Leaderboard

Hey, count me in. @Lorentz Jr is doing the thankless job of trying to see what's inside the cuckoo clock. (1) You never specify events, or are very ambiguous about it. You keep referring to frame-dependent quantities as if they must mean something to a 'super-observer' that's only in your mind. (2) You never specify reference frames, or conflate different frames in one sentence. (3) You systematically ignore, or make no reference, to experimental results which, needless to say, totally confirm SR in each and every instance that's been looked into. In summary, you don't understand SR, nor are you willing to learn about it --or so it seems. It's impossible to follow your logic because there appears to none. None that's worth considering, anyway.

Or we've considered it deeply and found it flawed, lacking, and contrary to our personal values.

You misunderstood me. I am aware Europe has such racism, and the blacks-are-subhuman thing has many ugly forms. I was aware he intended nothing along those lines, and I was rather urging awareness that in places like the US his original subtitle would, due to our notably fraught history of race relations, offend some people. (and, unfortunately, derail the innocent joke he was making) I would love to live in an America where things have resolved themselves to where such jokes bounce off harmlessly. That would be wonderful. The America I love is one that supports human rights everywhere, not just select spots. I feel like our support of Jewish people would be more credible if it were matched by our support of other displaced people. Both Britain, back in the day, and the US, have shown callous disregard of Palestinian Arabs, and it is only ideology that can warp someone's perception to where they think that's okay. I live in a Native American area of my country, and have witnessed up close the effects of theft, brutality, and displacement, (and blaming the victims when they kick back) so I am aware of the "nuances," especially the ones that Zionists seem to conveniently ignore. Could we split these posts off for a separate thread?

I think that in some respects acting to avoid harming other people applies irrespective of age or genetic or community closeness does extend our duty of care into the future, including the future beyond our lifetimes and to people we aren't closely related to. Around here adults are expected to act to protect children - everyone's children - from harm, at least from obvious and immediate risks. It looks like a hierarchy of priority with our own children at the top, neighbors' and the local community next, children of our nation, children outside our nation. Somewhere down that line the duty of care becomes a bit nebulous as does our capacity to have an effect, except through our society's institutions. We use our institutions to do the things we are incapable of affecting by our individual actions. And then there are those who hold positions of responsibility within our society's institutions, who can have fiduciary duties of care within those roles, sometimes with legal accountability attached. ie can be held to be negligent under the law for dereliction of those duties.

During this week I've (re)learned about the basic principles and laws of thermo dynamics and their physical consequences. For reasons unknown I did not like the subject at all when studying physics and I've not used it theoretically as an engineer. With the help of several regular members* I've improved my understanding by arguing in favour of mainstream science in a recent thread in speculations. The scientific definitions/concepts "temperature", "heat", "heat transfer", "entropy", "heat death of the universe" and more does now have a meaning. I might even take a look at the mathematics again, time will tell... Thanks, /G *) @sethoflagos, @studiot, @joigus, @exchemist ... sorry if I neglected anyone, I'm not going to dig through the 400+ pots in the thread again...

Might this be the only time you've specified an event? Even if it's only an impending one?

Nothing better to do, and most of this thread was a good exercise for me. Relativity, TeX, Inkscape, all good skills for me to work on. It can also be helpful for beginning readers to see the real theory and calculations. 🙂

Yes, splitting would be appropriate if the mods agree. By design or consequence, the Zionist aspirations mirror Aryanism and Apartheid.

Aliens moved into Palestine after 1947 with our assistance and then proceeded to suppress the natives so that they can act out a spurious dystopian societal fantasy depicted by a book.

Indeed, I am not saying that. As I said in earlier posts, Lincoln's portrayal of it is that there are two component waves, that due to the light itself and that due to the secondary forced oscillation of the medium's electrons, and what actually takes place is the resultant, from the superposition of the two components. This is unavoidable as the two components will willy-nilly interfere to produce a single combined waveform.

No, I'm sure Lincoln is not referring to an electron wave function. He is speaking in terms of a semi-classical model, in which the collective forced oscillation of the electrons in the medium sets up a secondary electric field wave, moving with the electric vector of the light but more slowly, and the superposition of the two leads to a reduction in phase velocity. The important part of the video comes in the final 3 minutes. The rest is background explanation of what refractive index is, why some of the popular explanations are wrong, and so forth. By the way, I'd like very much to hear your simpler explanation, if you care to summarise it. I find this an interesting topic and I feel I'm on slightly shaky ground relying just on what I recall from Peter Atkins at Oxford in 1974! But maybe I can get the gist of it from your posts up to this point. I'll read them carefully. I like this a lot. It contains the idea that energy is borrowed from the light by the lattice electrons, which quantum mechanically can - I think - be thought of as mixing in a bit of, mainly, the nearest excited state (in transition frequency). This is the exciting piece, to me, as it explains the link between the magnitude of refractive index and the proximity in frequency of absorption bands in the spectrum of the medium.

One picture that I found comfortable is to firstly accept that the paths taken are simply governed by a form of least action (via Fermat's Principle of least time) - which I think is one way of saying that any potential deviation from Snell's law would be corrected by wave interference. Then taking a first law view, the total energy of the incoming light is transformed at the interface into a composite package of equal energy that now includes some level of induced motion in the local lattice electrons. This package, if viewed as a particle in its own right, now has some albeit small mass and therefore must adopt a sublight speed appropriate to the amount of 'baggage' it's now carrying. When leaving the medium the lattice field reclaims its baggage and returns its borrowed energy back to the reconstituted photon which continues on its way. I'm sure there's some phrasing here that I've got wrong but at least it's a process I can picture.

Exactly. That's how I would explain it anyway. When the medium is linear and homogeneous, the wave equation has to be modified by including the electric displacement \( \boldsymbol{D}=\boldsymbol{E}+\boldsymbol{P}=\left(1+\epsilon_{0}\chi\right)\boldsymbol{E} \). It's only natural to assume that polarisation varies with the frequency, as how much it responds naturally depends on how fast I shake the atoms of the material. Which book is this? I don't know if Lincoln mentions that the material has to be a dielectric. If the material is a conductor, the wave will be damped, which can also be incorporated in the formalism with a complex refraction index --the imaginary part accounting for absorption. As usual, what's hard is trying to find an intuitive explanation with no maths.

@John Cuthber ..you truly deserve to be called an "ape" and not "homo sapiens".. this video wasn't about "apes and black people".. it was about "giving guns to the wrong hands that can turn against you".. If you were a "homo sapiens", and not a "ape", you would have figured it out, but your hatred blinds you and prevents you from seeing the real content.. V.P. is giving weapons to the wrong hands, i.e. criminals from prisons and ordinary Russians who don't share his madness, and might turn against V.P. and his mafia.. The ancient Romans did this twenty centuries ago, and it began and ended their downfall.. Wow! I never imagined it would turn into some kind of racist thread branch.. You need to flush that shit out of your head..

I think it is not only an issue of power (though it can be) but to a large extent it is exhaustion. The acts of what is now called microaggression often were normalized and even if pushback was successful, dealing with it on a regular basis, especially as it likely would not change anything, makes it easier to just ignore than to fight. I also suspect that this continues to be the modus operandi for most folks, but social media allows the voices that do object to be magnified (for better or worse). Context. Which is why it is mostly futile to try to come up with "objective" rules. Eh, I don't see how it has changed. Mostly about what folks get offended by, actually. Try to talk to folks about how stereotyping whole groups of people is harmful maybe one or two decades ago and see them implode because they feel that you accused them racism.

I think you are mistaken on this point. I believe people have always been offended when called a C or N or "boy" or "ape" or "squaw" or "redskin" or "kike" or "jew boy"or "chink", but due to their relative weakness just had to live with it. What has changed is that minorities have more power than they used to have and instead of quietly fuming at the insult (what you interpret as "not being offended") they are speaking out. Primarily because people are different. If a term is used to dehumanize people like you so that you can be murdered and fed to the pigs, you can be 'hurt' by that term. Emotionally and physically. In part because it helps interactions run more smoothly. If you had a brother who was taunted by the word "retard" and he was abused during his life because of a low IQ, you would probably find it easier to work with someone who didn't cavalierly toss about the term "retard" when around you.

The F-35 is a very good interdictor/strike aircraft, but its networking capabilities give it great situational awareness and make it a good BVR ( beyond visual range ) figter also. Shooting a sidewinder, or any other type of missile, from well below, will destroy the suspended payload, yielding no intelligence. Better to attck it at similar altitude and taget the balloon.

It is an answer to this ^^^ question. If a planet is electrically charged, all parts will push away from each other, and the planet will tend to be spherical.

Yes, but we're talking about transmission. There's a classical theory for calculating the index of refraction. I think the idea (to put it into quantum-mechanical terms) is that the applied potential from the light distorts the electron wave functions (i.e. their energy eigenstates) "smoothly" (so the photon energy must be less than the band gap) so the electrons oscillate without jumping out of their ground states.

The F-22 is the only aircraft in US inventory that is somewhat stable at 60000ft ( other than the unarmed, former SR-71 and U-2 reconnaissance platforms ), the F-15 is right on the edge of its flight envelope. Even the F-22 would need to close at M-1 or better to remain maneuverable. The F-22 carries the M-61 Vulcan cannon, which fires at 6000 rounds/minute, so its drum of 480 rounds would be done in 4.8 seconds ( disregarding wind-up time ), and would have an effective range of a few miles. It is not particularly easy to fly towards a target at approx. 600 mi/hr, shoot off a couple of seconds worth of cannon rounds while heading straight at the target ( it's a fixed cannon, remember ? ), and evade the 200 ft ballon you're flying towards, while only being able to pull 1 or 2 Gs in the rarified air at that altitude. And thse 20mm cannon rounds are explosive. The balloon won't provide enough resistance to detonate them; they'll simply punch 20 mm holes in it. It will take a long time for that balloon to come down; even with 480 20 mm holes in it. And those unexploded cannon shells will still detonate on impacting the ground, or pose a danger to anyone finding them. So the USAF decided to use a $400000 AIM-9X Sidewinder without IR detector, but using semi-active radar guidance from the F-22 radar. Incidentally, Canadian CF-18, or even the future F-35, could not bring it down, even had they tried.

No, my post is entirely correct, no idea what either of the above replies are talking about, but it sure isn't reality. Oh the horizontal beam took 5 seconds alright, it's obvious, you just don't realize where Einstein made his grievous error. I think I explained it clearly enough, I suggest reading as many times as required to comprehend it. I will illustrate the problem with this diagram of a square light clock moving at 0.866 c and c being 1 m/s. There are two beams, the usual vertical one, magenta, but with an additional horizontal one, red. The square is really a 10 m x 20 m rectangle when stationary but is shown length contracted. Both beams are the same length in the contracted version so how did they get to take two different amounts of time to complete their trips across the square? Obviously, the green line is not in fact the vertical beam, the magenta line is, and the red line is not really the horizontal beam, it's a distorted version. How could you correct the red line and the green line using the same timer desynchronization? They're not the same length, nor is the red line twice the length of the green line, they appear as distorted versions of their true lengths, but distorted in different ways. This presents an unresolvable conundrum for Special Relativity and shows how Einstein's light clock thought experiment is flawed and invalid as the basis for his theory.

Yeah that's real pretty, too bad you can't refute my last two diagrams credibly though. No idea what your diagram is supposed to depict, sure doesn't look like anything square or rectangular though. My diagrams are simple and logical, yours appear to be based on a severely distorted version of reality. By the way, I know that the vertical beam in my last diagram wouldn't be affected by the timer desynchronization but it still illustrates how Einstein made the mistake of thinking the actual light beams, or light pulse path, was stretched out just because the light clock was moving horizontally but how, if that were true, it would change the velocity of the light clock, same as I explained in the previous post. Do you seriously think it's scientifically acceptable to have velocity change dramatically just to shoehorn a theory into seeming to work in other respects? Either we know the velocity of the clock or we don't, which is it? What's the velocity of the clock. 0.866 c or 0.4641 c? I posted another thread a while back about the "light clock conundrum" and the only way anybody could explain how the Lorentz factor could be valid for the light clock diagram in that one was to do just that, suggest that the velocity was different than what it obviously was and therefore a completely different Lorentz factor was appropriate. Does Special Relativity contract velocity? I must have missed that part of Einstein's article, please quote the part about velocity contraction, or admit that there is an unresolvable conundrum.

I think you're probably the only person who didn't comprehend what I wrote, but I'll humor you. What do you say the velocity of the square and rectangle in the two diagrams were? If it's not 0.866 c or 0.4641 c then what is it? Are you going to make up some random velocity now?

Interesting that Genady considers disproving Special Relativity as trolling. I suppose if he can't actually refute my posts intelligently then throwing insults around is the next best thing. Same for Lorentz Jr. You fail to realize that the moving frame is not chasing its own light, it's exactly like it's not moving at all, you just think it has to chase its own light. It also doesn't matter if I do a two way version, I've done that on other forums actually. I'll see If I can find a diagram.

I think that maybe this could actually work, almost. Feel free to ask questions about this here, but for expediency, an explanation of the theoretical operation of this Maxwell's Demon can be found here: https://stirlingengineforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5338&p=18503#p18503