swansont

Yes. In the broader picture, we expect that laws of nature be followed. If you have to posit that the laws are different, somehow, then there needs to be independent evidence of this. Otherwise it's topologically the same as a conspiracy theory, where the lack of evidence is presented as proof of the theory.

If the craft was going FTL I think the same problem is still there

I was hoping for a link. It depends on which year you're using. ---- Tropical year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_year And, gosh, right before that table, the article says When tropical year measurements from several successive years are compared, variations are found which are due to the perturbations by the Moon and planets acting on the Earth, and to nutation. So I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the variations are from perturbations by the moon and nutation. But no, the year isn't getting longer - this is not a long-term trend, it's short-term among the fluctuations 2007-08 was several minutes shorter than the above table - 365d 5h 40m 45s https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/tropicalyearlength.html

Who is "we"? I think you mean "other people" Intermittent and unpredictable is going to be a pretty low rung on the ladder of priorities for science, because you don't know where to look or what to look for. The null hypothesis is that there is a mundane explanation. Without a theoretical basis driving this it's money wasted, when you stack it up against science that has a theoretical basis. By this I mean there's a rigorous model of some sort, predicting what could be detected if the proposed phenomenon is actually happening - people looking e.g. for dark matter have a model for how it might be detected, if the DM is of a particular type. The military is only interested to the extent that there is a threat, and if a phenomenon is a foreign craft they aren't going to share classified data. So they aren't going to be much help, other than the PR position of reporting minimal information. There are plenty of amateur scientists out there, particularly in astronomy, who scan the skies, so there's nothing preventing UFOlogists from doing the same. But your complaint seems to be that other people aren't doing research at the expense of what they want to investigate. There's a TV show that looks into this at some ranch, as I understand it, but AFAICT it's sensationalist garbage, much like ghost hunter shows, because they've been doing it for multiple seasons and have bupkus as far as hard evidence goes. If there was an actual hotspot for alien activity, it shouldn't be all that hard to set up the proper detectors and get better data. But that's not the function of such a show.

What’s your source? And what year is being given (tropical year, anomalistic year, sidereal year) The tropical year varies owing to the earth wobbling, and the anomalistic year varies owing to variations in the orbit. https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/reason/2017/02/25/think-you-know-how-many-days-year-think-again/15744336007/

Not all of it, but it’s still being worked on.

Static shouldn’t give you a magnetic field. You need current flow or a permanent magnet. A modern unplugged TV screen won’t have either, but speakers have fairly strong magnets.

A microtesla is 0.01 gauss, so you measured 1.5 gauss. That’s about twice the earth’s field; not particularly strong. Where did you measure the field, and does it vary with position, at the same distance from the TV?

Causality is a linchpin. Losing it would be a large upheaval. The response from the purported FTL neutrino signal among scientists was largely to look for the flaw in the experiment.

What follow-up/investigation do you propose? The light in the sky they saw isn’t there anymore. You can’t collect more data from something that’s no longer there.

Paying a fixer is not what Trump was indicted for, so how is this relevant?

Scenarios that don’t cause issues aren’t the arguments that point to the impossibility of FTL signals. One could probably contrive a large number of scenarios that used FTL and didn’t cause other problems

But that discusses a different scenario, in which SR can’t be applied. One of the points was that we are always in a state where you must use GR. So this is moot; we already know causality is violated in a FTL situation where SR applies. It doesn’t rebut the GR scenario. Yes, and it underscores the requirement that a summary needs to be included when someone posts a video.

And if that signal went to any other observer, it also took time.

You didn’t specify this before. Let’s not add new things. Regardless, no matter the speed, it takes time for the signal to get from source to target.

How so? Relativity of simultaneity says that two independent events can have different orders, but that’s because the signal travels at c. Getting the signal you describe only involves one event, and in no case does it arrive before it was sent.

Not according to the person who received the signal.

Where is the causality violation?

The argument presented is that under GR no signal is sent backward in time. The paradox is only present in SR

It’s in the guidelines: rule 2.7 You have to be able to discuss the topic without watching the video. “Explain what they said” requires that you watch the video. IOW, She’s arguing against one of the objections to FTL, that of causality. She acknowledges that nothing traveling slower than c can be accelerated to be faster than c.

! Moderator Note We need a summary of the argument. From rule 2.7: Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion Is the argument that you can have v>c solutions in the relativity equations, as long as some other term is imaginary or negative (that is normally positive and real)?

A scientific argument would include references to peer-reviewed research

Common knowledge is often wrong. There have been male hetero prostitutes for a long time. A scientific argument is what we want. Not incel propaganda.

Paid for using a lawyer isn’t the issue here. Cohen was not convicted for being a lawyer. The issue is falsifying financial documents and not reporting the payments to the FEC. The Clinton payments were disclosed. Again, this information is readily available. Try and base your arguments on facts. https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-2022-midterm-elections-business-elections-presidential-elections-5468774d18e8c46f81b55e9260b13e93 “on FEC forms, the Clinton campaign classified the spending as legal services.” (emphasis added) Trump did not disclose the payments, and falsified documents to cover it all up.

Yes, you are imposing your own bias on the technical terminology The atypical case is not what it’s based on.