swansont

You can always tell who is in an accelerating frame. That's not relative.

You keep moving the goalposts. A few posts back you said you have evidence of your measurements — e.g. the videotape that lasts a year. Now you say that everything is unknown. And that still doesn't address the original mistakes in the first post, which messed up the frames of reference. No matter. Under the condition that I don't know what happened, I conclude that your clock ran slow compared to mine. There is absolutely no other conclusion that can be drawn, since I have no more information. Under the condition that I have complete access to your records, I will find anomalies in the data where you accelerated. It's not like any of this is secret. There are many valid explanations of the twin paradox on the net, and they all point out it's what happens during the change from one inertial frame to the other that accounted for the time change. You can't state that you did measurements of measuring c to be the correct value, because it's flat-out wrong. You will not, in general, get the right value in an accelerating frame.

Time is relative. Its rate depends on your coordinate system, and things that you think are simultaneous will not be seen as such in other frames.

Generally they won't work as well — optics are built with a specific wavelength range in mind. You will tend to get chromatic aberration, because the index is wavelength dependent. There may also be a coating on the lens that is matched to some wavelength range, and the absorption by the lens material may be a factor. So IR optics won't work as well in the visible, and vice-versa. It's difficult to get optics that work in the deep UV.

If you have accelerated, there will be evidence of it. Claiming otherwise is a violation.

The acceleration of a body depends on the forces exerted on that body. The reaction force acts on a different object, i.e. it is exerted by the body. So a body that feels a force F on it will accelerate, even thought is exerts a force -F. Fon = -Fby is Newton's third law, but Fby should never show up in the free body diagram.

No, they aren't the same age when the twins are reunited. The apparent paradox is how they can both see the other's clock running slow, and the answer, as you correctly point out, is that there is a change from one inertial frame to another (an acceleration, in this case). That's where all of the breaking of the symmetry takes place. But the returning twin would indeed be younger.

a) define "sensible" If it's "the quality of being irritated by SR" then it's a tautology. Which leads us to ... b) so what? Nature is under no restriction to operate in a way that does not irritate your sensibilities Upon any kind of close examination, one will find that the so-called paradoxes of SR are only apparent paradoxes. They are cleared up by properly applying the theory, or recognizing that it doesn't apply (e.g. because one has not fulfilled the restriction of only applying it in inertial frames or one has not properly accounted for the effects of non-inertial frames) I kinda stopped reading after that, but I did notice the complete lack of math. Which leads me to suspect that you aren't claiming that SR gives you wrong answers, just that it doesn't give you a warm fuzzy feeling. Am I wrong?

Approximately that of water (1g/cm^3, with adjustments for temperature and salinity). It can vary with how much air they have in their lungs, but if the bouyancy differed too much from water it would require excessive effort to either submerge or surface.

And let's say I have a perpetual motion machine. Once you postulate something that violates the laws of physics, you can conclude anything you want. But it has no validity. I will have evidence of acceleration, because acceleration is not relative. At some point you will transition into a non-inertial reference frame, and your measurements will change.

True of a sphere, but not of a ring.

I don't accept this part. You need to actually demonstrate to my satisfaction how you would do this. I want to know what you measured while you were undergoing an acceleration, because I think you don't get c — you can't just state without proof that you did. And if you went away and came back, you must have undergone an acceleration.

Time doesn't dilate in your own frame. There is no "my" dilation. You are mixing frames, which you had admonished others not to do. Any frame is valid. By telling me I can't make the measurement in my frame, you are making your frame a preferred frame.

Do you ever preferentially lean to one side?

A model that makes no testable predictions (of a nontrivial nature) can't be shot down. And you haven't addressed your contention that c slows down for your transverse c measurement. It's wrong (you violate your own admonition to "stay in your own frame" when analyzing the problem), and you've ignored it. Not being shot down and not acknowledging that you've been shot down are not the same thing.

You think not? And yet thought is required. Unfettered from logical fallacies like argument from incredulity, argument from authority or appeal to popularity. Before this "fad" there was a lot of things we couldn't do.

You're right, you didn't, and I never claimed that you did. I said that. I was asking if you agreed (or surmising that you would). You had said and now I'm confused how what I said is inconsistent with that. To reiterate: in the warming trends before the most recent one, CO2 lagged temperature. Something else initiated the warming cycle. But that doesn't mean that an increase in CO2 can't initiate a warming cycle, i.e. the recent trend is different. Like implying stupidity on someone's part?

Sorry, the registration window for it just closed.

One reason a teacher may have you do an easy problem a harder (or less obvious) way is to give you practice at the methods you might have to use in a more complicated situation. Or maybe there's something about that choice that will work out in an interesting way.

Maybe to ensure that you use the various formulas for moment of inertia, like the parallel axis theorem.

Angular momentum is conserved if there is no net external torque on the system, just like linear momentum is conserved if there is no net external force. You can pick any point. So pick a convenient one, e.g. the axis of rotation the rod.

No, they don't. You need to use the terms as they have been defined for hundreds of years.

You can revolve and rotate, you can revolve without rotating, and you can rotate without revolving. The terms have specific definitions, and using them, the moon rotates. If you want to make up your own definitions, then you have to go off and play by yourself.

If your photon source is bright enough, the enclosure would glow in the visible. But the radiated power will be constant, in equilibrium, so the temperature gets smaller as the surface area gets larger. The thermal photons from the enclosure get emitted in both directions, too, and those sent inward will eventually get re-absorbed.

When you reduce it down to "warming causes CO2" you deny any other effect of the CO2. Which is simplification to the point that it's wrong. Does anyone deny that warmer water holds less dissolved gas? I seem to recall that being one of the arguments in all of this. What I don't recall is anyone arguing that increased CO2 initiated past warming cycles, but what is left is showing that increased CO2 won't initiate a warming cycle. It seems to me you would agree with that, if I read you correctly.