swansont

You can pick whatever values are suitable. You can pop on whatever exponent of 10 is appropriate, like light-seconds (x10^-6) if your distances are in km But you need the factor of c so that you have consistent units, when doing things like constructing a spacetime interval.

Who is CollinJ and why is this relevant? Under what circumstances will this matter? If I am driving my car and say that I will arrive at some time T, does it matter that the front of my car arrives a fraction of a second earlier? No measurement has infinite precision.

Lifetime, as I said, but that also means you can't tell exactly when the transition took place.

"Reference frame of light" make no sense from a physics perspective; this is an issue of relativity and light does not have an inertial frame. We observe that when you send a photons at atoms they can be absorbed, and the atoms emits light some time later. This observation takes place in the lab frame, not the photons. The physics used to describe this is also based in the lab frame. We don't have physics that can be used in a photon's frame, because there is no transform that gets us there and back; the equations diverge. No, we're talking about a photon being absorbed. Light has both wave and particle behaviors. Photons are most definitely quantum particles. Argument by quotation is pretty meaningless. Similar to the Wolff quote above, it doesn't add to any knowledge.

We're not in the frame of the light. The source of this is the energy-time uncertainty relation. ∆E∆t > hbar/2 The natural linewidth of any transition is related to its lifetime. And since E = hbar * w, you can see that this is just a relationship between frequency and time, which are Fourier transforms of each other. It's an inherent uncertainty from that.

"It is a wave" and "it becomes a corpuscle" is part of the overall problem. It's not that it is one or the other, it's that it has properties of both, and when you look for each of the properties, you will find evidence of that property. Via experiment we can only look for behavior. We can't say what it is, and also, we run into problems trying to use classical descriptions when describing quantum objects.

! Moderator Note Yes, because you were spamming us with jibber-jabber that does not comply with our rules on speculations posts. This one does not, either. You need some combination of a model, a way to test your idea, and evidence in support of it. ! Moderator Note Yes, one must look at this. In this case, that is you, who must analyze the data and present it, because you are the one proposing a solution. You were told this before. It's not very promising that you are ignoring that.

It seems to me that this is just another in a line of boogey men: ill-defined, undefined or wrongly defined terms (when used by the group) that only serve to stoke fear in the base. Welfare queen. Political correctness. Socialism. CRT. Woke. Antifa. Cancel culture. Can you, or anyone, give a precise definition of cancel culture? (and explain how is it being “weaponized”?) And give some examples of someone being “canceled”? Seems to me that people claiming this are behaving as if they are owed attention, or business, and are complaining when held responsible for their actions. This might not be new, but we simply notice it more because of social media in this age of rapid and widespread communication

You’ve provided no evidence of the EM wave or any explanation of what properties (e.g. wavelength) they should have. Why don’t we detect them? What’s the source when neutrons or neutral atoms undergo interference? You concluded that particles don’t give a wave pattern, and that’s wrong.

Please don’t be obtuse. You are not being asked to support the doppler shift. You are being asked to support your claims that are contrary to mainstream physics. ! Moderator Note The thread on this was closed. You passed up your chance to make your case, and aren’t getting another bite at the apple. ! Moderator Note You were going against mainstream science, and you refused to provide the required model and/or evidence. Heaven knows why you think the same hand-waving tactic is going to work

! Moderator Note And you were asked to present it, not spam us with this wall-of-text that you already posted in another thread. If you don’t comply with the rules, you will be banned

! Moderator Note All I get from your post is “the more the Sun, Moon and the Earth's center have been aligned, the more disturbances have been observed” If you’re saying the video contains no further info, great. I don’t have to watch it. You still need a model and evidence

! Moderator Note Check out the rules. Specifically this part of rule 2.7 Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion So it’s stronger as you get closer to the equator? Great. Now all you need is a model and to present us with evidence. An opportunity to do real science.

That’s not what the redshift is - it’s not like having redder light at sunrise or sunset, because blue light has been scattered out if the path. It’s light of a known source, and thus known wavelength, shifted to the red.

! Moderator Note You need to do as joigus suggested - a clear explanation of what you are trying to achieve is crucial if this is to remain open

“pattern” implies multiple data points, but that’s just semantics. The “dot on the wall” will appear only in areas that fit with the interference pattern, which is only going to happen if there is a wave. i.e. it’s because of the fact that the dot can appear where you would get first order interference, or second order, etc. that you must conclude there is a wave involved.

The rotation rate changes all the time; the length of the day fluctuates on the scale of a millisecond over perhaps a month The angular momentum of the entire earth is basically constant, but that does not mean the rotation rate is. Mass moves around. Hurricanes/typhoons/tornadoes rotate and have angular momentum. Ocean currents change. The earth shape is slowly changing as ice melts (one of the suspects in the recent speedup of earth rotation) https://hpiers.obspm.fr/eop-pc/page_princ_frame2.html https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0210rotation.html The variability of earth rotation is why it’s not used for precision timekeeping.

You didn’t say anything about the transmitter being inside the cage. You talked about covering(!) it, and then about a reciever. Did you ever wonder why microwave ovens don’t cook food placed next to it? How do you transfer vector to something?

What is your theoretical and experimental evidence to support this?

To me it sounds like a deflection. You don't have to defend fleecing the system as long as you can blame someone else by portraying them as lazy and therefore undeserving. It makes the middle class jealous of the poor for "getting free stuff" when nobody would actually trade places with them, least of all the well-off. It also suggests that the poor like being poor because of "getting free stuff" Plus there is rampant use of outliers being presented as if they were typical (as you highlighted with the welfare queen example), which is dishonest. The narrative is that these people are somehow cheating the system, but when the wealthy take advantage, they're just being shrewd. Poor people deserve to be poor, and rich people deserve to be rich. It plays well, but doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Relativity is why we think there is dark eneregy and dark matter. What has failed to happen is for some new theory to emerge to explain these things. How does it fall to relativity to propose other realities and other dimensions? What "I" have is a theory that has passed every experimental test thrown at it. What have you got? From this perspective you have nada. That was tried early on. Clocks were left uncorrected and were observed to not be running at the correct rate. The relativity corrections were correct to about 1% Why would there be "needed corrections" if relativity were wrong? We already know and adjust for light travel time; it's part of clock synchronization. "Now" is not a value that ever gets used when you try and quantify such things. "Now" is pretty useless for a wide swath of applications of relativity. That you are not aware of these applications doesn't make them any less real. I don't see what the pulsar "experiment" has to do with the validity of relativity. You have a distant pulsar, you have a bunch of pulses that are en route. Is there something more than that?

Muon decay has nothing to do with this beyond being another example of relativity My point was that you can explain the magnetic force with only the electric force and relativity. Because, in fact, all the classical magnetic force is is an electrostatic force viewed from a moving frame of reference, via the relativistic transformations. But you knew this, right? Because such criticism has to be based on a thorough understanding of relativity Physics isn't attempting to explain reality. It's explaining how nature behaves.

We use such aids to understanding in a lot of ways, and in lots of disciplines. As they say, the map is not the territory. But maps are useful. But where has the science failed? Do you have any concrete examples of relativity not working as advertised? Again, you are projecting your own lack of comprehension on to others. We may not know everything, but that's very different from saying we know nothing.

! Moderator Note Seeing as this is a science site, this is a showstopper. Closed.

You seem to have forgotten some Did you, through no fault of your own, hit a rough patch? ---> Get assistance while paying (or having paid) taxes Do you have to overcome bias within the system? ---> Get assistance while paying (or having paid) taxes Are you wealthy? ---> get boatloads of assistance, aid, bonuses, and loopholes that are not available to people of lesser means But they can rig the system so they don't have to pay, and still get the benefits A lot of times their "skills" are luck and sociopathy It's been implied already, but I would like an explicit clarification/defense by the OP of "Are you lazy ? ---> Get free assistance, aids, bonuses..."