swansont

You mention quarks only as components of neutrons and protons. That’s it. It does not address my point about mass and charge.

ag400002 has been banned for repeated, persistent thread hijacking

! Moderator Note Discussion on science as dogma has been split https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/120711-science-is-dogma-split-from-what-is-the-purpose-of-life/ Further discussion here on the subject will be removed as off-topic

mistermack has been suspended for some inappropriate commentary, in violation of rule 2.1

"Elvis, if pressed" (referring to records) is a double pun. More than enough payback for my causality joke.

That would seem to violate causality.

justqwer has been banned for trolling us with ID nonsense.

! Moderator Note Similar threads merged.

The mainstay cartoon character from the Looney Tunes collection of Warner Brothers animated works. From back before cable TV. There might be more information on him if one were to search this "internet" thingy With friends like that...

I want to note for the record that when I had the chance to go to Albuquerque a few years ago, I made sure to make the proper left-hand turn, and ended up where I wanted to be.

If you learn it as 3D, rather than projected onto the 2D surface of a sphere.

Oldand Dilis had been suspended for trying to bully the staff into letting them post their material without regard for the rules.

ag400002 suspended for repeated hijacking with a pet theory

Even more generally, any dissipative process. Wind resistance being another example. Inelastic scattering, too.

That latest one embeds automatically for me. Try a different browser, perhaps? Different computer, if possible?

This one embeds just fine for me, if you use the direct youtube link (click on the "watch on youtube" icon and use that address. Not the embedded link — that gives me a "no video at that link" error) If you still have trouble, you may have browser settings that are in conflict with embedding it

So the apparent velocity and absolute velocity are invariant. ...except that it's not. Which is it? Please stop doing this. The rules state that the discussion takes place here, and that you must provide enough information to have the discussion without people clicking on any links.

OK, then, quarks.

There are only two choices here. Either they are the same, or they are not the same. The electron and proton have opposite charge. Same magnitude, different sign. Thus, they have different charge. And something with no charge has a different charge than something that does.

No. SR has no ether, and predicts no fringe shifts. It doesn't "make up" for anything. Aether theory, as described in the late 1800s, predicted a speed of 30 km/s through the aether. The M-M experiment excluded that result by a very large margin. What part of c being invariant assumes an aether? An "aether frame" is an oxymoron, since the aether was the rest frame. As in The Highlander, there can be only one.

Also my questions

Um, no. The peaks and troughs are the maxima of the E & M fields of the EM radiation. I don't see how that is "ether thinking" There are also experiments that rely on these fields existing.

Acceleration is a behavior and mass is a property, so the former statement is saying there is a behavior which is not dependent on the property. Charge is another property, so the latter claim is that these two properties have some relation, but that relation does not actually exist, and the statements are not similar. The statement isn't even true. I can pick a bunch of different particles with different masses and with different charge. (e.g. a neutron, a proton and an electron)

Speaking of the hydrogen 21 cm line: I suspect that if there was an absolute velocity then a hydrogen maser would undergo a frequency shift if the maser was in motion relative to the absolute frame. And Cs beam clocks would see a frequency shift for different orientations of their beam (and Rb fountain clocks as well)

Why is this not 50 MHz? If I send a signal down an optical fiber, would I see similar results? (Optical fiber is a much more common method of sending a signal) And instead of just sending pulses, what if I sent an analog signal at, say, 5 MHz? Its frequency would change, right? See above. (Though I don't see how GPS would work if there is an absolute speed.) You might want to get in the habit of providing links for experiments you cite. It will save everyone the trouble of having to ask for them. And, of course, an explanation of how they support your hypothesis. But the key is finding an experiment that would be able to show your idea is wrong, if it is indeed wrong.