swansont

No. A functioning Faraday cage shields external EM radiation, at least over some range of frequencies, so it's the opposite of what you claim. Really? I'm going to need a non-Star Trek reference for that. ("clear" implies transparent to visible light or nearby frequencies, and given the context of the discussion, the implication is that it's a standalone material - i.e. not some transient effect induced in the lab) Relativity is mainstream physics, and time dilation is not a misconception. But your characterization is not really on line with how most knwledgeable people discuss relativity, which suggests that part of this misconception is yours. I'm afraid that is woefully insufficient to pass as science. We need a testable model. Something that is falsifiable, i.e. can be compared with experiment.

Citation needed.

I don't see any physics being discussed here. I don't see any coherent explanation of what is being discussed.

Wind has momentum, and that's reduced when the turbine harvests some of its KE. I think the argument here is that wind direction is not uniform (especially near the surface) and momentum is a vector, so these effects tend to cancel.

Nobody has built a structure that tall. And it would likely cost a minimum of a billion dollars (4x the cost of the CN tower) added: Lets say you could get a 10MW system on the tower; you'd generate a little less than 100,000 MWh if it ran at full capacity 100% of the time. That's 10^8 kWh, and if you could sell the electricity at $0.10 per kWh, that's $10 million a year. It would take 100 years to pay off a structure

That’s called a Faraday cage, and you get no EM signal inside of it.

The distance shortens by the same factor as the time, leaving c the same.

What is the amount of wind power in the world, that we might harness a non-trivial fraction? I would expect a lot of it is away from the ground, like the jet stream.

The only hit I get on Google for "Da er's Law" is this thread Can you provide a reference for it? Is it a typo?

! Moderator Note You were asked to copy/paste the passage in question

In a way it does, because you’re going faster, so it’s harder to come to a stop.

A claim that you have not established is used to any large extent To me it looks like a passing comment the first time you used the phrase, and it wasn’t in the OP How does “the other sex has never been known to take a woman staring at him as anything other than a compliment” (bold by me) get interpreted as “the average guy” You could ask people (though your original claim was stared and not leered, so the goalposts have moved), and disprove the statement. The question is, how would you be able to support the claim that this never happens, as you are expected to do?

Asking the questions again hoping for different answers is not a viable approach. How about you show us this post, since AFAICT nobody has made this claim.

That’s not a citation, but it’s not hard to find examples of such. And this wasn’t included in the quote where I asked for a citation. It’s not my burden of proof. You made the assertion. “the other sex has never been known to take a woman staring at him as anything other than a compliment” There are slices of personalty categories that might not. Introverts might not. There could be others, who are uncomfortable with attention being paid to them. There’s a wide spectrum of people. Staring isn’t always sexual, either. If I spill my lunch in my lap, I doubt I’m taking being stared at as a compliment. If I have some physical irregularity, I doubt I’m taking being stared at as a compliment. I didn’t know this was the point you were going for, because you haven’t explained what your point is and been consistent in supporting it. You started with a vague discussion of dress code and body image. Now it’s “human nature isn't gender neutral” You need to clearly state a thesis and not wander off into tangents.

The clocks use magnetic shielding to minimize any impact from external fields Well, yes, that’s actually what that means. Not an enforceable standard. Well, then, identify these biases Which is something that must be demonstrated, not asserted, as with all scientific discussion.

! Moderator Note That's not going to work, because I don't see where anyone said this. That's one of the problems of paraphrasing instead of providing a quote, with context. Even if the quote is unattributed. A second problem is the extrapolation of one purported statement as being representative of thousands of people on the site, as if this were The Borg. I'll leave this open you you can copy/paste the quote

Your equation implies RH is 2Lpl at 2tpl but your diagram isn't consistent with that.

! Moderator Note Ah, the other shoe drops. Coming to a discussion board to not actually discuss your idea was a clue, but as this is admittedly bait to sell books, it violates our rules on advertising and having discussions in good faith

"system such as they describe would be able to reach Pluto in a time of approximately 6.5 years. This gives an average velocity of 21.5 km/s" This suggests the speed when they get to Pluto is more than 21.5 km/s (if you have constant acceleration, it's twice the average speed, but you won't have constant acceleration since the sun's intensity will drop as 1/r^2)) So: how do you slow down when (or better yet, before) you get what you're going?

It's more likely that you are limited by the reflectivity of the mirrors, but you can do the calculation: The photon imparts a momentum of ∆p = 2E/c with each reflection. The target is massive, so it gains KE of p^2/2m from the first photon (this is quite small, so this will continue to be a good approximation at the beginning of travel). That energy has to come from the photon. The energy loss is therefore 2E2/mc2 Keep in mind that a visible photon has energy of order 1 eV, and a single proton has a mass energy of order 1 GeV; so mc^2 is going to be something like 10^39 eV for ~1000 kg (10^9eV x 10^27 atoms per kg, and 1000kg. Alternately, you can say that c^2 is ~10^17 and the conversion from J to eV is about 10^19, which also gets you to 10^36 eV per kg) So your energy loss is tiny. (You need to scatter millions of photons to slow a single thermal atom down to rest, which is how I'm familiar with this) Meanwhile, the losses in the mirrors will limit you to perhaps millions of scatters. 10^6 <<10^39 (the engineering implication here is that almost all of your photon energy goes into heating the mirrors)

GPS satellites don't recede when moving from overhead to horizon? Wavelength is not an invariant, so how does that matter? By "behaves differently" do you mean that there is a change, but in agreement with theory, or are you contending there is a deviation from this? Like a transmitter/receiver communicating with a target moving somewhere out in the solar system? Something that NASA does all the time? There are also these experiments: https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#moving-source_tests

! Moderator Note From rule 2.10: Posting pet "theories" in mainstream science forums is considered thread hijacking. So it's "black letter law" that what you did here was hijacking.

You’re going to have to explain this in more detail.

Not a direct measurement, to my recollection. Since c can be measured and the invariance can be demonstrated, by the transitive property you know c stays the same when there’s relative motion. There’s little incentive to do the harder experiment when you can do easier ones. You can do experiments that rely on it, and that confirms the behavior without doing a direct measurement. It’s not really an experiment, but the technology relies on it: GPS works. Would that be the case if c wasn’t invariant?

I invite you to try solving Maxwell's equations to obtain a wave equation with c being variable.