swansont

Protons and electrons would be pushed in opposite directions by this electric field. i.e. pushed apart. If it has an electric field it is by definition electromagnetic

That’s interpretation, though. An aid to understanding. A concept, not an object. This has nothing to do with the topic under discussion.

What are the two times? We are considering the case where the light and rod are traveling in the same direction. I have not replaced r with ct. I replaced d with ct. d is the distance the light travels as it gets to the end of the rod. This should be blatantly obvious. It’s simple algebra. That time does not appear in my derivation, as it’s unnecessary. If you want to use it in yours, go ahead. I never claimed this. You’re misreading the derivation. I’m not doing this, so this is moot. ct is the distance the light travels. vt is the distance the rod moves. (v is the speed of the rod) Since the light has to go the length of the rod plus the distance the rod moves, it travels a total distance of r + vt But we know the total distance is ct Thus we know that ct = r + vt No. But it’s used in derivation of the equation. He rearranged the terms. But if you multiplied both sides by c-v, you would end up with a ct term, as anyone who can do basic algebra can see. Can you do basic algebra? It’s about enforcing the rules of the forums, which I do, and you do not. That’s not an equation. ct is not the rod length. You berated me for allegedly saying this (I didn’t) and now you are claiming it. Shouldn’t you be yelling about how you can’t think your way out of a paper bag, or something? You are doing the problem in a different fashion. There’s often more than one way to do it. But what I asked for was the equation for the time (not numbers) using the same terms Einstein used, for the case of the light moving in the same direction as the rod. Here’s the thing, though: I don’t think you are conversant in algebra, and I think your reading comprehension is poor. I think you haven’t done what I ask because you don’t have the ability to do it. Prove me wrong. If you don’t derive the equation, I will lock the thread. You don’t get to dictate this. There is only one instance: the light travels from A to B There is a different time for light traveling from B to A, but I have not derived that. You might notice that is a different equation

Just so you know, it’s the insults that will be why you get banned. t is a variable. c is a constant. I never claimed that ct was constant. v is a variable, too. t is the time it takes for the light to get from one end of the rod to the other. There is only one value for this time. I did not say it was equal to the rod length. Yes, I did say that. The rod is moving. In the time it has moved a distance r, the rod will have moved, so light will have not reached the end. I asked you to derive this expression, but you did not. All you’ve done is insult people. ! Moderator Note So, one chance: you derive the expression for the time it takes for the light to go from A to B, in terms of the known terms of r and v, as well as the speed of light. (i.e. the terms in Einstein’s equation.) for the co-propagating case, as I did. You haven’t done so until you give the correct expression in terms of the same parameters.

It certainly requires more insisting that the limitations of c aren’t a problem. Rigorous analysis instead of hand-waving, just as happens in science. Even then, an analysis is required.

Put another way, the evidence has to be as solid as for any other phenomenon. You don’t get to lower the bar just because you want it to be true.

Can you confirm what you mean by “real” That it physically exists, or that it is not illusory? A mirage is real in the former sense (there’s a physical phenomenon), but not in the latter (the object you see isn’t actually what or where you think it is). Other things are concepts, so they are not real in the former sense - a hole, for example - but the lack of material is not an illusion. You seem to be advocating both that the wave function is a physical object (a real phenomenon), and that the collapse is not an illusion. Do you have evidence that the wave function physically exists?

This is hardly a defense. Belief of this sort has no place in the discussion.

! Moderator Note Well, that’s potentially a problem, because we discuss accepted, mainstream science, and “purposal” (sic) evolution is not accepted, mainstream science. ! Moderator Note If you want to discuss this, you need to do so in speculations. But you need to support your conjecture with evidence

The “throw everything at the wall and see if something sticks” approach does not enhance credibility. Ever heard the story of the boy who cried wolf?

! Moderator Note This discussion was split into its own thread https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/131819-wave-function-collapse-split-from-informational-diode/

! Moderator Note From rule 2.7 We don't mind if you put a link to your noncommercial site (e.g. a blog) in your signature and/or profile, but don't go around making threads to advertise it Why wouldn’t charged particles, subject to the electromagnetic force, be affected by a “positive electric field”? What is the charge of a ryton?

Wait, what? The length of the rod is not a fixed length in “classical” physics? This is all irrelevant. Ah, but it can. In your mind, but not in actuality/ But you have not actually presented the distance traveled. That’s the key here. Einstein’s equation gives the same result, but there is a little algebra involved in arriving there. For simplicity, the elapsed time will simply be t, and the length of the rod r For the co-propagating case, Einstein’s equation is t = r/c-v The rod moves at v, so in the time t it has moved a distance of vt So the light has to travel d = r + vt We already know that d = ct, so r + vt = ct r = ct-vt = t(c-v) Thus t = r/c-v, which is Einstein’s equation. So Einstein’s equation uses distance traveled/velocity and is correct. It is left as an exercise to do the reflected case No. It’s becoming clear that the math is confounding you. The good news is that this is no longer a measurement. The speed of light is a defined quantity. And physicists rarely use miles. We use SI units.

The next post included their technical challenge. Correct. If we used distance traveled, the equation would be t=d/c That’s the equation Einstein gave in section 2, c=d/t, rearranged to solve for t But since the rod moves, the distance traveled is greater than rAB when co-propagating, and less when counter-propagating

It’s clear to me (and others) that the equation is correct, so just asserting that it’s wrong is meaningless. You’ve been asked for a derivation of the “correct” equation. Where is it? You just stated the it was, in your previous post. Pick one answer, please. Is c a constant, or not, in “classical” physics? The motion of the rod is accounted for in the equation. That’s why we have c+v and c-v terms. v is the speed of the rod, hence at accounts for motion. But at least you now admit we are measuring time, and not distance. The v term, as I’ve mentioned. If the rod isn’t moving, v is zero. The numerator is simply the length of the rod. It’s not the distance the light travels, as measured in the rest frame. That’s accounted for with the c+v and c-v terms. But since the equations is for time, the distance the light travels isn’t explicitly stated. You can find it by multiplying the time by c, since d=ct

That never happened in this thread. The only mention of being banned is where Mordred explained that it only happens for rules violations. Since the premise of this is untrue, this is moot. Back this up. There would be no need for it to be a postulate in relativity if it was the case. I have no idea what “origin of the measurement” is supposed to mean. And what does this have to do with anything under discussion? You’re tap-dancing again. Stick to the issues that have been raised, and which you’ve not addressed, like the”correct” equation for the time difference, to replace the one Einstein gives.

Constancy of the speed of light is not part of what you are calling “classical physics” It was assumed that the light speed would be added to the speed of the source.

If it’s sold in a country that regulates EM emissions/interference, yes.

Laws in physics tend to be top-level, and also when big-picture concepts were being discovered - Newton’s laws of motion and of gravitation, laws of thermodynamics and ideal gas laws, Coulomb’s and Gauss’s laws in E&M, Ohm’s laws in circuits. The naming of laws petered out as people got more into the weeds and fields got more specialized.

Since it’s not ionizing radiation, the damage would be from heating tissue up (unless someone has found some was there is a resonant interaction at the associated frequency that impacts chemical reactions). The power levels of things like bluetooth and wi-fi are lower than levels that cause damage. There are also regulating bodies in many countries that prevent the sale of “poorly made” devices

Wave function collapse is part of the Copenhagen interpretation and don’t appear in other interpretations. So no, it’s not real. It’s a concept to help understand QM, like all elements of these interpretations.

! Moderator Note The recognized common language of science is English, which is used on this site. If you can translate your post, you may open a new thread.

They say impression, not depression. No impact crater, just a crop circle. And nobody’s seen the video they allegedly shot. The impression diameter is about the same size as that van in the lower left, so we have the scale. Several ~10’ tall beings had to fit in there, along with propulsion, life support, etc. The craft crashed, but they were able to take off minutes later, even though the crew were off scaring the locals.

“Newton's first and second laws of mechanics were known and proposed in separate ways by Galileo, Hooke and Huygens before Newton did in his Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica. Newton owns the discovery of only the third one” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_examples_of_Stigler's_law No entry for Kepler’s laws, though. But there are a lot of entries overall.

Or who popularized them. It’s not uncommon to find someone else got there first. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigler's_law_of_eponymy