Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by swansont

  1. Finding comparisons isn’t hard https://www2.palomar.edu/anthro/hominid/australo_2.htm https://www2.palomar.edu/anthro/homo/homo_1.htm Look at the pelvis, cranium and jaw. africanus has distinct differences with both modern humans and other modern ape
  2. “When he arrives” is ambiguous Is he moving, or has he come to a stop wrt earth? If moving, he measures the distance to X as contracted. If stopped, he measures what the earth observer measures The answers won’t change from asking the same thing over and over
  3. Sorry, typo. NoSenseOfHumor(R). It’s a brand of novelty rubber chicken.
  4. At rest with respect to what? Relativity duscussion makes no sense without this detail. It might be better if you didn’t keep switching examples. Before, A was at rest wrt the earth. Now A is moving. And now you’re looking at a different part if the trip. (like someone has already noted, like you’re hoping to get a different answer) Yes, A’s distance to earth is length contracted. Before anyone changes frames, A and B will think the other’s clock is running slow.
  5. Distance (but can be expressed as a vector)
  6. What will cause this orientation? How does this“charge” the magnetic field? You need to show the physics here. Equations, and solutions.
  7. swansont


    Light in any medium travels at c/n; it's more apparent in something like water, which has a relatively large index (around 1.33) as compared to air (1.000273 at STP) Fizeau measured the effects of relative motion between source and the medium back when people thought there was an aether (in 1851). But the results were smaller than what he expected, and support relativity and its velocity addition formula https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment So there is a small effect from the source and medium having relative motion, that changes the speed of light propagation
  8. You should check out Poe's law, and ponder its application here. Plus, I am well-known to have no sense of humor.
  9. ! Moderator Note Moved to speculations, merged with similar thread
  10. ! Moderator Note After some staff discussion, we have decided that this thread is now the only place where michel123456 may discuss topics related to time and relativity. As such it has been split from the parent thread and placed in speculations.
  11. ! Moderator Note Long hijack has been split https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/123122-michel123456s-relativity-thread-from-time-dilation-dependence-on-direction/
  12. ! Moderator Note Actually it was Charles 3781, and that particular hijack was split https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/123114-split-from-time-dilation-dependence-on-direction/
  13. Not sure about SR, but Tom van Flandern, who used to work at the US Naval Observatory (where I now work) was a proponent of the idea that the speed of gravity was much larger than c, which is at odds with GR. He also held other decidedly non-mainstream views. Consensus is rarely unanimous, which means you can’t blindly take the word of someone with a degree. There’s always some due diligence involved.
  14. What happened when you gout out of bed this morning? Were you able to put your feet on the floor and stand up? Yes? Then gravity exists.
  15. This isn’t entirely accurate. There are always a few people in the community who disagree. But their objections are invariably either unsupported by evidence or they rely on ambiguous observations, drawing invalid conclusions. There are a few creationists, for example, who have biology credentials.
  16. Yes No, it is not an “observational effect” Yes, this is doubting/denying relativity. While moving, the object is length contracted to any observer in another frame. If it undergoes an interaction that depends on its shape, like a nucleus and electromagnetic and nuclear interactions, those interactions are such that the nucleus is length contracted. If you assume the nucleus is spherical (or whatever shape it has at rest) you get the wrong answer. The effects from electric and magnetic fields of moving particles only give correct answers if you account for the length contraction. Also the muon decay mentioned by Eise, that you have avoided addressing. All confirmed by experiment. Similarly, moving clocks run at a different rate than while at rest, and as a result, will disagree with a clock that remained at rest. And again, we have done the experiment. This actually happens. That would require maths.
  17. How could it be? Mendeleev formulated the table several decades before we had a rough but accurate model of the atom (Rutherford). The neutron wasn’t discovered until almost 20 years after that Plus the nucleus only has a small effect on the chemistry of an atom. The primary effect is the electron structure. They are sort of indivisible. You can’t separate the quarks and free them from either a proton or a neutron.
  18. No. It’s not a debate, it’s one person denying and evading discussion of the science. There are no actual objections based on science. At best it’s the fallacy of appeal to personal incredulity, and the validity of a theory does depend on whether some random person is able to understand it. At worst it’s trolling, and I shouldn’t have to explain why that’s not a valid barometer. You show a theory isn’t right by showing that its predictions disagree with experiment. Not by failing to understand.
  19. I based this on my misunderstanding that these were snapshots of one die. See above.
  20. ! Moderator Note You were told to give this a rest
  21. My mistake. The questions are still focusing on irrelevant details, given the fundamental misunderstanding of relativity.
  22. Is the “length” moving? No. So it’s not contracted. The picture depicts the object (die) moving, and pictured at different times. Basically like snapshots put into the same picture. Because that’s how it was drawn. The distance between the pictures is irrelevant to the discussion. The objects gave to be depicted with enough space between them so they don’t overlap, in order to see them clearly.
  23. ! Moderator Note This is a discussion forum, not your blog. Please review the rules you agreed to follow when you registered (specifically rule 2.7)
  24. Wow. No, they don’t. You shouldn’t assume that everyone shares the feelings/motivations that you do. It suggests a certain narrow-mindedness.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.