swansont

You don’t need acceleration for that, and that redshift is in the waveguide’s frame, not in the source frame. If it’s transmitted in the source frame, it would be transmitted in all frames.

How long did it take to find the data that showed blizzards cost more than wildfires? It’s more than that, though; it depends on the crops you grow. California grows water-intensive crops, like alfalfa, rice and almonds. If they grew more crops that needed less water instead, I’m guessing they’d use less water. https://fruitgrowers.com/what-california-crops-use-the-most-water/ And that’s basically the objection to your threads - you present a narrative that’s poorly sourced, and simplistic, and one that ignores important (and sometimes contradictory) detail.

But you had not lumped these together, until you had to justify your claim. That was the problem. You had not presented evidence. So winter storms are, in fact, responsible for greater losses than wildfires, and heat. More than double. And in this data set, far more fatalities. Given that you were wrong about several elements, it’s not clear you did.

You need to make factual statements, backed by sources, and not just assert things. https://www.statista.com/statistics/216831/fatalities-due-to-natural-disasters-in-the-united-states/ Thus also shows your perceived risk is greater than the actual risk, in terms of fatalities. Do you have a citation that shows blizzards are less costly than other events, or are you making that up, too?

If it’s blocking all the light, it’s blocking UV. Filters that transmit the red end of the spectrum might block into the UV.

The topic in the OP is Mars.

If it doesn’t affect the photon, why would the wavelength change?

This has nothing to do with what I asked. ! Moderator Note You’ve been asked questions and been given ample opportunity to respond. Since all you are willing to do is repeat yourself and be evasive, which violates our rules on soapboxing and bad-faith arguments, this is closed. Do not bring the topic up again. (edit: dang, Phi beat me to it.)

Explain the middle part. Why would acceleration of the waveguide affect the photon?

At a greatly reduced rate, owing to the thin atmosphere and the fact that N2 only makes up a few percent, rather than ~80% It’s a nuclear reaction balance.

How is Mercury viewable in the HI2 FOV, which pretty clearly excludes it?

Water can’t be “contaminated with radiation”. Contamination is actual radioactive material. Water could become theoretically be activated via neutron absorption, but where would the neutrons be coming from?

If it’s a waveguide below cutoff, there can be no photon. If it’s a single-mode waveguide, the nominal speed is c, but the presence of the walls probably represents an index>1 due to the evanescent interaction, so it’s less than c. For multi-mode, the path isn’t straight, so the propagation speed is definitely less than c. Or are you asking about the scharnhorst effect? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scharnhorst_effect

And where is the moon supposed to be? (I don’t actually see it in these images) Feb 23 2020 (a date in your animation) was a new moon. May 6 2010 it was third quarter, meaning its position was 90 degrees different. So it would have been in front of or behind the earth. You were asked for models, i.e. math, and they aren’t in your posts. You were asked how we see these objects, if photons only travel 1 light-minute, and you’ve dodged that one, too. How do we have these satellite images if that’s the case? That’s not a model

v=c does not represent an inertial frame, so using the Lorentz transform is inappropriate. For a photon, E = pc, as Markus has explained Neither of which need to be “a mass it interacts with”

Yes, the kinetic energy is relative, as is a photon’s energy. What quantity is infinite? No, it depends on the speed of the frame in which you do the measurement, relative to the source of the photon. No. Photons are indistinguishable from antiphotons. They aren’t. Different spin, and neutrinos have mass. You may be better off limiting your scope, since much of it is wrong, and you need to provide evidence of your claims.

No, it was a good choice. No, since the units don’t work, I have no worry whatsoever. Why should Markus have to derive in equation? It’s not his thread. It’s yours, and you refuse to provide the derivation of your equation. You shouldn’t waste it posturing, then.

That’s not related to a model of the universe

Some are even smaller. Cubesat is one type, falling under the informal “picosatellite ” category of small satellites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CubeSat (edit: xpost with Ghideon) More info on the groups: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_satellite#Classification_groups

It’s not a model for the size of the universe, either. It’s an unanswered question (in your mind, at least) about some phenomenon. And not having an answer does not support a particular hypothesis. Then, at best, it calls into question one particular model (which happens to have loads of evidence supporting it). But being unanswered does not support some other model. Which you don’t seem to have presented. Has the notion that you might just not understand some aspect of science occurred to you? That your lack of understanding does not invalidate that aspect of science?

Yes, that means they will float. But the downflow of water exerts a force as it strikes the beads, so initially the buoyancy can’t overcome this. But the flow rate near the beads decreases after the top fills up, so this force decreases, and then the beads can float upwards.

Yeah, stop doing that. This is not a model of the nature of light. This is known as dodging the question, and if you continue you will find the discussions closed.

There are people that study things like this. One bottleneck is political, in that the science needs to be funded, and that means the people who control the funding have to consider the science to be important. ”This will help us communicate with aliens” is probably a good pitch to a few who would otherwise be prone to rejecting such funding.

Bartholomew Jones has declared he doesn’t need us, and the mods have decided to take him at his word.

But you’re a published cosmologist. Surely you can be more precise in your language, rather than relying on how non-scientists describe things. Does fall mean the change in y as x changes, in a Cartesian system, or does fall mean a change in r, in a spherical coordinate system. Absolutely none of what’s been discussed is related to QM.