swansont

Source? I see summaries, but the only purported links I can find are in Russian, so I have to wonder where this originated. Also, opinion is just opinion. Aiding in defense is not aggression.

An important point. They must still be entangled for the explanation I gave to hold. The measurement has to happen after the second electron reaches its destination. Holding the electron has to happen in such a way that you aren’t collapsing the wave function (i.e. breaking the entanglement)

It’s not a guess. In the train’s frame of reference, moving clocks (e.g. the tower clock) run slow, because time runs slow. The tower clock ticks normally in the frame of the tower. There is no valid absolute statement you can make about time and ticking (e.g. “The clock ticks as normal” or “Einstein’s clock is actually ticking slower” ) since all measurements are relative. This is well-established physics. There is no illusion here. If you want to peddle an alternative idea, do it in speculations. Moving clocks tick slower, but you have to distinguish between measurement and observation, because light has a finite travel time. Janus has made multiple posts that explain this better than I can one example https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/120625-are-relativistic-effects-directional/?tab=comments#comment-1123814

The military's 2021 report said no evidence of aliens had been found. Scott W. Bray, the deputy director of Naval intelligence, told lawmakers that they still haven't uncovered anything "nonterrestrial in origin," even though there are incidents they can't explain. Why do people keep mentioning aliens when the reports say that there is no evidence of aliens?

! Moderator Note links using link-shortener addresses deleted

“nobody does it” is a pretty lame excuse. Passing the buck. Not giving your income to people outside you group is also an applles-to-oranges situation, so it ends up just being a distraction; an irrelevant argument. Nobody has a huge bonfire with the cash they earn as celebration, either. Who cares? It has nothing to do with the situation In the US equal pay for equal work is the law, which is why they were able to sue and force a settlement. Can you prove they couldn’t have gotten more? You haven’t backed any of your arguments up yet. This is just so much bloviating So what? We were discussing US soccer, not other countries.

I had that happen with a paper in a journal, with a technical editor, who should have known better.

Why bring it up as a discussion point if nobody does it? If things were different, they’d be different. I was citing the facts of the matter, which includes their fight to get equal pay, which is what they sued and negotiated for. You said you’d be in the middle no matter what gender you chose, which isn’t the case when one gender makes 20% more than the other. The middle of the curve for one is not the middle for the other.

Because left to themselves, schools were biased. Legislation was necessary in order to promote equal access, using the lever of eligibility for federal funding. That continues.

Does anyone do this? What the players make and what the national team makes are separate issues, and the disconnect was a reason behind the lawsuit and negotiation for equal pay. U.S. women’s soccer games have generated more revenue than U.S. men’s games over the past three years https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/19/us-womens-soccer-games-now-generate-more-revenue-than-mens.html There’s no gender wage gap in G7 countries? https://data.oecd.org/earnwage/gender-wage-gap.htm

What is <i|j> when i ≠ j ? (They are orthogonal; yes, it’s because you’ve got a diagonal matrix so you have eigenvalues and eigenvectors)

Scientists play around with ideas that don’t necessarily work out, but reveal things nonetheless - excluding lines of thought, advancing ideas that might apply elsewhere. There’s a lot of “what if” that happens. There’s no inherent problem with “just asking questions” on either side of the aisle.

Because of the Kronecker delta in the first highlighted equation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kronecker_delta Which is there because <i|j> is in the preceding equation. Do you see why that is?

One could Google this.

No, it was not proposed to be an illusion. The clock ticked slower because time slowed down, owing to relative motion. Sure. It isn’t brought up because it’s irrelevant to the thought problem.

That’s probably a regulatory classification because one deals with the public. But having to evacuate is an indication that something went wrong, and not according to plan, because if it did, you wouldn’t have core damage and a release of contaminants I imagine the SL-1 incident didn’t require much in the way of evacuation because it was remotely located, but it’s hard to argue it operated the way a reactor is supposed to. It, too, exposed design flaws. But this also shows that there have been more reactor problems than the three that hit the news from 1979 onward.

Right, but you don’t have to do it that way. If you went to the lab next door, your field could be at any arbitrary angle to the other measurement. Up and down are relative to however you set up the quantization axis where you do the measurement. If the spin was aligned with the N pole in your lab on earth, measuring along that axis - however it is aligned with regard to anything else - will give you your down spin in the lab at M87.

Up and down are dictated by the local magnetic field You have to transport the electron in such away that you don’t collapse the wave function, but beyond that it doesn’t matter. The spin is undetermined, and what matters is the field when you do the measurement.

In the US, things are probably more…rabid.

I recall religious arguments, but not philosophical ones. From people with a certain worldview that requires that it be a choice. But that’s an emotional argument, not one based on reason, so definitely not philosophy.

These were arguments by philosophers?

Where? I see 5 mentions, and a couple of them mentioned where one sighting was confirmed as a deflating balloon, but nothing about them being ruled out.

You can certainly critique Aristotle (and those who followed) for not testing his hypothesis. Not sure about the astronomers, since they were limited by what they could test, and things changed pretty rapidly once that happened. Is that the original question for science? Or was science separated because it was answering a different question: how does nature behave? Because then you have to say that covering all but a tiny fraction of a second means we have a plethora of answers. Part of this needs to acknowledge that “fundamentals of QM” represents a tiny sliver of physics but generates a disproportionate amount of discussion. i.e. this do not represent what a vast proportion of physicists do, or care about Not a lot of people claim that physicists need to spend more time listening to what athletes or musicians have to say in order to do physics, or examples of physicists weighing in on how the athletes/musicians do what they do (as far as I am aware)

That’s interesting, given that axial tilt and the length of the day are not constant, and had different values in the past. Which means this “pattern” is accidental and just makes this numerology Also, you didn’t “predict” anything.

Link(s) to satellites acknowledging this needed. (since thorium is not fissile) Conspiracy claims need to be supported. You have quotation marks around all these. Am I to understand you are just collecting random comments from some thread? With absolutely no attribution or suggestion of credibility? Hardly. They reacted to some extent as designed, which showed flaws in their design. But what they were supposed to to was shut down safely, stay cooled, and not release contamination, and they did not “react” this way. One main critique of this is that thorium is not fissile. You can’t make a reactor with thorium as a fuel. You use it to breed U-233, which is. Any suggestion that there would be less waste should be taken with a huge grain of salt. You still have a bunch of intermediate half-life byproducts - too long to let it decay away, short enough that it has significant activity. The “meltdown-proof” claim is suspect. You still have to remove decay heat. There were issues with TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima that were all related to this.