swansont

“Apparent” is the wrong description. In the ladder’s rest frame it might be 5 meters long, but in the barn’s frame it’s 1m long. It has that length in that frame. It might be easier to get the concept with another relative property. In it’s rest frame, the ladder has zero kinetic energy, because it’s not moving when you’re in that frame. But in the barn’s frame it has a nonzero kinetic energy, because it is moving relative to that frame. There is no kinetic energy that it inherently has, and having KE is not an illusion - it doesn’t appear to have KE, it has KE, as a collision will certainly demonstrate.

Moderator NoteAnything you want to discuss needs to be discussed here. Don’t expect that anyone will download anything. Answers that just suggest we go read the paper will not be acceptable So energy and momentum aren’t conserved. Any evidence that this is the case?

There’s a little more to it. The ladder doesn’t “appear” shorter; in that frame the length actually is smaller. Length is relative. There is no absolute frame where it has a “real” length - relativity is not an illusion. (this is a common conceptual issue with people learning relativity). In any given frame, some things are at rest, and others are moving. Certain properties of each thing The missing bit of this paradox is that the doors opening and closing. The pole/ladder doesn’t fit with the doors being closed at the same time, but owing to relativity, the doors aren’t closing/opening at the same time in all frames. They close simultaneously in the barn’s frame, which means that’s not simultaneous in the ladder’s frame.

AFAIK, the two main issues are computation power and data. You extrapolate from the data (temperature, pressure, etc) in a cell of some size and calculate how they would evolve based on the effects on the neighboring cells. A more precise prediction means using smaller cells and possibly smaller time increments, but now you need data from more weather stations. Another limiting factor is data uncertainty, because that error propagates through each step of the calculation, and the equations are nonlinear, so small errors can propagate to become large ones. A QC is not inherently more powerful, though it’s possible that there are elements of the algorithm that a QC would do more efficiently, but that doesn’t give you more weather stations, (including weather balloons to get data from above the ground and you need it on and over the ocean) nor does it solve the problem of data precision and uncertainty, which could be worse if you are doing more calculations.

Does the shrinking hapoen to the diameter of the optical fiber, too? But the light is unaffected? The phrasing here suggests that you did an actual experiment. Did you? There’s no way your graph is actual data.

The surface acceleration g = GM/R^2 so g increases as R decreases (G is Newton’s gravitational constant, R is the radius) If R is halved, g will quadruple

This violates our rules. We’d be happy to discuss things with you, and have you ask questions, but something that’s been filtered through a LLM that can only rearrange known info, and will make up answers in some circumstances? No, thanks.

But what does it mean to have a working QC? What programming do you do with qubits, and how many of them do you have? And how is (or just is) the problem you want to solve one that a QC does well? QC is not synonymous with “really powerful computer” it’s one that is potentially really powerful at solving specific tasks.

Moderator NoteWhile there are various versions of creationism, this does not fit with them, and your torture of logic might be in violation of various international agreements. This is a science discussion site, and there’s no version of you thesis that fits in with our umbrella of discussion. But at least “Creationism says that the logic of fact applies to creations” was good for a chuckle. Don’t bring this up again.

Moderator NoteThis is a computer science discussion. Beliefs don’t enter into it, and preaching is against our rules.

Moderator NotePreaching is not allowed here, and considering that you never returned to your prophecies thread, you don’t get any benefit of the doubt that you might engage in discussion in this one

I can’t help but notice that your response to me seems to be some prepared manuscript, that does not answer my questions. How about doing that?

Moderator NoteThis is not a help-wanted board. It’s expected that you will discuss this here.

How does a massless (i.e. no energy) collection emit any radiation? It can’t be at 0K. It must have thermal energy, and as such, mass.

If you have a black hole, how does the energy leave the system as the self-energy cancels the rest energy?

Declared by whom, though? If they were reporting based on Trump’s announcement then it’s the same flawed source, and same failure.

Because Obama got one. If some organization named Obama the best president of the last quarter-century, the Trump meltdown would be epic

Why would they? They are a matter of personal preference, i.e. subjective rather than objective. If you’re going to argue that something is right, there needs to be objective evidence of it, and a mathematical model to compare with the experimental results. You have to pick one or the other (subjective or objective) What you can’t do is jump between the two as a matter of convenience

Multiple reports of what? That Trump said it? That’s not the issue. That an Iranian official denied it was in the same story at CNN That the media still credulously repeats everything that Trump says has to be viewed as massive failure of modern “journalism” They were warned by Iran. Iran gets to say they retaliated, US avoids serious damage. That particular show of bravado can end. Until Netanyahu manipulates Trump into more engagement, or Trump needs another dustraction from his disastrous domestic policies.

Commenting/editorializing on the material posted is not a personal attack.

You believe Trump? What do Israel and Iran say?

Is there an actual science question? Just posting links isn’t enough - we expect things to be discussed to be posted here.

Existing theories quantify the effects, i.e. they have math, and are falsifiable. Quite successful, too. How would one quantify the effects in your proposal, and test it in a rigorous way?

Yes, this is how density, mass and volume relate to each other. It’s really just one equation, which can be rearranged via basic algebra

Volume is already “cubic”; the dimensions of V are L^3 (L is length) Your equations are inconsistent