Genady

So: You say that This is untrue. His approach is, from the page 1 of the paper, "that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c."

I have the paper linked above. There is no such a phrase there.

Does it break QM? If it does not, then it does not.

If they stay entangled, the correlation holds.

As long as the particles are entangled, results of their measurements are correlated.

Yes, I understand. When they are merely separated, they don't respond either. This is what I mean.

They don't respond in any case.

Another fun puzzle that is too hard for AI:

No, it approaches infinity.

Here is the Paper: einstein_electrodynamics_of_moving_bodies.pdf (umd.edu) Where is the Error?

IMO, you should compare cross-section areas rather than widths.

If the tube's diameter is almost equal to the ball's diameter, the velocity of the fluid near the ball's equator might be quite high, I think.

Perhaps, it was this: Solar panels - an eco-disaster waiting to happen? - BBC News There was a little discussion about it in the other thread: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/131667-solar-panels-etc/?do=findComment&comment=1241447

I don't care about your respect. I care about physics.

Nope, your explanation was wrong then and it is wrong now. I understand - you don't.

For a contrast, here is the ChatGPT's latest attempt: Me: There is a table and two boxes. When the small box is under the table and the large box is on the table, the distance between the top of the small box and the top of the large box is 170 cm. When the small box is on the table and the large box is under the table, the distance between the top of the large box and the top of the small box is 130 cm. How tall is the table? Solve without algebra, if possible. ChatGPT: Let's approach this problem without algebra and solve it using logical reasoning. From the given information, we can determine that the distance between the top of the small box and the top of the large box is 170 cm when the small box is under the table and the large box is on the table. Similarly, when the small box is on the table and the large box is under the table, the distance between the top of the large box and the top of the small box is 130 cm. Now, let's consider the scenario where the small box is under the table and the large box is on the table. The total height in this scenario would be the sum of the height of the small box and the height of the table. Thus, we have: Height of small box + Height of table = 170 cm Similarly, in the scenario where the small box is on the table and the large box is under the table, the total height would be the sum of the height of the large box and the height of the table. Therefore: Height of large box + Height of table = 130 cm Now, let's subtract the second equation from the first equation: (Height of small box + Height of table) - (Height of large box + Height of table) = 170 cm - 130 cm Height of small box - Height of large box = 40 cm From this equation, we can deduce that the difference in height between the small box and the large box is 40 cm. Since we want to find the height of the table, we can determine that the height of the table is equal to the difference in height between the two boxes, which is 40 cm. Therefore, the height of the table is 40 cm.

Cool. This works, too. +1 And gives me idea for another trick:

That's what I meant "without algebra", and that's the same mental picture I've used. +1

Correct. +1. Couple words, hidden, about your "trick"?

No, it is not.

How tall is the table? BTW, I could not make ChatGPT answer this question correctly, with or without algebra.

Right. +1. Counterintuitive, isn't it?

Good! +1 And,