Janus

Newsflash: Relativity doesn't rely on the "speed of light". It relies on there being an invariant speed "c", which is built into the Universe. Even if it were to turn out that light in a vacuum does not travel exactly at c, this would change nothing about Relativity. Now, to the best of our knowledge the speed of light in a vacuum does equal c, but this is a convenience, not a requirement for Relativity.

Are we talking about the same guy who went to war with Disney, one of his state's largest economic drivers, just because they disagreed with one of his policies?

A factor you need to consider is that the Moon does not orbit over the Equator, and it's orbital plane is ~ 5 degrees from the ecliptic. This video gives an idea of the Moon's path over the Earth. The camera tracks wit the Moon, and the Red dot shows where the "Earth-Moon joining line intersects the Earth's surface. It not ~100% accurate as I made the Moon's orbit exactly 28 sidereal days long to keep it simple. The path starts North of the Equator, drifts South and then back again.

Just out of curiosity, exactly what about the light clock do find as being impossible?

TIL I learned a new measurement: "Poronkusema" which is roughly 7.5 km. It literally translates to "reindeer piss", and is the distance a reindeer can run before having to stop to take a bathroom break.

Generally, West to East. However, there are occasions when the shadow is in upper latitudes, where the shadow has enough of a curved path over the surface, to start in one direction, and end going the other.

How does that address the issue? Sure, it would be impracticable to do a similar scenario just using planet-sized objects, but it is not strictly impossible. As far as the basic scenario being "contrived" goes, what does that matter? This isn't about every or even most scenarios causing causality issues, it is about being able to produce them at all. One way to violate causality is one too many.

This assumes that the universe has some purpose or plan. And even if we assume that this is the case, what makes you so sure that we are a major part of it? We could just as well be an undesirable but unavoidable side effect.

I don't think the universe cares one way or the other.

Did you miss the part where Mueller himself wrote to Barr to complain that Barr was understating the seriousness of the report. How can you say that Barr was correct, when the person who wrote the full report didn't think he was? And just to touch on something else: While he may have violated Federal campaign laws and could be charged on the Federal level for them, New York has its own campaign laws that he could be charged with violating. And this isn't an either/or situation. He could be tried in Federal and State court for the same thing at the same time, if it violates both Federal and State laws. So, New York can pursue a case, even without a Federal one, unless the Feds come in and assert privilege. Now, is the New York case the weakest of the major cases against him? Yes. But, from what I've heard, from people who understand the law better than I do, is that it isn't as weak as they thought it was prior to the charges being revealed.

https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-ap-top-news-politics-russia-reggie-walton-fe8eee387b53888c478a24021fc101aa

My browser keeps a list of saved signups with user name and password. Even if it doesn't bring it up when you log in, you can go to settings/passwords, bring up the list and look it up. It is also advisable to back up the file with this info onto external storage from time to time, so you can import it to a new computer if your present one suddenly fails.

Back when this investigation started, the feds did step in and and told the New York to back off and they'd handle it. Of course that was back during the time that Bill Barr headed the DOJ. The same Bill Barr that heavily redacted the Mueller report to shield Trump. In other words: "We'll handle it meant, we'll make sure nothing is done about it.". The present DOJ has it hands full with the documents and Jan. 5th investigations, so I'm sure they fine with letting New York handle this one.

Though it does seem that the courts themselves are beginning to lose patience with this tactic. He just recently had an appeal rejected a mere 14 hrs after filing it.

It seems highly unlikely that a Grand Jury would make the unprecedented move to indict a former President on over 30 counts if all they had to go on was the testimony of one witness. Of course, we won't know exactly what the charges are until he is arraigned. One commentator has suggested that this may go beyond the hush money case, as he can't see how that, by itself, could be stretched into more than 8 separated charges.

If his intent was that protests by his supporters would intimate the grand jury into not indicting him, it went over like a lead balloon. He must be seething over the lack of response. It kind of shoots a huge hole in his recent claims that the American people would not stand for his being criminally prosecuted when the response to his potential indictment is "Meh".

Using the one non-English language I'm a little familiar with, Let's take word order for example: "Koira etsii kissaa" and "Kissaa etsii koira", both mean "The dog is looking for a cat." "Koiraa etsii kissa" and "Kissa etsii koiraa", both mean " The cat is looking for a dog" What changes with word order is the emphasis. Koira etsii kissaa = The DOG is looking for a cat. Kissaa etsii koira = The dog is looking for a CAT. In a somewhat similar fashion, Karhut ovat tuolla = The bears are over there. Tuolla ovat karhut = There are bears over there. Or take the simple "I am" in English one would say: "I am John" "I am cold" "I am crying" in Finnish they are: "Olen John"* "Minulla kylmä" "Itken"* * Can be preceded by "minä", but often isn't.

Another factor is that a good number of the people that participated in the Jan 6th riot did so under the impression that they were acting on orders from the seated President, and even used that in their defense. This is not something they could claim now(with the exception of that small subset that believe that he is somehow "secretly" still the President) An indication of what we could expect is what happened after the document search and seizure, There were calls then to protest and support Trump, and while some people heeded the call, it was a pretty small turnout in numbers.

By digging it deeper?

The key issue here is, what do they mean by "probable"? It does not necessarily mean the same as "probably". There is a difference between saying "It is probable that I will be hit by a car crossing the street tomorrow, and saying "I will probably be hit by a car crossing the street tomorrow" The first just means that there is a non-zero probability that it will occur, and the second implies a good probability that it will occur. In addition, for quite a while now, intelligence reports and reviews have been split into categories: High confidence, Moderate confidence, and Low confidence, depending on the reliability of the information and sources. From my understanding, these particular reviews are in the Low confidence category. So "probable" used in a Low confidence report is not something I'd be willing to hang my hat on.

An answer to your questions might lie in how Finland dealt with the homeless issue. They found that if you provide housing without stipulation, then those people tend to be able to get jobs and require less and less assistance. In addition, it turns out to be cheaper in the long run than dealing with the issues caused by a large homeless population. As a result, Finland has almost no homeless problem. In contrast, in the US, you basically need to meet certain conditions before you become eligible for housing. If you don't meet them, then tough luck.

No, not really. I think this idea comes from a misunderstanding of time dilation. While it is true that a clock moving relative to you would,as measured by you, tick slower and slower as it it approached the speed of light, the equation that predicts this is "undefined" for speeds greater than c (It gives a result that is the square root of a negative number. ) Now there are some setups that could be used to create causality issues in Relativity if FTL is allowed. Basically, this involves extended systems moving relative to each other, and rely on how these systems measures simultaneity differently. An example of such a system would be two long trains passing each other in opposite directions. One train sends an FTL signal from one car to another. That car transfers the signal a car of the other train as they pass each other. The second train sends an FTL answer back along it length, to be transferred back to the car that originated the message. Under the right conditions, allowing FTL transmission can result in the answer arriving at the origin before the initial signal was sent. This goes back to what swansont was referring to a few posts ago. The truth is that the Theory make no predictions as to what would happen if you exceeded c, as that is beyond it range of applicability.

Your "de-energized" photons sound like a rehash of the Aether, a concept abandoned long ago. And if light transmission is due to energy be transferred through this medium, and this medium is also dark matter, then how does light travel between galaxies, when dark matter tends to collect in clouds around galaxies. And, as joigus alluded to, if this sea of de-energized photons has neither mass nor energy of its own, then how does it generate the gravitational field needed to account for the observations that led to the need for dark matter in the first place?

Riiight. What would be the point of China putting a nuclear bomb on it? What good would have dropping a single nuclear bomb have done? It would be of no significant strategic value, and would only risk starting a full nuclear exchange, and if such an exchange was their goal, they would have just done a full scale nuclear strike.

Just an addition to the previous post. In the Classical Doppler shift equation, vo and vs refer to the velocity of the observer and source with respect to the medium through which the waves are propagating. As result, you get a different answer if you have the source moving with respect to the medium than if it is the observer moving with respect to the medium. Whereas with the relativistic equation, there is no medium and the answer only depends on the relative velocity between source and observer. Also, There is a typo in the equation given for Relativistic Doppler shift. It should be v-c for upper part of the fraction. You will often see this equation written with 1-ß and 1+ß instead, where ß = v/c