swansont

That does not say that the alleged expansion is from the solar wind. The referenced paper makes no mention of this as a cause.

Wrong interpretation. The Lorentz transformations are real changes to time and space. An observer with the muon sees no change in its half life; they see the distance traveled shorten. But an observer on earth sees the lifetime extended, while the distance is unchanged. Both can't be true if the change physically happens to the muon. (and you have an infinite number of reference frame who would all observe different values for time and distance)

There is no medium, but this suggests that you think the field is not Lorentz invariant. No physical properties change, as such. They just don’t have the same value, since they are relative to the frame from which they are measured. The value is not intrinsic or absolute. A meter stick measured by an observer in relative motion has a length shorter than 1m. But nothing physical has happened to the meter stick. It does not physically shrink just because I observe it. Thus, no mechanism is necessary. But the explanation of the relative measurement is well known: c is invariant c is invariant So basically you don’t see how energy can be frame dependent? A brick’s KE is zero in its own frame. To an observer moving at speed v, it has a KE of 1/2 mv^2 This is true in Galilean relativity.

I did quote that. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/134213-lichtmans-13-keys-to-the-2024-election/#comment-1274528 Social Education 80(5) p256, second paragraph “the Keys predict the popular vote, not the state-by-state tally of Electoral College votes” https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/134213-lichtmans-13-keys-to-the-2024-election/#comment-1274357 You’re 0-for-2 in finding things posted in this thread.

This is not consistent with the framing of the problem You can’t just ignore the part of the problem that breaks symmetry when appealing to symmetry.

Which sounds like a rewrite of history, since his published paper fromOct 2016 says what I quoted earlier. The octopus I mentioned earlier had a similar success rate. Which is a flaw in the model But it’s not a policy change.

So this is moot, since Dawkins is not participating in this particular exchange.

Yes. And where did I (or anyone) say that?

! Moderator Note One way to interpret the modnotes you’ve gotten is to stop posting crap like this, with no mathematical rigor and irrelevant videos. In fact, that’s the only way to interpret those modnotes.

! Moderator Note Since fiction can’t be relevant, this has been split

It would be a distinction without a difference to the point I made, had you said that, but what you actually said was “god did it is just as viable an answer in science” which is crap. Your religious affiliation or lack thereof is utterly inconsequential to this point.

No, it’s precisely the point. Clinton won the popular vote in 2016, but if this model predicted Trump, then it was wrong. You/he don’t get to say otherwise. You’re lumping voting registration in with policy changes but the evidence is that it’s a separate issue, not accounted for. Flawed model.

You didn’t say “I don’t know, yet” You said god did it. If your view is that the mind/intentions of god are unknowable, then it’s game over - no further investigation will reveal anything. Which is the antithesis of science.

How about providing actual definitions, rather than vague guesses, so everybody is discussing the same things.

I mean you wondered if the massive pharmaceutical industry had an effect, as if I hadn’t raised the issue already

One drawback of the keys system is that it’s just a binary tally; there’s no weighting for the importance of the issue, or that there might be multiple issues that would sway a larger group of voters.

It’s almost like I didn’t point out the for-profit healthcare system motive a few posts back…

According to this, the US accounts for more than half of recent cancer funding, with China and Japan just under 5% https://ascopost.com/news/june-2023/global-funding-for-cancer-research-2016-2020/ I suspect the US’s for-profit healthcare system contributes to this

The universe was here before there were minds, so it’s not like the latter is a necessary ingredient

Voting isn’t a new policy or policy change and all of these policy issues existed before Biden stepped aside. The surge only happened afterwards. In a document of his from October 2016 “the Keys predict the popular vote, not the state-by-state tally of Electoral College votes” https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ksm9n3qsptqkjd7avr5km/Allan-Lichtman-2016-The-Keys-to-The-White-House-Social-Education-80-5.pdf?rlkey=qdtcni8kxv60qxfz52ewecy1u&e=1&st=27o5ep7i&dl=0

! Moderator Note Rule 2.7 says, in part, …members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone.

A compound descriptor, saying that you fill two of the categories, is how I read that.

! Moderator Note I hope you understand that movie clips do not tally anything in the “rigor” column.

It’s not all that broad of a brush. White Christian Nationalists (White+Christian+Nationalist) is the intersection of three groups. It does not imply that all whites, or all Christians, are nationalists.

! Moderator Note You’ve been warned before about this analogy-laden, science-lite posting style. It needs to stop. ! Moderator Note And, on a related note, your thread on this was closed for lack of rigor.