moth

I think It's bad rhetoric. blame the messenger and control the narrative so it's about a young woman, not climate.

No snacks or beer!

Should it be "approaching zero seconds" to avoid the wrath of Heisenberg? Is it okay to have fuzzy position info when we're concerned with velocity?

I think i remember that thread. I can't remember if it got into shooting the light across the diameter. At high enough angular velocity would the beam hit the detector directly at the other side, or would it appear to curve (from the rotating frames perspective)?

I was just looking at the wiki for rapidity and realized this is about where I got stuck on vector calculus. Just a quick question: if y=arctanh x, does that mean x=tanh y ? edit2:Another quick innumeracy related question, hyperbolic trig functions map points on a hyperbolic curve to points on the x,y axis the same as trig functions map points on the unit circle to the x,y axis? Thanks

Does this mean c might be the same value but velocity vector has changed? Edit: Velocity vector sounds redundant. i mean the magnitude of c is the same, but the trajectory is different?

I see hints that the velocity of light is different than c in non-inertial frames, but not how it would be different. Here's one:

I was thinking about a high rate of acceleration more than high velocity. When the speed of light is discussed in Relativity, they always specify "in a vacuum when measured from an inertial frame of reference". I was wondering if there are any predictions of what velocity would be measured for the speed of light from a non-inertial frame.

If you could get into a really fast centrifuge with a device that measures the speed of light, would you see different values for c? If so, would the measurements be both higher and lower than c or just one or the other?

Wikipedia has some examples of "cramps to Amps" too. I'd be happy if i could just interface my stationary machine to trigger the next image from google street view so i could take a walk anywhere on earth.

If you could define what you mean by void and real as in "real particles" it might help. Sometimes you say the void is filled with real particles and that is hard to understand.

It sounds like you are conflating the measurement effect with Heisenberg uncertainty

Why does a perfectly good detector fail, by your estimation, just because a funny shadow from a double slit falls on it?

will you admit detection is a kind of observation?

how can you test something that is unobserved?