exchemist

6 hours ago, mistermack said:

It is now, but that's not what John the Baptist was doing, The idea of original sin was thought up about 300 years after the death of Jesus, so for John it was just taking a Jewish "cleansing" or "purification" practice to a more extreme level, and maybe making it an initiation into his cult following. 

Agreed. But then we are discussing how baptism evolved.

8 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I don't think Jews baptise. They do use water in some rituals, sort of purification rituals. Their initiation ceremony is ritual male genital mutilation, circumcision. And the male boys are generally named at the same time. Girls are named in a little ceremony a few weeks after birth, as far as I'm aware. 

But then baptism is a sort of purification ritual too, symbolically washing away Original Sin, if I remember correctly.

1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

They seem to be suggesting it's a building block for life, which runs contrary to this statement.

Don't be ridiculous, it doesn't at all. A building block is not evidence of a building. A brick is a brick, not a house.  

Phosphates are just one ingredient, of many, that would be needed to support terrestrial style biochemistry.

2 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

NASA would beg to differ...

"Phosphorus, the least abundant of the essential elements necessary for biological processes, hadn’t been detected until now. The element is a building block for DNA, which forms chromosomes and carries genetic information, and is present in the bones of mammals, cell membranes, and ocean-dwelling plankton. Phosphorus is also a fundamental part of energy-carrying molecules present in all life on Earth. Life wouldn’t be possible without it."

So what? All that says is phosphorus is needed for terrestrial biochemistry.

If you actually read the paper, and take in what it says, it is quite clear about the mineral processes that lead to orthophosphate, i.e. the anions of the inorganic acid phosphoric acid, being present in the water.  The finding is interesting in that people had thought one of the difficulties in life getting going elsewhere might be the relative lack of phosphorus compounds. In the case of Enceladus there seems not to be this deficiency. That's all. 

10 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Fascinating article here, relating to phosphorous being found on one of Saturn's moons, Enceladus.  Phosphorous is a key building block of life and is located in Enceladus' subsurface oceans.   Data was beamed back recently by the Cassini Mission. 

Here's the article from JPL:  https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/nasa-cassini-data-reveals-building-block-for-life-in-enceladus-ocean  This page has a cool interactive walkthrough which describes how they first noticed the plumes of ice crystals, then identified the sub-surface oceans which likely contain liquid H20, and how confirmation was established as to the presence of phosphorous. 

The paper:  https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-05987-9

Once humanity truly becomes a space faring species, I believe we will find that life on other planets is the norm, not the exception.  If only Nasa were allocated more than a minuscule 22 billion USD per year...which is less than 1% of the annual budget.  

_{Seen as a bright arc in this 2006 observation by Cassini, Saturn’s E ring is fed with icy particles from Enceladus’ plume, creating wispy fingers of bright material that is backlit by the Sun. The shadowed hemisphere of the moon can be seen as a dark dot inside the ring.}

 _{Credit: NASA/JPL/Space Science} 

_{-----------------------}

 

Oops.  Wrong place.

Perhaps a moderator can move to Science News?

OK so the water is alkaline, due to dissolved bicarbonate and carbonate and this favours leaching into solution of orthophosphate - which they think they have detected.

(The element is phosphorus by the way. Phosphorous is an adjective like phosphoric, e.g. phosphorous acid is H₃PO₃, whereas phosphoric acid is H₃PO₄.)

The presence of phosphate is explained as due to wholly inorganic mineral processes, i.e. there is no suggestion its presence is any kind of signature for life on Enceladus. 

7 hours ago, JeffJo said:

Yes, the effect on any one incoming ray is the same as what you call "color separation." No, when seen as a whole, the effect on the resultant image is not due to that effect. Different colors from different parts of the original end up in the same place, not "separated" at all. And the reason I make this fine distinction is because many people believe, incorrectly, that the green band in a rainbow is completely "separated" from red. They believe that, because they attribute the rainbow to "color separation." And that is wrong.

What happens in prisms, only happens when there is a single ray of incoming white light (or parallel rays that extend in the same direction as the axis of the prism, so that the paths from different incoming rays experience the exact same deflections). What happens is that each color is deflected to a different place than any other color.

What happens in lenses and raindrops, where different rays do not experience the same deflections, is that the size of the resultant image varies by color.

I must admit I don't see the difference. Surely the reason why the images for different wavelengths are different sizes is because refractive index is a function of wavelength, i.e., because of dispersion and thus refraction through different angles, just as it is for a prism?

The light is spread out into a spectrum by this process, i.e. the colours are separated, in both processes, surely?   

5 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

But of course, it's called context.  How can you make an informed judgement about reality if you don't take into account the entire holistic context, i.e. all the events that impact on a particular topic?  

In my view the evidence of this incident is pretty solid.  Multiple eye-witnesses, multiple video recordings of the UAP.  Video footage of the creatures.  Enough for me.  

There are no recordings of any "UAP" , only of the fireball which was widely reported and has a completely conventional explanation. 

35 minutes ago, swansont said:

These are of the green falling object, right? That something fell is not in dispute. Don’t substitute this for the video of the alleged beings.

Nobody claimed this, and presenting a straw man makes your position less credible.

Further, it’s not entirely clear that one can claim that whatever caused the fireball landed in the yard. Some people are just assuming this.

That's putting it mildly. It is plain that the object did NOT land anywhere that has been found - and most likely did not reach the surface at all.  Given this fireball was reported by 21 different individuals, spread across 4 states of the USA, it clearly must have been a very high altitude phenomenon and travelling very fast.  This is not AT ALL consistent with something "landing" in someone's back yard - and then mysteriously taking off again. 

5 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Yes, I'm serious.  If you pay attention and watch the video, the creature is clearly visible.   Furthermore the anatomical appearance of each creature is pretty much identical, with the same eyes and cranial structure.  One is visible in Profile while the other can be seen more or less facing the camera.  This can't be explained away as an artifact, in my opinion.

It always seems to be the implication.  Every "normie" involved in the incident is hallucinating and can't be trusted.  The family who video taped the creatures - they're imagining what they saw, there's no way they could be credible witnesses or the video they took legitimate.  It's the usual dismissive posture people take and have taken, for this incident and many others.

I'm not referring to this particular incident as the cascade of events; rather the numerous preceding incidents such as Ariel School and Varginha, the many witnesses from the military such as David Fravor, the USS Nimitz crew, David Grusch - the whistleblower who just testified before Congress on the crash retrieval program, Ryan Graves, the F-16 pilot who talks openly about how he and other pilots saw UAPs on almost a daily basis, and many, many more examples. 

These incidents have established sufficient precedent and context in my view, to make the incident in Las Vegas not entirely improbable.  Combined with the corroborating factors at play in this incident in Vegas, and yeah, I think this is legit. 

 

Aha, I thought as much. So you are trying to drag in other - unrelated - reports, over a period of years, as evidence that this incident must have involved an alien landing, even though the evidence from the incident itself is pisspoor? I'm afraid it doesn't work like that. We are discussing this one incident, to see what merit the claims have. The evaluation stands or falls on the quality of evidence from the incident itself.   

Just now, John Cuthber said:

What evidence do you have that the current is low?
What would limit it?

The limit is due to the amount of static charge that can accumulate on the ball at the top of the generator before discharge occurs. There is no capacitor present. Once discharged the belt has to run for a number of seconds before a second discharge is possible. 

It's diving back into my ancient A-Level physics but, as I recall,  you can calculate the charge present on a conducting sphere to generate a given electric field strength. And you know when the breakdown field strength of air is exceeded, because that's when it discharges, to whatever object is brought a certain distance away from it. 

Thinking more about it, though, you may have a point in that the above is arguing the charge is low, rather than the current i.e. the rate of charge flow, during the instant of discharge. If it all discharges in a microsecond, ten the instantaneous current could be high, I suppose.

45 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

 

Not if you look closely.  On a 27 inch monitor the being closest to the family is highly visible sitting in the cab of the vehicle. 

Frankly, I don't think any video or photographic evidence is enough for some people.  Even if the video were shot in broad daylight of an alien it would be explained away as CGI or some visual effects trickery.  

For me its the confluence of factors coming together that lends legitimacy to this event. 

1.  The numerous credible eye witnesses who have come forward recently, including those in government and military circles.

2.  Credible documented accounts of close encounters with beings of unknown origin (BUOs) - to coin a new acronym.  

3.  The multiple angles from different cameras (Ring doorbell cam - officer's Bodycam), combined with the authentic footage from the family of encounter with the actual creature.

This cascade of events creates in my view a probability that this is encounter actually happened as described.  

 

Right, the entire story was fabricated by a group of individuals in that town working together.  The video was staged to get viral views, for money.  Is that it?

From what I have seen, there is no "cascade of events". The fireball, we can safely say, is a perfectly normal phenomenon. So forget that. It's only function in this tale has been to make some people panic and start imagining things.

There are no "credible documented accounts of encounters with beings of unknown origin" anywhere in this episode, so far as I can see, nor have any "military" people been involved, just a few cops who saw nothing themselves either.

There is no "entire story" to fabricate, just a small group of people who got in a panic and called the cops.     

Where are you getting all this extra stuff from about documented sources and military people?

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

As a rule those are not independent variables.
Ohms law tells you how to calculate on from the other.

Does anyone know why this myth persists?

Why not?
Twelve volts is twelve volts.
 

Surely the operation of something like a Van de Graaf generator would explain why this isn't entirely a myth? High voltage, but very little charge, so you get a shock but little current and no danger.  

5 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Ok, I just located the complete video set, which shows the body-cam footage, the Ring doorbell cam of the unknown object crashing, and the video from the actual family as they approach the backyard to investigate what landed there.

The family are clearly terrified as they approach the back gate that leads to where the vehicles are parked.  The father remarks in Spanish about seeing two creatures with big eyes looking back at them.  The family retreats from the gate - one family member is armed.  In addition to the raw video, the youtube host filtered the video for low light to make it easier to see the alleged beings who are located about 40 feet away behind two large vehicles, which appear to be construction vehicles.

If this video is not doctored or fabricated in any way, this appears to be a remarkable and genuine piece of evidence of two intelligent biological organisms of unknown origin.

 

Nothing “crashed”, that’s obvious from the widespread fireball sightings I linked earlier, but which you have opted to ignore.

So all we’re left with is the uncorroborated testimony of these panicky people. The video footage shows nothing. 
 

It’s a total non-story.

9 minutes ago, swansont said:

It’s reminiscent of ghost hunters who record sounds, and then “enhance” them to extract sounds. It’s noise (data noise) so something in it is likely to sound like something, if that’s what you filter to find.

And add in looking for faces/shapes, which is pareidolia

I was also amused by the interpretation of someone stammering a bit as hiding something, rather than being unpracticed in ad-libbing in front of a camera. When all you have is a hammer, etc.

Quite. Seeing what you want to see. But for me the fireball reports (21 of them)  from across 4 states is pretty decisive.  I searched "1st May meteor Las Vegas" and got that link straight away. Funny that people predisposed to attribute these reports to aliens don't take the elementary precaution of running a few simple checks before committing themselves to their preferred version of events.   

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

More video has been released, some of it cell phone footage of the aliens themselves! I can't see them but maybe you can. 

 

 

That's fairly obviously a meteor, or re-entry of some space debris: https://ams.imo.net/members/imo_view/event/2023/2408 

Note that sightings were reported across four US states. So it clearly wasn't a local phenomenon, like a spacecraft landing in the vicinity of the town. 

And the "alien" picture could be anything at all. 

Move along ladies and gents, nothing to see here. 

56 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

No, its been assumed to have been observed.  This stuff is not like looking art a girl in a red dress, she is either there or not. But with EVERYTING to do with SR, experiments magically and conveniently, the 'observations" are about invisible particles, speeds that can't be confirmed, only calculated, and incredible assumptions. No alternative explanations are entertained. 

Anyway,  as I've said before, no experiment can prove relativity, and no interpretation of what's going on with light is slam dunk. You are kidding if you believe that its all beyond contest. 

But regardless, you have admitted that the ONLY basis for SR is now in the interpretation of observations.

Because rational analysis of the hypothesis leads nowhere.

So I've proved my point.

Next,, Am I supposed to spend the next few decades digging up any alternative interpretations and criticisms of experiments that claim to support SR., just to show you what obvious?  That NO amount of observations can PROVE SR. And the ones cited CAN BE OTHERWISE interpreted.  None of this is supporting information is beyond question. 

 

1. what exactly was Newton unable to account for? And why does his inability necessitate all his laws being discarded? There were other alternatives keeping with Newtons Kinematics that could solve the issues.

4. There is something a bit suspicious about the claims that there could exist a "universal constant" for Permittivity and permeability of "Free Space" that just happens  to reveal the same magic number claimed for Light speed. Permittivity and Permeability are PROPERTIES, and properties (height, weight, hardness, temperature, colour, density, ANY Property is a property of some OBJECT. Energy is even a property of some object.  So how can you claim that you have measured the Property of NOTHING?   Free Space, has no  properties, that is part of its definition, if there are measurable properties, then there is something there to which those Properties are associated. So clearly you are NOT measuring the "Free space" , you are measuring something to do with those plates, a property of the plates and the energy contained. and how the associated energy can bridge the gap.

Thus it can only be a clever fudge to come up with such "universal constants", which magically were able to back up some other claims. The value of those constants is almost identical to the measurement of Wood, some metals, and a whole list of other substances. How come NOTHING measured has the same value as solid plastic or wood? Meaning that EM waves travel through glass, wood plastic and some metals as fast as in a vacuum.???

6. Newton's mechanics does actually conform perfectly to that Principal. Why do you say it does not? By confusing the constancy of motion with a measurement of that motion I bet.

7. I bet you are still using that same error about constancy and measurements yet again.

Any imagined inability of Newtons mechanics can be solved by the correct understanding of constancy and how measurements are not the same thing.

 

Not at all. I'm choosing to focus on the observations because you've had a good run with @Mordred on the derivation of the theory and I can't do that as well as he can, as I'm only a chemist. But in the end, in science, observations are what count. How the theory was derived may be interesting intellectually, but the test of a theory is whether it predicts observations correctly.

You seem not to have engaged at all with the examples on time dilation and mass-energy equivalence I gave you earlier. Why is that? 

50 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

But its Ok for you to pretend that those observations are in fact the only possible explanations? Even though they are made by people who have a vested interest in supporting Einstein? There is no possibility of error or misunderstanding something? 

Yes, the independence of light from the source or receiver may very well be demonstrable reliably, but that is not the same as saying that the measure of light speed is independent of its origin of measurement. Never been done, not even possible to demonstrate or test. For the same reason why they haven't measured the speed of light in a one way experiment. 

So let's sum up about experiments:  No experimental evidence to support things changing length, 

no experimental evidence that proves that Time has changed. Evidence shows that clocks get out of wack, but this is not the same thing as time warping, its only wacky clocks due to physical changes. There is no possible way to prove that Time itself is dilating.   No one knows what Time is anyway how you going to show that its changed?

Next, Mass increase.  Experiments consist of the calculation heavy results of "observing" the apparent invisible hypothesised particles and figuring out what may have occurred. Particle Physics is hardly a strong branch of Physics these days, haven't you heard? And finally to show that the predictions that result form Einstein's theories are terrible, we only have to look at the belief that the hypothesis (which includes Einstein's theories) that 95 % of the whole universe is missing.  No one stopped to think about how stupid this conclusion was, they never stopped to think, gee, clearly our prediction is incredibly, wildly wrong, indicating that the theory is based on total nonsense.

Actually the whole idea of Mass increase was recognised quite early as being totally silly and could never be explained. So they don't mention it now, its all just SR is length contraction and Time Dilation.  In a stupid move, they try to claim that Mass is actually Momentum,, yes, of course Einstein the Genius wrote Mass many times, but really was meaning to write Momentum. and that swap is probably the most stupid thing I've read about  Physics. Mass is NOT Momentum. Foe decades they had the excuse that there was a big difference between rest Mass and relativistic Mass.  Decades later after those expert professors who understand SR, had been teaching this at Uni, they realised that this duck and dodge excuse was also stupid, so now they have just gone back to Mass is Mass. The current duck and dodge will have something to do with quantum, its the ultimate duck and dodge tool ever conceived.  In any case Mass increase in Einstein's Paper was clearly nonsense.

You are NOT using the scientific method when you say that the theory can't be explained, cant be understood, contains rational errors but, "because of experiments" it must be accepted anyway. This is not the scientific method.

 

 

Show me one Physics Professor that skips all explanations of SR, won't answer student questions, refuses to address issues, then  just states that SR is a FACT, irrational but still a FACT, there  IS Time dilation and Length Contraction and its all correct because of experiments, and that is all you need to know.

Just ONE.

I can't follow you here. Invariance of the speed of light has been observed, time dilation has been observed (I gave you an example) and mass/energy equivalence has been observed (I gave you an example).

If you want to argue that the observed invariance of the speed of light is some kind of artifact of the measuring process (is that what you are claiming?), you still have to deal with these other observations, which are predicted by SR.   

2 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

We are no where near up to the point of looking at claimed results and conclusion about any experiments.

Which part of . "Results of experiment can not prove that a hypothesis is correct." do you not understand?  And we are still stuck on showing how Einstein explained that there is some problem with classical physics.

Your 'huge problem" about Maxwell, was an academic storm in a teacup. There isn't actually a problem in in anyway. 

Einstein tried to explain how it was a big deal, but his explanation is contains irrational logic.  More about this in another topic, not here. But he did not present  that as any part of his explanation of where the problem was. His actual words were that it and the lack of an aether discovery so far, SEEMED to indicate that something might be wrong.

After broaching the possibility that something COULD be amiss, he went on to explain where an error could be found, in the Rod in a moving frame experiment.

There is nothing weird about my Ansatz, its very methodical on starts the the beginning and makes no assumptions, it contains no postulates.

(Top marks though for the word of the day competition)

The 1905 Paper was what was peer reviewed, and on that Paper alone, classical Physics was overturned.

Are you saying that the Original Paper is alone unable to make a rational statement, it needs 100 years of additional explanations in order to accept the claims?

Every single article I've read, and every video lecture and short video explanation (Don Lincon and Brian Green, and every other big name in Physics, many dozens of them,  has a video on this, about SR and all are identical in that every one makes the exact same error right at the beginning. So they all get the same results of course.

One definition of stupidity is: Expecting a different result If you keep doing what you have always done, because you will always get what you have always got.  That actually explains most of those thousands of experiments, they are doing exactly that, adding to the grand total, by repeating the essentially same things.

So either Einstein can explain away those two points I've recently spelled out, using only classical  Physics, or he can not claim that there is a problem with classical Physics.

Simple as that.

But Einstein is not here, and never bothered to explain it in the whole rest of his life, so its up to you to defend his good  (too good) name.

Surely I don't have to repeat the two points again do I?

And rather than all this dancing about, surely it s just easier too explain those two points and settle this once and for all?

 

 

 

 

 

The independence of the speed of light from motion of source and receiver is an observed fact. It is idle to pretend otherwise. All of SR follows from that observed fact. And all observations predicted by SR are found to be correct in practice.

Whether Einstein's logic was sound or not doesn't really matter. Nature behaves, so far as we can tell, as if SR is correct.  

If you want to argue about the logic that's fine. But do not pretend the observations are wrong. 

1 hour ago, Externet said:

Hello.

Baptism is considered a Christian sacrament, but was practiced by John since before Jesus became Christ.    How does it work ?   When did baptism originate; on what religion ?

What belief did baptism supposed to do to a person ?

I believe baptism originated in a Jewish purification ritual involving immersion in water: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritual_washing_in_Judaism#Full-body_immersion

It seems likely that this is what John the Baptist may have been inspired by. 

13 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

Not so simple.

My reasoning is that its very highly unlikely that SR can be correct, as the consequences are so unbelievably bizarre. 

In almost every University lecture on SR that I watched from the USA's top universities and best Professors, they invariably mention something like, "Now this is going to seem really weird", "Unintuitive" is a popular word, followed by the disclaimer that "you have no right to expect that Nature ought to conform to your idea of what rational is". 

So I'm immediately on the defensive, expecting that there might be an error somewhere, and its going to take a lot of solid rational, logical explaining as to how Einstein came up with his conclusions. 

I have the right, and its also advisable to be critical of a claim especially if its opposite to the beliefs of classical physics, none of which make weird claims as does SR.

So, Mordred is going to explain how Einstein got to the point of being able to state that classical Physics has this very massive problem.  

Right now, I don't see the Problem. I see what Einstein is saying, but I don't see how he made the conclusion that a problem exists.

He jumped from the equations (that I first thought was wrong) where the equations had different results about time, all the way to "the stationary and the moving clocks will now be out of synchronization".

So, now I will wait for Mordred's reply.

Well the observational facts are that the predictions of SR are correct, so you have a big problem there. I gave you some examples earlier in the thread. 

And it all derives from the observational fact that the observed peed of light is found not to depend on relative motion between source and receiver, or between observers. It contradicts classical physics, sure, but it seems to be the case. Just as in quantum theory the behaviour of atomic scale entities does not confirm to classical physics either.

One of the big insights of c.20th physics was that nature does not have to conform, at all scales and in all circumstances, to what looks to us like common sense. 

But I'll observe your discussion with @Mordred with interest.

45 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

Thanks for your interest in helping me understand.  But as I have already gotten two different members comments mixed up, I feel that I am only able to attend to one persons explanations at the one time.  So currently I have begun a tutorial offered by Mordred which I intend to see thorough to his satisfaction.

Following that, I'm happy to pick up where we left off. And allow you to present what you feel is the best way to present this matter.   

I'm retired and 70 y.o. being self taught, so I should not try to be multi tasking at this stage in my life.

So as much as I might like to respond right now, prudence tells me to take one step at a time.

 

As I said to Mordred, understanding this theory must begin with understanding the actual hypothesis that gave birth to the theory. And that will be found within  the 1905 document, where Einstein spells it all out in full.

I'm not "doing science" I'm trying to understand how Einstein came to his conclusion, by working through his actual argument, line by line. Right now, we are up to the part where he has just announced that Classical Physics has a terrible problem, which he intends to fix.

He has yet to explain how he intends to fix the problem.

However, I've read this section, many times, and just cant see how he comes to the conclusion that classical physics will have the two observers disagreeing on anything.  So far it seems that their different measurements are fully to be expected according to the application of those Laws of classical Physics.

So right now, Mordred is about to show me why Einstein said that the two observers clocks would become un synchronized.  Something to do with  "relativity of simultaneity".

I have to now wait for his next lesson. I had questions about his previous lesson, which I'm sure he will have a rational explanation.

That's perhaps a useful clarification on your part.

Do I take it, then, that you accept that in practice SR accurately accords with observations?

If so then your issue, presumably, is with Einstein's reasoning when he set out the theory, rather than arguing that SR does not work. Do I have that right?  

3 hours ago, wei guo said:

A recent paper states the real pseudoscience is exactly those unperceivable things named with 'dark'. Throwing something into the unknown part of reality for solving the theoretical problem is not the real rigorous science. This study argues that It is time, from a much more general view, to consider the common defects in the principle behind all the previous measure methods or physical laws summarized by the predecessors rather than keep adding new theories or new phenomena for amending the old cracks. Otherwise, the development of science will become bogged down in mud and also lead all people not to the real nature of reality but to a totally strange magic one.

 

 

Wei Guo, "Uncovering the rigorous application range of any mathematical equivalence between different physical properties to avoid adding extra unverifiable things into reality for explaining inherent discrepancy in phenomena measure" https://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.23299703 (June 5, 2023).

What is this paper and in what reputable journal has it been published? 

1 hour ago, Logicandreason said:

I thought I just explained why I can't be considering any claimed experimental evidence. I was pretty sure I explained that in some considerable detail.

If you wish to explain  "relativity of simultaneity",  the you need to restrict the explanation to what information the hypothesis contains.  You can't add beliefs retrospectively. That is just reinforcing a claim by applying the same claim's conclusions. A Circular argument, feeding on itself.

Are you not able to explain  "relativity of simultaneity" without addition of material and information that did not exist at the time the Hypothesis was written?  The hypothesis was approved as valid Physics in 1905, it is obviously able to stand scrutiny relying solely on the strength of its own internal logic.

So are you able to explain according to these reasonable conditions, or not?

 

This looks like an attempt to brush aside the inconvenient fact that SR is found to work in practice. That is not what one does in science. 

16 minutes ago, hoola said:

there is online discussion of scalar emf waves that do not have a frequency, but offer a voltage. Not only does this supposed wave have a voltage that can be applied remotely, but travels faster than light to a specific point, moving in the time dimension, not normal 3d space time. This seems highly unlikely, even to the extent of the naming of it as a scalar "wave" when the proponents say it has no frequency. thanks

If it has no frequency I don't see how it can be a wave. 

The term "scalar wave" seems to be favoured by cranks, according to Rationalwiki: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scalar_wave

On 6/10/2023 at 4:12 AM, Genady said:

What do the length of the arms and the duration of the clap have to do with the question?

Presumably if information can't be transmitted faster than light then initiating the motion at the shoulders would result in the hands moving later, or something, wouldn't it? 

4 hours ago, kenny1999 said:

Plastic is obviously not organic, I don't know if they are inorganic. Sunlight breaks them in a couple of months.

Chemically speaking, plastics are organic, being made of molecules with a carbon/hydrogen backbone.