swansont

You seem to be talking about the legal system, and have assumed that the sole function of it is to punish people. Which is incorrect. While not universally embraced, it also serves to separate people who are a danger to society, and also to rehabilitate people, and possibly other functions. So I submit that the premise that justice is solely associated with punishment is flawed. If someone has transgressed the rules of society and can show they did not act of their own volition (owing to their life experience), the system should still separate them if they pose a danger to others, and rehabilitate them if possible.

I searched for the manual, but since you didn't give the model number (again) I haven't found this particular device, but there is an indoor and outdoor temperature and humidity, and mention of an outdoor sensor and what happens of it can't get a signal from that sensor. Does that apply to your device? In your picture the top row has an icon that suggests a radio connection of some sort, and the second row says "in", suggesting that is the indoor display. Both rows have battery displays, so removing and installing the batteries might reset the device.

! Moderator Note Too much hand-waving, not enough actual science.

It’s sealed pretty well. Why would the pressure be below atmosphere? If there’s already some air in there, it would start at atmosphere. And cold. Also, if the water is going below the ice, the ice will float on the water. Hot water can make the pipe expand, leaving a gap for the water.

No, it reflects a small fraction and transmits most of it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel_equations#/media/File:Fresnel_power_air-to-glass.svg

! Moderator Note Discussions must take place here, without requiring anyone to download anything. You may open a new thread if it complies with the rules

Hot water evaporating

Basically. Water around the rod of ice seals it, so as the water turns to vapor and expands it has nowhere else to go but up, so the rod rises. Just like a piston. edit: see below

Second derivatives give information about the curvature of a function, much like the first derivative tells you the slope.

No, general relativity predates atomic clocks by ~40 years This being physics, one would need to quantify this by using a mathematical model. Gravity would affect the nucleus, too.

AFAIK they are independent.

I would guess 66% is the relative humidity. You can probably find a manual for this online, which would describe the display. Make sure you include the model number in your search.

One suggestion: use variables and substitute the values at the end. In the long run this will make solutions easier. What is the frictional force between block 1 and block 2?

The "shape" is often interpreted as the curvature of the universe, so in a sense, it is what you asked for, even if you did not realize it. Perhaps you need to clarify what you mean by the shape. As I said before, a volume is 3D, and you aren't going to be able to put that onto a 2D map. The best you can do is a projection, or, alternatively, you could represent the components at some value of R on a map. Much like a map of the earth's surface is at some rough, nominal value of R. You can also have a map of the ocean bottom. But it would be difficult to map both the surface and what it looks like 5km below the surface on the same static map. Did you miss where I explained why these are not equivalent? (things that are close to 2D and others are 3D, and how many items are in the image)) It sounds like you want a 3D spatial map of the objects in the universe. How do you represent objects that could be 10 LY away from us, and 20 LY, and 30 LY etc., etc. (as you would have if you look in the direction of the Milky Way for the first 60k LY or thereabouts) out to 45 billion LY, that all might be along a line of sight? IOW you're standing in a dense forest and you want a picture of the whole forest - all the trees. Can you do that from that perspective? One thing you might look at for deep space, in certain directions, would be Hubble deep-space pictures. But it won't tell you the actual depth of the image; it's just a projection onto a plane.

! Moderator Note We're not interested if all you are going to do is preach. Rule 2.8 Preaching and "soap-boxing" (making topics or posts without inviting, or even rejecting, open discussion) are not allowed. This is a discussion forum, not your personal lecture hall. Discuss points, don't just repeat them.

! Moderator Note The last post before you resurrected the thread was a request to answer questions. So it appears Bignose did not share your opinion that there weren't a lot of outstanding issues.

Universe times disagree - your value for the muon frame isn’t the same as the other places you give it. Which one is correct?

No, you need to post information here, to comply with rule 2.7 That doesn't really make sense. What about a clocks on the earth? They are changing more than one spatial coordinate. No, clearly I am not. How about you explain it to me. So moving in the +x direction makes time go backwards? That's not a problem. But you must not use relativity terminology, and we'll just focus on experimental results, which are independent of theory. How do you get from 0.95c to " 0.0975s per 1s rest frame clock time"? The distance is 10km, not 1 km, but more importantly, I thought you claim that there is no length contraction in the muon frame. Everybody agrees on the length. ("Length is a physical property of the universe that is constant for all observers.") The velocity is higher? In the earth frame, at 10km, the muon experiences a little over 4 half-lives (while without relativity you would expect >22 half-lives) The time dilation factor is around 5. Without length contraction, to make the same trip means going ~5 times faster, or ~4.75 times the speed of light. So how would I synchronize a clock in that building to mine? How do you measure this distance? The amount of timing difference can be measured because we can measure time very precisely. Put another way: you need to propose an experiment where it's possible to actually measure the results to see if predictions hold up. The key to relativity is to understand that measurements in two frames of reference must agree, with the same physics being applied. You don't have one set of rules for one frame, and a different set of rules in another frame.

People don't seem to realize that not getting vaccinated means that there's close to 100% probability that you will eventually catch the disease. Unless you die from something else. High vaccination levels would make the latter more of an important part of the equation, and includes "old age." In the US we're already at >10% having had the disease.

Then you can share the analysis here. There's no distance in the rest frame? I can see a building that looks to be 100m from me, and neither of us is moving. It's not actually 100m away? Or if I have an imaginary starting line for muons that's 10 km above the earth, it's not actually 10 km above the earth, because we're in the same frame? Light does not have an inertial frame in relativity. The results diverge; you can't transform into that frame or out of it. e.g. for my example above, if I told you that light took no time in its own frame to get to me from an adjacent building, could you tell me how far away the building was? As none of us are photons, this shouldn't be a problem for analysis. We only have to worry about the lab (rest) frame and the frame of some moving, massive object. Future axis? Non-future axis? Those are things you've added; they aren't in the OP. Is your model in the OP not sufficient to do analysis? We need the whole model. Units matter here. The relativistic way of dealing with this is to use ct as a distance. Or, I suppose you could use t = d/c. But use proper and consistent units, please. 1 second is not a distance. I'm not asking what happens in light's "frame" None of the questions I have asked or will ask require an analysis in light's frame. As I said, none of us are photons. I want answers that will be the result of measurements taken by (massive) observers in a given frame. It's a derived constant? Please derive it. But not until after you provide us with your analysis of the muon experiment in the earth frame and muon frame.

How about comparing your conjecture with the known relativistic effects of muon decay in the atmosphere The speed of light is not infinite Then why does it take a noticeable/measurable amount of time for light to travel to/from a satellite? Why do experiments measure a finite value of about 3 x 10^8 m/s?

I think this depends on what is meant by "space" which is somewhat ambiguous But it probably doesn't mean volume for this graph, because we should see the volume increase and then decrease for positive curvature, and that's not depicted. And for negative curvature, you don't shrink. AFAIK you wouldn't shrink starting from the BB anyway. I interpreted as depicting curvature. Graphing that over time, however, is...interesting.

! Moderator Note Posting to advertise your site and requiring people to go there to get information violates rule 2.7. Bumping without addressing some long-standing questions is soapboxing, a violation of rule 2.8

It's a graph, with time being on the x-axis. Usually one uses a linear scale, unless there's a compelling reason not to. Nothing. It's a graph. Only the lines mean anything. No. This has nothing to do with travel. It's different possibilities of how the universe might have evolved after the BB. As Endy said, evidence supports the notion that we evolved along the blue line, rather than one of the others. Yes. If we're on the blue line, so is everybody else.

We read up on entanglement in our journal club probably 5 or 6 years ago, and I recall from one paper where there were different polarization state combinations possible, but one in particular was desired*, and you could do a unitary transformation in the QM analysis to get from one to another. In an experiment this would be a half-wave plate in one of the photon paths. I'm much more attuned to optics/lasers techniques than spin, so that's what stuck. *this is an educated guess rather than a clear recollection, but having cross-polarizations mean you can combine or split them using a polarizing beamsplitter, which might have been what they were after Right. And it's a common misconception (and repeated in pop-sci articles) that you are wiggling one particle and seeing the other instantly wiggle in response, and that's decidedly NOT happening.