. see e.g. any quantum teleportation piece that mentions Star Trek) By and large pop-sci is journalists and not scientists, and the two groups don’t always get along. Who else would interpret the meaning of the evidence? When there’s some new result, we don’t necessarily know what it means. It takes time to figure that out. Until there’s a consensus it’s irresponsible to claim that we know what the evidence means. What you can do is make your argument, but the final decision has to wait for more evidence. IOW its description of subatomic behavior was wrong. What are current models getting wrong?

Given the numbers of each, conventional weapons don’t have to be as hazardous from a chemical standpoint to have a greater cumulative effect. TNT and RDX are toxic and possibly carcinogenic https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RDX And this should be scaled to the amounts created for weapons

I think you are mistaking pop-science journalism with science. I can’t reconcile either of these statements Science is performed by the scientific community. Any shifting is from them. Not all surprising results pan out, so it’s not prudent to chase after them until they are confirmed, and one result might not be nearly enough to formulate a new model. If a model is not wrong - it accurately predicts/matches results - then what constitutes a better model? There has to be some discrepancy between model and experiment for there to be improvement in the model. i.e. there has to be something that it gets wrong.

I thought your position was that science doesn’t shift; these are quotes that imply that this is indeed happening. If models need to be replaced, they have to be shown to be wrong. You haven’t shown that. I recently saw there were some interviews on “new physics” and one of the comments, from Chad Orzel, was "Will there be new physics? We’re not done with the old physics yet". i.e. we know where the holes are in physics and where new physics is needed, but there’s a lot of science to be done in the established areas of physics. I think the same applies to biology.

There hasn’t been much nuclear plant construction in the US in the last 30 years, at least in part because of public opinion, so not much to actively protest on that front.

My point is why the focus on nuclear waste? It’s similar with energy generation - the phobia about radiation when burning coal causes lots of disease and death, but somehow we’re sorta OK with it; the pushback on coal is minuscule when compared to nuclear. Unused conventional weapons are eventually discarded, and this does cause issues. Many countries banned the practice of dumping them in the ocean because of the problems, like the toxicity of TNT and RDX. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014111362030862X The existence of nuclear power means there will be nuclear waste, so getting rid of the weapons doesn’t eliminate the problem

It’s more than whether it’s a force. Work requires a force acting through a displacement. A centripetal force, for example, does no work because force and displacement are perpendicular. Pressure is not an energy, but pressure can do work.

But the situation was that there was a war; bombing was already in play. I would not be surprised to find that other weapons have carcinogenic effects. (it’s contended that it’s the cause of higher cancer rates at the bombing range at Vieques, Puerto Rico). Heavy metals are used and can be toxic. Is depleted uranium a conventional weapon?

This brings us back to the issue of why using the bomb is considered bad, but using conventional weapons is acceptable. It can’t be the number killed, when it was pointed out that ~100k were killed firebombing Tokyo, which is comparable to the numbers killed at Hiroshima and at Nagasaki.

You might note that Einstein is saying there is no symmetry in Lorentz’s formulation, since you have a preferred frame. The symmetry is there in relativity because there isn’t - either frame gives a valid description.

Provide a link to where you got that. Did Einstein write it?

Projection. And the best defense is a good offense.

! Moderator Note I invite you to follow the rules, and post the material you wish to discuss. You’ve been told this before.

Patently wrong. What’s clear is that you don’t understand what’s going on. The redshift and blueshift should be quite obvious from the equations. The change from one to the other should be, too. I you move away from me, a signal from either one of us will be redshifted. If we move closer, the signal will be blueshifted. That’s in the equation; it’s from the sign of v. The signal that has not arrived yet does not “know” if you are moving toward or away from me. But if it’s already on the way, the transit time has already passed. As soon as you change direction, you’ll detect the signal that was just about to arrive.

Provide links to where Einstein made the claims you are attributing to him. I don’t think you can, because I think you’re just making this up, i.e. these are your misinterpretations of relativity.

Depends on the configuration, but one question to ask is how the nail and magnet got close enough for this to happen. Permanent magnets don’t turn on, and these objects don’t magically appear close enough to each other for this to happen.