swansont

1. That’s how this works. People see I’ve raised the issue, and they refrain from being repetitive. and 2. That’s not an actual rebuttal of the issue, it’s dodging it. So if nothing moves, how can there be time dilation or length contraction?

! Moderator Note Do NOT bring your speculations into other threads.

The part where you said “Nothing moves in a block universe.” Or maybe where you said Bob is moving. Which it? Issues were raised, AFAICT you’ve ignored them.

How is this possible unless Bob is moving relative to the earth?

Explain why clocks at different speeds, and/or gravitational potentials, are observed (as in, there is experimental evidence) to run at different rates.

I’m not censoring anything. I’m reminding you that if you make claims you need to back them up, which is part of the rules. IOW, WAGs are not “conversation” If you will take care to notice, none of your material I quoted mentions God. If this is mere confusion on your part, you should pay attention. Your attempt at testable predictions falls well short of the rigor we require.You admit you aren’t a scientist, so how much “support” do I need that your posts lack rigor? You admitted as much when you said “I believe the best way to work out the details of a theory or hypothesis is through argument.”

Physicists failed to ascertain the nature of regular matter for only slight less time. That dark matter and dark energy need to be investigated is a relatively recent discovery. And AFAICT there’s no connection to philosophy here. ! Moderator Note Then please refrain from making non-mainstream scientific claims. If you make them, you will be expected to back them up

Because it’s not a polarization issue. If you’re using a common source of light for the double slit, you will have the same polarization. Orthogonal polarization doesn’t enter into the discussion. It’s a red herring.

You made a claim about relativity.

“Bob goes close to light speed in his ship” sounds like Bob is moving. That’s an interesting delusion.

So how is Bob moving?

Here is a repeat of the answer I posted ~7 hours ago: Because the polarizations do not cancel each other. You get more light, with both polarization states present. added: it might help to think about what's happening with the electric field

It depends on their speed relative to the train. False dichotomy. It is not an illusion, and it's not a physical effect that happens to the object. If an object is length-contracted to 1 meter, then everything measured in that frame will be consistent with the object being 1 meter long. In that frame, the length is 1 meter. Length is relative. Let's change the experiment to the train's kinetic energy, which is another relative quantity. If you are standing next to the train, or are otherwise at rest with respect to it, it has no kinetic energy. In Bob's frame, the train has a gamma factor of 100, so the train's kinetic energy is 99m0c2 Is that an illusion or actually happening? Are you willing to be Bob and collide with the train because it's just an illusion? The underlying issue is the assumption that there is a preferred frame of reference, which tells us the "truth" when there is no such thing. These measurements are frame-dependent. We are familiar with kinetic energy being frame-dependent, as it is Newtonian and obvious even for slow speeds, but much less so with time and length.

You used "you" in a response to a quote of my statement. Forgive me for drawing the obvious conclusion. I didn't say that a slit is a photon source, I said the double-slit experiment behaves as if it were. You continue to "rebut" statements I did not make. If you want to explain how two point sources of light will not interfere, feel free to do so, but absent that I think you have misconstrued my statements and/or are reading too much into them.

And part of what I don't understand. You need a photon source. I proposed no such model. Which is consistent with Huygens' principle, an early model of double-slit interference

Well, the only thing before the slits in the double-slit experiment is the photon source, so I'm not understanding your objection.

You're going to have to do more than hand-wave your way through this. What testable predictions can you make based on it?

That's always an issue for conventions, but as I said, it needs to be done in a consistent fashion.

No, this is incorrect. He sets that distance to be the same (the observers are co-located), in order to simplify the problem. That way the only effect to consider is the speed. As Markus points out, different distances are accounted for in the math, should you choose to analyze a more complicated problem. Given the relative nature of time, "now" is not well-defined. We generally refer to a particular time according to a clock in one's reference frame. ! Moderator Note Duplicate topics merged

But the experiment behaves as if they do Because the polarizations do not cancel each other. You get more light, with both polarization states present. It behaves like a point source, where there is no opportunity for interference.

! Moderator Note FYI, since you seemed to have missed it, the pertinent passage in 2.7 is “members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos”

! Moderator Note You can’t require people to go elsewhere to get information necessary to participate in a discussion. If you want a thread here, the necessary information must be presented here. You have been warned about this before. This is based on rule 2.7

Not with that attitude, at least. Unless the energy grid gets updated (the US is generally in bad shape), there will be problems with utility-only generation if electrical demand goes up, as it likely will with the adoption of electric vehicles.

It's not up against the wall. The shadow shows this. I imagine aesthetics is part of that.

Emily Rainey participated in activities surrounding the rally; she resigned her commission soon after being identified, and the army was/is looking into the matter. DoD Directive on Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces https://www.marines.mil/Portals/1/Docs/134410p[1].pdf 4.1.2. points to things one is not permitted to do, which includes involvement in partisan political activities. I think the issue with Rainey was that she was an organizer of the trip, and protesting that someone stole an election from another seems like partisan politics. We also don't yet have a clear picture of what happened inside of the government on that day, or in the days leading up to it. Particularly in regard to the deployment of national guard troops and any delay that might have occurred.