swansont

Who told you that nature has any respect for or acknowledgment of your common sense? The conclusions we draw are in the framework of the best models we have. If you want to interpret them in terms of another model, feel free to present it. But all of the evidence that’s covered by the model has to fit, and contradictions must be addressed. “Common sense” is not a model and given its spectacular failures, it does not get a seat at the table. “Common sense” tells us that the earth is flat, the sun (and almost everything in space) orbits the earth, heavy things fall faster. Some people think the position of astronomical objects influence our fate. Some think black holes exert more gravity than other objects of equal mass. That the seasons are caused by the distance to the sun varying. Common sense suggests there is no gravity in space. What examples can you give, and what experience do you have that you can say what happens “often” in science? We (well, most of us doing advanced physics) know when this matters and when it doesn’t. Partly because we quantify things, because we have equations, and know the importance if significant digits in calculations. It takes more than the assumption. You need to actually show the premise is false and/or what the missing variable is, or at least provide a compelling argument that there’s something missing (as we did with the neutrino and do with dark matter)

It’s invariant in inertial frames (everyone agrees on the value), but not if the observer is accelerated. You could account for it, I suppose, much like adding in pseudoforces lets you apply Newton’s laws Agreeing if you’re in an inertial frame. Rest mass and charge, too. Any invariant quantity. But the interval is not a property of an object, as such. It’s a value for two events.

So it’s https://ncert.nic.in/textbook/pdf/kech105.pdf page 159 (I’d quote but the text is copy-restricted) You should read the part before that to add some context to it, where it talks about the randomness of molecular motion. Unfortunately the explanation isn’t quite as rigorous as it should be, but temperature is related to the average KE of the random motion of the molecules, and KE = 1/2 mv^2 So adding a set amount of heat does not increase the motion in a linear way. i.e. if you double the temperature, v does not double. The motion is affected more at low T.

Which is abject nonsense. Even traveling close to c, the ship will arrive after a light signal that leaves at the same time. The only data it will arrive before is data that was transmitted some time after the craft left. If the craft is transmitting, that data will beat data from earth because it doesn’t have to travel as far, but there’s nothing that should be surprising about that. If the craft is relaying data from earth, no advantage is gained because it takes time for the signal to get to the ship. Nothing beats the light signal emitted at the beginning of the trip. (You can’t assign a single time to a “constant data flow” since it is not transmitted nor received at one time.) You can’t assume your understanding is correct and deform relativity to fit everything together.

You could also memorize a story about an event, but not fully understand it, so would not notice if you didn’t retell it quite the same. Or omit something you deemed unimportant, or added some embellishments to get a better response from your audience. Which is why one can’t trust that oral tradition gives a faithful account of what the original story was.

It’s not mere disagreement. Physics tells us both of our observations are correct. The abstract existence of the property, in general, is what we can agree on. KE, for example, is a property that is real and not an illusion. The value that it has, though, is not real in this same sense.

What’s your definition of real? Do you mean real as in not an illusion, or real as in physically exists rather than being conceptual? Can a frame-dependent quantity be considered real? Can it be real but lose that designation because someone is accelerating?

A quote implies you read this somewhere. You should reveal where.

Sorry, what? You’re not adding the velocities, you’re just adding the velocities? Maybe you’d like to try this again. And this matters…how? The clocks won’t be in sync. We already know, experimentally, that time dilation is a real effect. We can think of it that way because there is no cost to being wrong about it. The discrepancies are so small you can’t possibly discern them.

No. And that was what Einstein had realized, that the speed of light is the same for everyone, and that means any inertial observer will see light moving at the same speed. He investigated the implications of that, and came up with the equations that result from it. And experiments show the equations to be correct. You can develop equations that reflect having the speed of light being cumulative with the speed of the source. They don’t agree with experiment, though this disagreement is small when speeds are small, so we tend not to notice with naked-eye experiences.

Eigenstates are a solution of a wave equation (e.g. Schrödinger’s equation) associated with the property you’re solving for. You can have energy, momentum, angular momentum, etc. eigenstates. When you do a measurement, the particle will be in an eigenstate. (of the property you’re measuring). A particle can be in a superposition of states until you measure it.

Socrates was apparently unaware that you can memorize things without understanding them. I have no doubt that if religious stories were handed down orally that they would have evolved, because that’s precisely the issue I was pointing out. You apparently agree, but have posted in a way that suggests you also don’t

The “we don’t remember our history” theme might hit a little hard these days

I think there are people using chemical enhancement who can do this, too. We know it takes light time to travel. Nothing earth-shattering here If it were a star that could go supernova, that could have happened in the last 4 years. No way to tell until the light gets here. Nope. Show us the math. Mainstream physics says the rocket will chase the photons all the way there. The first photon takes 4.24 years.

I have no idea what this has to do with anything.

I don’t know what your point is, and you apparently don’t know what mine is. Not having the LHC or Hubble at our disposal is completely irrelevant. If you cite an AI as a response, nobody knows where the information came from, so it could have come from an unreliable source, the AI could have botched the inquiry, or it could have hallucinated the response. If you give a link that goes to a paper written by a research group doing work at the LHC, then people know it came from LHC scientists. If you link to a crackpot’s website, people will know that. Because crackpot information is also accessible to LLMs. Citations are about revealing the source of the information. Not long ago you could ask Google if lawyers were human, and the AI summary would tell you they were not. Consumer-grade LLMs are not credible sources, so they are not allowed to be used as if they were.

You can send a signal sating what time your clock read that won’t depend on shifts. “When I observed the event my clock read 12:07” sent by morse code, for example. It doesn’t it have to be a human undergoing the acceleration; it just happens to be people in certain thought experiments. This isn’t a (intellectually) serious objection. When we do actual tests we don’t use people. When making measurements, people are quite imprecise. That’s why we use various lab equipment devices/tools. But people can and do travel at relativistic speeds. Speed is relative, so you can accelerate anything, and a human will have some speed relative to it. If relativistic means “able to measure an effect of relativity” (typically time dilation, since it’s the easiest to measure) we even accelerate people to and from these speeds.

Your concern is based on your misunderstanding of something, and that’s got to be the assumption until you actually present the train paradox narrative that says anything about “instantaneous” or “now” or distant observers “witnessing the same moment” AFAICT you’re confused by your own strawman

Average temperature is a global proxy for total thermal energy. It’s harder to present some of these other variables as “global” or things that would be affected by greenhouses gases (geothermal activity?) Further, temperature is not just atmospheric - it’s tied in with surface temperature, i.e. land and water. Pressure isn’t going to show the same kind of variation because the atmosphere can expand and contract. Other variables don’t have the correlations that make looking at them as worthwhile for this analysis. Humidity is bounded and water vapor has a way of condensing and returning to the earth as rain. You might expect rainfall to have increased, but it’s a more variable parameter than temperature so is probably impacted more by having incomplete data. You can see that rainfall above baseline has increased in the last ~60 years as opposed to the 60 before that - more years with excess, and increased amount of excess. Also the magnitude of the few years where there’s a shortfall, so it looks like the variability has increased https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-and-global-precipitation

T=0 is an arbitrary designation, and you don’t have to use numbers to analyze the concept. Just that the time is the same. No. You’re overcomplicating the situation. That the information is being conveyed to you, the reader, does not create another observer.

You don’t include things that don’t affect the physics. Size and position of an observer are experimental details. Assuming they’re in the same inertial frame, you account for the light travel time.

You’re not in an acceleration frame (SR works in u]inertial frames), and the light-travel time is something you account for. It’s a lot harder to understand when you don’t bother learn the various elements and skip directly to the end. It’s not even that. You are equidistant from the two landing points so the light travel time is equal. Thus seeing them at the same time means they are simultaneous.

It does. It means it happens at the same time in your frame. Simple. It’s not instantaneous. The strikes are simultaneous because they happen at the same time. Happens at the same time means the clock readings are the same. You can synchronize (ideal) clocks only in the same frame of reference. What Einstein showed was that simultaneity is frame-dependent

Yeah, I recall being told you have to wade through the first ~50 pages, and I just couldn’t do it. Yeah, I enjoyed The Andromeda Strain and Jurassic Park. (also puzzled that Douglas Adams didn’t pop into my head for my earlier post)

Not sure how. Whether the information has changed from one work to the next doesn’t strike me as a philosophical issue. I’m not the one pursuing this particular tangent of dubious relevance.