Leaderboard

I read that Egyptians have use "Mexico" as secret code for Al-Sisi to avoid censorship since they’re not allowed to criticize his regime. If that’s true, the mixup doesn’t seem so strange.

Go into your Leg settings and turn on Fibulove and Patellamour....

Completely understand. I hope your recovery goes well. Definitely don't push it, we're a patient lot here... well @dimreepr isn't, but the rest of us are!

The fanbase recently started a GoFundMe campaign to cover his costs after the latest Judge Engoron ruling. The GoFundMe allegedly raised around $84,000 in the first 24 hours - which equates to around 0.01% of the billion or so that TFG will need to cover all his legal costs, fines and interest payments. That's a "long row to hoe" as they say.

There is no lumeniferous aether. Light can't have infinite velocity without matter containing infinite energy (also goodbye magnets). It just doesn’t make sense to talk about something moving faster than c. C just is - because it is specific in its relation to other things. Basic causality has a finite speed limit, which has nothing to do with some sort of aether.

45 years ago President Carter has helped me to escape from the USSR.

Moreover, it is not necessary for c to be a speed of anything. It is a coefficient in the spacetime metric.

Sure. He lied about his wealth, and if he takes this money to pay his bills, that’s just more confirmation that he lied. Hammer home the message about him being a liar. Attack ads on Trump will be a rich medium this summer. I would mock his new sneaker line. “Does it give you enough agility to dodge indictments?”

I asked our benevolent overlord Dave about the ad settings, and apparently Google AdSense enabled "vignette" ads without asking us. He's turned them off now. Hopefully that's the end of the issue and they don't find another more irritating thing to turn on.

This looks like another example of “enshittification” : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enshittification Cory Doctorow gave an excellent lecture on this in January. Here is a link to the transcript. It’s very well written, rather in the style of Michael Lewis’s Liar’s Poker: https://doctorow.medium.com/my-mcluhan-lecture-on-enshittification-ea343342b9bc Long, but very readable - and worth the read. He muses that we may be entering the enshittocene era.

No worries. I've been away too long myself. 1st from p.c troubles, then other causes. I will get back to this topic asap, currently recovering from surgery to both wrists a day ago, makes this typing too difficult yet...

I will try to explain to the best of my abilities ( and without giving demerit points ), even though I sometimes find the situation ridiculous myself. Words are defined by context. In reproductive Biology there are only two sexes, because an idealized male of the species is needed to reproduce with the idealized female of the species. However, in modern Fashion, it is difficult to define male clothing and female clothing, as there is a huge amount of overlap These are extreme examples, so before Phi calls them 'flippant, and non-serious', I should explain further. I'm of Southern European discent, and in the summer my skin is darker than a couple of black individuals that I know. Yet, if I 'perm' my hair into tight curls, and 'identify' as black, I cannot use the 'N' word, as that usage is now based on a shared cultural experience. If their group uses the term,it brings them together, if others use it, it offends. And I understand that, and am fine with it. When it comes to the term 'woman', however, that term is still in general usage, and some people feel free to include themselves in the group denoted by that term. And I can sort of understand that also. Some feminists, however, and people like J K Rawling, are wondering why women don't deserve to 'own' their shared cultural experience as they have a much longer history of oppression all over the world. And I can understand that too. The confusing part, for me, is that we choose to avoid offending people who want to identify as 'women' by not letting the group own their shared cultural history, and 'owning' the term, and continuing to be oppressed. Doesn't seem very enlightened to me, and very possibly needs more discussion, not less. But what do I know, I usually get neg reps also when discussing similar subjects, as if discussion is not needed ( or wanted ).

Because we’ve done experiments. A medium has to have properties, and have a measurable effect on light. I think the most significant (=notice_able) affect on light is the medium slows down light (e.g. due to the medium's mass (density). The reverse (logic) would be: light would travel at infinite_speed in NO time(_delay) if there were NO medium. Does light go so fast e.g. at infinite_speed taking NO_time? NO it does NOT. So what is slowing light down? Perhaps a medium? The devil is in the detail(s). That'( i)s what bugs me. Michelson threw a distraction into the project at the very 1st to distract sidetrack & confuse (us), with an uncleared topic=theme, just to divert us. E.g. (To) Waste & exhaust our brainpower. Einstein used a similar method too (early in his career with other themes). Tired we wouldN'T bother further to search. That'( i)s NOT true. Michelson's 1st attempt in 1881 failed as NOT suitable for the search. In that paper he clearly stated Maxwell's recommendation to abandon terrestrial forth & back light experiments on Earth (in favor of astronomical observations of Jupiter's moons). Maxwell stated (=predicted) ONLY a (useless*) tiny wee observation* would be observable with such forth_&_back light experiments (that Michelson intended) on Earth (because he (Maxwell) had done a similar (although NOT identical) experiment, years before (his death). (*E.g. much less than 1% observed, when more than 50% would be needed to decide). But (Maxwell was) talked out of publishing it (by Stokes) because it would have insulted Fizeau. Maxwell mailed the (bidirectional, forth & back) experiment_calculations to Higgens (who eventually published it as a letter). Stokes found a 3 page letter (note) (for the 1_way Jupiter astronomy observation proposal) after Maxwell died & rated it as "important"! Michelson read that 3 page note & rejected it stating any observation could be made no matter how small (& tiny). But he (=Michelson) was NOT prepared for the thermal (noise) motion. His (=Michelson’s) original 1881 experiment flopped. Later in 1887 he (=Michelson) teamed up with the chemist Morley to perform the (Earth's speed v) experiment in (Alexander Graham) Bell's lab(s). The telephone inventor because of his (=Bell’s) sick wife. Granite slab floating on Mercury hindered (=reduced) vibration in the cellar. Michelson managed to synchronize the 2 90° multi_reflected light_beams between 5 cm metal mirrors each about 8 times for the extra_distance needed for increased accuracy. According to the calculations the beams a NOT suppose to meet because of too much (time) delay, but they did. & there is 1 (asymmetric 90°) path with enough tolerance in which both beams are equally delayed, fig 2 (1887) if the bean goes straight up hitting the mirror at 90° (instead of slanted up at an angle) & then diagonally down. The sketch Fig. 2 also demonstrates inconsistency in the input incident (45° mirror) angle, compared to the further reflection (at 90°, above). E.g. More carelessness. 1 footnote 1887 mentions a (confusing) correction to 1881. Michelson was astounded that the results were so small & (thus) questioned whether the medium existed at all. Physicists did NOT want to hear about Michelson’s results expecting an answer (explaination) would be found later. A decade past & Michelson’s WRONG experiment was an eye_sore, even for Lenard. Michelson did NOT get a Nobel prize for his Earth speed experiment 1887 because he proved NOTHING, there. (You do NOT get a Nobel prize for disproving something; you get a prize for finding (=discovering) something.) Einstein also did NOT get a Nobel prize for Relativity. Instead, Michelson received the 1907 Nobel Prize privately for his diffraction_grating Echelon spectroscope experiment(al accuracy) 1898 because the Swedish King died 3 days before. So there was NO party, instead mourning. Michelson continued (WRONGLY) experimenting for the Earth’s speed til his death because he also could NOT believe light had NO medium. But hey, tuff luck if he CAN’T take Maxwell’s advice. Maxwell said abandon that kind of (2_way) experiment; use something more effective (a 1_way experiment). Who was right? Maxwell or Michelson? Maxwell was right. Something very tiny was observed (by Michelson 1887). But so small! (<<1%) Michelson was also right he could measure something very small; but (unfortunately) it was useless scientifically; because it was the WRONG kind of experiment. He wanted to challenge the famous Maxwell to disprove him. Absolute egoism. It was NOWHERE near what was needed. (>50%); & verged on randomness! Was Michelson successful? Did he accomplish what he had set out to do? Partly. Qualitatively we would like better results. I mean, Michelson should have found (absolutely NOTHING=) ZERO results (if the medium did NOT exist) but he did NOT. Instead, he (=Michelson) found what Maxwell predicted. E.g. A slight disturbace which could be attributed to the glass_thickness (medium’s speed change) of the 45° half silvered mirror. That leaves us with the speculation, 1. would a large chunk of glass in 1 of the paths help improve that (M&M) experiment’s results, to increase the notice_able delay for a greater time_delay between the 2 light_beams? 2. A simpler 1_way experiment is needed. E.g. A (simple) laser aimed at a wall many meters away & the tiny light spot’s position(al motion) observed (either (far_away) with a telescope or (near) with a microscope). Light falls, but sound does NOT (fall). The difference being their medium.