Everything posted by Genady
-
Atheism, nature or nurture?
Variable substitution is not a logical fallacy. Your downvote of my post is a bad mark on you.
- Heating
-
Electromagnetism
All electric and magnetic phenomena.
-
photons and magnetic attraction
They interact with charged particles.
-
The speed of light and causality
I have an idea how interference of two waves moving with the speed c can result in a wave moving with a speed v < c, in principle. The two waves don't travel on the same line, like in the video, but at an angle, like here: The waves from A and from B interfere in such a way that the resulting wave appears in C. Each one moves with the speed c, but the resulting wave propagates with a slower speed v.
-
I was correct but I was to Late.
It was me that informed you (Are there other Versions of Fourth Dimensional Energies - Speculations - Science Forums). I said there that you were 150 years late. I did not say that you were correct. However, your conclusion stays: don't waste your time on this idea.
-
The speed of light and causality
But he is talking there about two waves moving with different speeds. It is not the case here. Here we have two electromagnetic waves, and both have the same speed in vacuum. How do they add up to a slower wave?
-
The speed of light and causality
Where does he say that? (time stamp)? 4:51 This is my problem, too. I'm looking for a better explanation, if there is one.
-
The speed of light and causality
I don't believe it. I'd love to see that math. The Fermilab video linked above says that this explanation is wrong. Do you think they are wrong?
-
The speed of light and causality
The direction of the resultant wave is different. Why the speed would be different, though? I don't see how they could. They are not. They are moving in all directions, I think. Another questions in relation to this. Let's assume for simplicity that the primary wave is monochromatic. Is the resultant wave monochromatic? If so, what is different about it, i.e., wavelength, frequency, or both?
-
The speed of light and causality
Right, it shows that the amplitude changes. It does not explain why the speed changes, though, does it? Also, there are no slow and fast waves there, as both waves are electromagnetic and thus both move with the speed of light. Right?
-
The speed of light and causality
I watched the video. I did not see an explanation why it actually slows down. It just says it does. Why the sum of these two waves, let's call them primary and secondary, moves slower than the primary one?
-
Small microwave emitters
How come that your English suddenly improved so much? Your writing style completely changed, too. You are not the same person who posted previously under this name.
-
Atheism, nature or nurture?
This is how your logic goes: It's a genuine paradox: Atheist/"arelionist", whatever, state's as a matter of fact, there is no such thing as Santa. (Edit let's not get into semantics here.) So therefore, in a world without Santa, the children's books and the idea's therein have to be written by man and accepted by their fellow man. So therefore, if a lot of people, even in the face of cultural difference, say "that's an idea worth following". No Santa needed. Therefore, Santa has become a weapon for atheism/<insert word>.
-
The twin Paradox revisited
Please, do. I'd prefer a fresh thread for this.
-
The twin Paradox revisited
Yes. The interval between two events on B's timeline is the B's elapsed time between these two events. Likewise, the interval between two events on C's timeline is the C's elapsed time between these two events.
-
The twin Paradox revisited
Generally, not. The metric of the diagram is not Euclidean. It has Minkowski metric. IOW, the "length" squared between two events on the diagram is not dt2+dx2. It is dt2-dx2. For example, the "length", called "interval", between any two events on a light line (450 line) is 0. IOW, the units on the lines belonging to different frames are not equal.
-
Atheism, nature or nurture?
I don't get to that point because I can't get over the previous one.
-
The twin Paradox revisited
Yes, it's correct. Notice the corrected expressions in my post. Sorry for that.
-
The twin Paradox revisited
x=ct ct/x = 1 equivalently, c=1, v in units of c
-
The twin Paradox revisited
The red line should not be parallel to the yellow line of the signal. The yellow lines have to be at 450.
-
Atheism, nature or nurture?
It's your statement. You need to show, how the second part follows from the first.
-
Atheism, nature or nurture?
The second part doesn't follow from the first.
-
Atheism, nature or nurture?
"therefore" has been inserted here without a reason.
-
The twin Paradox revisited
While you're resting, may I recommend these free and fun online presentations, which give good explanation for and practice in spacetime diagrams and Lorentz transformations (with Spanish subtitles available): Understanding Einstein: The Special Theory of Relativity | Coursera