swansont

You haven’t convinced me it’s not a waste of my time.

And yet you agree that there is no actual length contraction despite it being a part of your model. Why doesn’t that count as disagreeing with experiment?

I wasn’t either, but then, an unpublished (other than a letter to the editor) experiment doesn’t really have a big radar cross-section.

Poorly formulated question. “should” implies a preferred result or intent. Accelerated expansion implies dark energy. Do you know what an unstable equilibrium is?

It matters if you have an understanding of the science involved, even if you don’t accept it. It’s clear that you don’t; most of your OP is wrong. Subsequent discussion has shown even more misunderstanding GR tells us a static universe is unstable. So it’s either contracting or expanding. The evidence says it’s expanding.

You can be as incredulous as you want. But your deficient level of understanding does not convince me that my understanding is incorrect. It does not validate your rejection of scientific results, or acceptance of flawed experiments The fix for argument from incredulity is for you to raise your level of knowledge and understanding. And, as zapatos notes, equating the logical fallacy with some virtue is yet another logical fallacy.

Argument from incredulity is not a persuasive objection.

We have a thread addressing this https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/89395-what-is-space-made-of/

Why is it that satellite time transfer does not address your issues? You mean the experiment that has been shown to be flawed? And was never published as a peer-reviewed article? That Silvertooth experiment?

So Bidenomics is something I’ve hallucinated? No inflation reduction law, infrastructure act or CHIPS and science act?

I saw an ad for an electric cooling blanket, which could work if it was employing peltier coolers. Also one that pumps cooled water through it.

It’s like calling a cotton short-sleeve shirt a cooling shirt that you should wear when a wool sweater would make you too hot. Marketing. But as J. C. notes, some people like the weight of a blanket. IMO it’s not any more of a scam than other advertising language is.

Not if the theory doesn’t match experiment. Those models go into the trash bin. The size can’t depend on the method of measurement. And if the method only works for some very contrived situation, it’s not particularly useful The time isn’t the issue - it’s what we knew then vs what we knew later. I take the title of the paper to mean “here’s an interesting peculiarity about electrodynamics that turns out to have application in a more general sense” IOW, even though it was first noticed in electrodynamics, it’s not about electrodynamics.

Sounds like it’s a poor insulator. A blanket that doesn’t trap heat well, so you can use it when it’s not cold

Wait - the coordinates contract but the meter stick doesn’t? Then the coordinates are useless, since they don’t tell you where things are. The transform doesn’t actually work. It’s a mathematical exercise, meaningless for physics. If the definition of length doesn’t tell you the length, it’s pretty useless. Different measurement methods might have varying levels of precision, but if they don’t arrive at the same result, you discard the one that’s flawed. But you aren’t adjusting the definition, you’re introducing a contradiction. When we redefined the second to be based on the Cs hyperfine transition, it didn’t change the length of the second. We don’t get wildly different answers for a year based on the orbit (gravity) or counting seconds.

For a SEM, you bounce a focused beam of electrons off of the target. They hit a screen that shows the image, like a CRT TV.

The force of gravity is not infinite. The range of gravity is infinite, but the force drops off as 1/r^2

SR does not claim to work under that condition. But I must apologize; I was recalling a claim about the speed of sound being invariant but it was in another thread, by another poster. Are you really claiming that a meter stick will have its length contracted to 80 cm if measured in the wind frame?

Indeed. The wave function isn’t physical, and we do not measure it.

If the quantity has no physical significance, how is it a measurement?

Since we do not have the ability to place a sensor outside of our galaxy, no. But we can solve for it, since we know what our motion is and have measured the relative velocity of Andromeda.

IOW your equation doesn’t agree with experiment, as I said. And the frame matters.

A sound source is on a plane traveling 300 m/s. The sound travels 343 m/s inside the plane. An observer on the ground will measure the sound traveling at 643 m/s, or -43 m/s, depending on the direction the sound is traveling.

Whether an equation works depends on agreement with experiment. The equation doesn’t work in a moving coordinate system because it doesn’t agree with experiment. Sound acquires the speed of the source if the source and medium are moving together. You can transform the equation, because that’s math, but an equation that assumes an invariant speed of propagation is wrong.

Diffraction is an independently confirmable model. Most of modern physics is not based on direct measurement. That’s hard to do when things are not visible to the naked eye, even aided. We measure what we can.