swansont

Why is this a problem? You need energy in Galilean relativity to maintain acceleration, too. Basically, this boils down to things not behaving the way you want them too, rather than some actual issue with relativity, which matches experiment quite well.

And it was obvious that heavier things fell faster than lighter things, up until it was actually tested. You claimed it was a fact, not that it was obvious (to you) Other things that seem obvious that prison time reduces the odds that someone would re-offend, or that the death penalty is a deterrent, and people claim these things are true. But those “obvious” things don’t hold up to scrutiny. “A large body of research finds that spending time in prison or jail doesn’t lower the risk that someone will offend again. In some instances, it actually raises the likelihood that they will commit future crimes.” https://daily.jstor.org/rethinking-prison-as-a-deterrent-to-future-crime/ The death penalty does not deter crime “there is no credible evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than long terms of imprisonment. States that have death penalty laws do not have lower crime rates or murder rates than states without such laws” https://www.aclu.org/documents/death-penalty-questions-and-answers#:~:text=A%3A No%2C there is no,than states without such laws. So yes, I expect that issues of deterrence have been studied. And they have been. “Research shows clearly that the chance of being caught is a vastly more effective deterrent than even draconian punishment.” “Increasing the severity of punishment does little to deter crime” https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-deterrence So apparently there are studies. If it’s a “great incentive” one might expect clear evidence of the deterrence. The bottom line is that if you claim something to be true, you have to be prepared to back it up. Others do this regularly, and it’s required by the rules. It’s exhausting having try and get you to do this when you’re posting an opinion that you’re asserting as fact. It takes time to debunk you and it’s not fair that you can just spout BS and move on. It’s a fundamentally dishonest debate tactic, and common enough that it has its own name - Brandolini’s law, aka the bullshit asymmetry principle https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini's_law

I don’t think anyone said the measurement is pointless. It’s science. We’re limited to what we can measure. If it can’t be measured or detected, it’s not in the realm of science.

How does being motionless on the scale of the universe “sound like” being at the center?

So what’s the point of this little exercise?

So it didn’t occur to you that it was “I write my own posts” that’s the admission Phi is referring to? And it was the conclusion you drew, absent any actual analysis - contradicted in the very wikipedia page where you got the graph. Thus, you posted an opinion. My characterization was spot-on. A graph that represents factual data. Commentary that has no basis in fact is not science. If you aren’t willing to engage is a scientific manner on a science forum, what’s the point?

! Moderator Note Fact? Where are the studies that support this fact?

The screen will fluoresce wherever a photon strikes it. You get one dot because there’s one photon. How do you propose to get more than one dot? Is the limitation the detector, or the collapse?

If you send a photon through a double slit, you get one dot on your detector screen. How is that a limitation of the screen?

So f is gamma You have a force equated to a mass, which can’t be correct. But a = F/m, so if this is the case, you have a significant acceleration. Basically your equation tells us that the acceleration is always 1 m/s^2 which is not consistent with observation. This has all the appearance of throwing stuff at us and hoping something sticks

1971. ~240 have flown in space https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hall-effect_thruster (xpost with TheVat)

You said you needed the speed. Why won’t you just answer the question?

What do you multiply together with the speed to get the result?

Not moving ≠ at the center Your linked site does not contradict Bufofrog’s statement.

This is different from the claim “Animals don't distinguish colors” Babies don’t understand color as a concept, either. But they can distinguish them (at a few months of age) Can we raise this above the level of petty semantic arguments? There are videos of birds putting colored objects in bins matching the color. I suspect it would be pretty easy to find such examples, or even more rigorous studies.

Saber has been banned for an obscenity-laden series of posts

If you can calculate it, there must be an equation. What data is needed?

Why does it matter if they don’t know what the word means? Some animals can perceive color. It impacts their survival.

Do you understand that velocity is a vector, i.e. it has a direction? A vector can only have one direction. You've suggested before that this depends on the speed. Something in the LHC is traveling very close to c, and would have a bigger effect than one would experience on a space probe. Without an equation, though, one can't quantify this to test it, which why an equation is needed. ACES was originally supposed to fly in 2012; I remember a number of talks at conferences about PHARAO and a few other projects that got canceled But it's not currently on the ISS; it's been rescheduled a number of times and now it's supposed to launch in 2025 https://aces2022.sciencesconf.org You need to be explicit in your examples. In which case this will skew the orbit, and also slow the orbit down in places, which will make it more elliptical. Do we see this? This is one of the confusing bits, because you don't give us equations. If these things balance there's no effect, so what's the point? You need to clearly spell out what happens and under what conditions. It doesn't explain anything if it doesn't match up with what we observe. The pioneer accelerations are not in the direction you predict. That falsifies your premise. If it's an illusion we can ignore it. Science is interested in real phenomena. A phenomenon being unexplained does not mean your idea is right. To be right it needs to match with observation, meaning the numbers need to match up, and to see this we need valid equations.

Was “I do NOT mean 'the first bit of bs I found via google” something I imagined?

OK, if you think professionals in HVAC/home improvement, ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers) or NIST are considered BS, I can’t do anything about that, I guess

OTOH it's a very stark difference when you have a decent setup. There's interference (multiple orders of it with a laser) or not.

Given the variability in results one can find, I don't think that's "standard." You can easily find sources that say 30-50%, or 30-40%, 25-60%, or 40-60%; each of these show up in the first couple of dozen results on Google. (and it's always a range, not a number) My own experience was a couple of clock facilities with fairly tight control on temperature and humidity, with a target of 21 ºC and RH of 40% ± 3% and it always felt a little swampy. (Much lower RH meant a risk of electronics arcing, and above 50% risked mold, according to the lab/clean room design specs we had. They specified 30-50%, and we chose the middle) Comfort comes down to personal preference and what you're used to.

Your summary is incorrect. We can see an interference pattern when the light can go through both slits. If there's a pattern, then it has been detected; I hope that's obvious. Whether it's recorded on an electronic detector like a CCD, or it's just photons scattering off the wall into our eyes, the pattern has been detected. That pattern is there whether or not the detector is on. The pattern goes away when, in principle, you could tell which slit the light went through. The interference pattern depends on each photon being able to go through both slits.

What is this alleged planet 9 phenomenon? You've done a poor job of explaining this, so you are the person best suited for explaining this, since presumably you understand it. A proton moves in a circle on earth, in the LHC. What are the RR and DFA forces on it?