swansont

I’ve mentioned what needs to be done. Anybody who’s serious about the subject needs to do that. If they lack the will to do so, oh well. The status quo will continue. If they are claiming more than what the evidence shows, then they are mistaken.

What is there to investigate if there isn’t any rigor? It’s not like these phenomena are being held to a different standard that’s present in science. The frustration, apparently, is being held to the same standard. If the necessary information isn’t there, it isn’t there. It would be like LIGO or CERN (or any lab result) getting a signal but something isn’t calibrated (and can’t be retroactively calibrated). Too bad, but the data are worthless. You can assume there is a phenomenon to be investigated, but you can’t just assume a given observation is an alien. Relying on random observations is unlikely to ever give rigorous data. What you can do is set up coordinated, rigorous investigation, just like amateur scientists do in other fields. e.g. instead of one, you have multiple cameras at known locations, so you can triangulate positions and get speeds. But if anybody is doing this, we haven’t been made aware of it. Because that’s all there is under these circumstances

The time dilation is not simply a function of g; it’s the gravitational potential that’s important. for constant g, the dilation is given by gh/c^2. The distance matters. As md65536 points out, a larger wheel with the same g will have a larger dilation. v^2 is bigger. Or, if you want to view it via the acceleration, ah is bigger.

What is extraordinary about it? The talking head claims it was flying fast, but there’s no analysis given, and AFAICT no way to validly conclude this. We don’t know how big it is, and so we don’t know how far away it is. The plane is moving (as TheVat points out) so for all we know this was basically stationary with respect to the ground, and the plane flew past at several hundred kph. Perhaps this was a Boeing and something fell off the front. Can we discount this possibility? Same problem as with basically all videos that get posted - there’s no way to get any useful information from them, thus they remain unidentified. So not like this, if it were in the foreground and blurred a little, and at lower resolution? What maneuvers? Joe Rogan even points out that the plane is moving. As for the shape, wind will do that, and phone cameras use a rolling shutter which distorts objects moving with respect to the camera. https://www.studiobinder.com/blog/what-is-rolling-stutter/

! Moderator Note No, I don’t think we do. Your previous thread using this diagram was locked, and you were told not to bring it up again. You say you have math, so you get one chance here to post something that complies with the rules (some combination of a model, some falsifiable claim, evidence). We’re not going to have you string us along as before.

! Moderator Note You posted this in classical physics, about optics. Optics is what needs to be discussed. Not karma or creepiness or arachnophobia (which you had a thread on, and it was closed) or any unsubstantiated musing on any topic.

What biology class was this? I’m guessing it was not college level. I think the food chain is more nuanced than this, once you study in some depth, as TheVat’s and CharonY’s posts would imply.

I’m sure a search engine can shed some light on this

It’s not a matter of you being an idiot. The details here involve advanced physics. Quantum oscillations don’t involve motion as you normally think about it - it’s not like a pendulum, where you can make the amplitude a little smaller. In quantum systems the energy differences are like steps, and in the ground state there isn’t a lower step.

A rotation will slow the clock down; this has been independently measured citations 82-84 in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity You can analyze these as equivalent to gravitational redshifts with acceleration v^2/r

! Moderator Note What does this have to do with optics? Please stay on topic, whatever that is

Saying this is not the same as “there is a paradox except in the case where we postulate a privileged reference frame” but at this point I’m not surprised that you don’t see this. ! Moderator Note At this point you’re just repeating earlier claims, without making any correction to your errors, so there’s no point in continuing. Closed. Don’t re-introduce the topic.

Carnivores eat herbivores, and sometimes other carnivores. This notion of producers and consumers seems overly simplistic. Like someone is applying a very rudimentary economic model to it.

Is that the part where it says “Therefore, the twin paradox is not actually a paradox in the sense of a logical contradiction”? Just saying this doesn’t make it so. ”It may be added that the whole change in the conception of the ether which the special theory of relativity brought about, consisted in taking away from the ether its last mechanical quality, namely, its immobility.” doesn’t support that notion neither does “We may assume the existence of an ether; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it”

Not really. He concluded that space has properties, but it’s not a medium that represents a preferred frame of reference, or is required for light. The aether he spoke of later is not the luminiferous aether of Lorentz theory.

Welcome to SFN AFAIK a time crystal is predicated on no energy loss, so you’d destroy it by removing energy from it. Like taking energy out of a pendulum - it would stop ticking. It certainly doesn’t generate any energy.

The latter part of my explanation applies to this. The current is uniform. There’s no way for it to vary.

If the voltage is constant (for a real wire) there would be no current. If there is a voltage drop, and thus a current, the current will be uniform even if the voltage drop is not (e.g. if there’s a resistor, or a series of different-valued resistors); there’s no way to vary it. Charge is conserved, so current flowing in to a point equals the current flowing out.

If you repeat your errors I will repeat the corrections. Red light lacks the energy to ionize, so that’s not what’s going on. I’ll leave it to others to correct the biology.

Which is not the photoelectric effect. In an LED you excite electrons to a higher band in a semiconductor, and when they drop back down you get a photon.

Photoelectric effect is basically the same as photoionization of an atom, for a single photon. Photon in, electron out. edit: an LED is not doing this

On what, specifically?

But one thing you notice is that such leaders are always around. Before this it was Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-il, Nicolae Ceaușescu, Pinochet, Idi Amin, Khaddafi, and more, and that’s only going back ~50 years I don’t think I was saying BISS, or really making an argument (or advocating a position) as much as I was poking holes in what you were presenting.

Plenty of people without expertise participate here. The ones doing it successfully generally ask questions to fill in the gaps in their knowledge rather than pontificate in areas where their knowledge is deficient, and defer to those who know more.

Aging is a biological process. Time is time. Time passes at a different rate (i.e. frequency) in different reference frames Because that’s what happens in the Doppler effect. Red shift is shifted toward longer wavelengths and blue shift toward shorter. It’s observed to happen, so there’s no point in denying it.