swansont

Disagreement requires evidence

I expect that you don’t just make assertions and leave it at that. It seems to me this has come up a few times recently, and things haven’t improved. According to our search function, this thread is the first time you mentioned simultaneity. What I’m not understanding is how one could claim that two aspects of relativity could somehow disagree with each other so there would/could be “two camps” especially since you don’t explain anything about it at all. You’re on the list of people who don’t explain where they’re getting their scientific information...

Explain, please

! Moderator Note This nonsense has gone on long enough

! Moderator Note It doesn’t matter what you believe. It’s what you can show, in a scientific context. You haven’t backed up your assertion. So we’re done here.

No, their wavelength depends on momentum, which is variable, and is not the wavelength of light they emit, which depends on details of the atom. You should start a new thread to get these things sorted out. This thread is about clocks/time. edit: I’ve done it for you. But stop hijacking threads. It’s getting tedious

It might do that, but you said “seek” which has certain implication That’s subjective. Easier for you. But if it’s wrong, then it doesn’t matter so much if it’s easier to understand

Their orbitals are not an inherent property, and they do not have colors.

! Moderator Note There were a number of assertions, which is one problem, since they were nonsensical. And the problem with the questions is that you hijacked the discussion. The thread was about unification and these posts are about educating you on the Higgs and other issues. The “button” you pushed was ”I’m going to disregard the rules”

It’s not division, and you are talking about the intensity (a property of the light) which varies as 1/r^2 for a point source. Basically you are repeatedly confusing the map and the land. They aren’t the same thing. I don’t care what you believe. This would be something for speculations, if you had a model so it could be tested, or it’s a WAG, in which case it has no place here. science discusses how nature behaves, not necessarily why it behaves that way. You reach a point where the latter can’t be tested, so it’s not subject to science. No, because we understand what a force is and when it’s required F=ma tells me that anything can move without an applied force. A force is required to change the motion (acceleration)

no, 1/2 does not. That’s still not defined specifically enough. What are you blathering about?

What is the relationship between internal and external pressure for a static system? What happens to pressure when volume decreases?

The potential realities are in the application, not in the equation itself. You don’t need to physically divide anything in half in order to do the math No, they really don’t

There seems to be only one source, with no detail as to how it was collected and what biases might exist.

No, it does not. There are no physical realities that accompany the math.