swansont

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.

Your demonstrated understanding of relativity is insufficient for you to properly assess this. People who understand it better have tried to correct you. Case in point: Since relativity is based on the speed of light being invariant, “changes speed relative to light” makes no sense. Any inertial observer will measure their speed relative to light to be c, because light always moves at c. (though it’s light moving at c; the observer can say they are at rest, and light does not represent an inertial frame)

The energy is insufficient to do that, and that’s not the source of the work - the magnetic field does not get depleted by attracting something. As I’ve pointed out before, something is holding, pushing or pulling the magnet. The magnet is like a chain used to lift something; it exerts a force, but that’s not where the energy comes from.

! Moderator Note This is soapboxing, a violation of rule 2.8. - you’re just repeating stuff, without acknowledging corrections offered by people who know what they’re talking about You can ask questions to improve your understanding but no more explanations from you on this topic.

Nope. That’s your caricature of the theory, but isn’t what it says. I know that Janus has posted gifs of the signals that demonstrate what’s going on. They might clear up your misconception if you can find them. “Aging” suggests there is some frame where we know the truth about the earth, and that’s not part of relativity, where there is no preferred frame. This brings to mind what I said about disentangling what one observes and what the theory says is going on. i.e. what you see and what you measure are not the same thing edit: I can’t find the animation, but here’s a worked example https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/51704-special-relativity-can-you-explain-the-paradox/#comment-563535

You can calculate the age without math? That’s a pretty neat trick. How is not consistent? There must be some incorrect prediction SR makes for one to deduce that.

Enough said, no?

You said the CMB is the rest frame, so we are not at rest wrt the ether. I notice you did not address why the M-M experiment got a null result.

A motor needs to be connected to a source of electricity, which provides the energy to run it. It’s not from anything stored in the wires.