pzkpfw

Ha! I'm not wasting my time searching for your spam; I happened to see it on two sites I visit most days. There is absolutely no reason why the two pulses from S1 and S2 can't arrive at D simultaneously. This is not controversial at all. Further, if the ship is inertial and D is exactly between S1 and S2 that would mean the pulses were emitted simultaneously too - according to an inertial frame where the ship is not moving. The real question is the view from a different inertial frame, i.e. from a frame moving according to the ship (or for which the ship is moving). From that other frame, the simultaneous arrival is not in question. (The common example is: what if D triggers a bomb? The bomb either explodes or it doesn't, nobody can disagree.) But according to that other frame, do S1 and S2 emit in sync? The answer has to be no, because the speed of light is not infinite, and D is moving towards one pulse and away from the other. The pulses have to be emitted at different times to arrive at D together. All you have done is reverse the classic train/embankment experiment ( https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/einstein/works/1910s/relative/ch09.htm ). Your S1 and S2 are the lightening strikes, and D is the observer in the middle of the train. The difference, is the strikes are stipulated to be simultaneous in the embankment frame, and the question is whether they are also simultaneous in the train frame; you have provided the vice versa - stipulating the strikes to be simultaneous in the train frame. Where you go wrong is seen in this one line in your OP: "It should be noted that, according to special relativity, the clocks synchronized by this procedure will be in synch. However, from experience we know that the clocks will be out of synch. Therefore, we know that the relativistic procedure is wrong, based on experience." With the "we know" and "experience" bits you show you are assuming that there's one real truth to simultaneity, and for some reason it's not the ship that's right. Essentially your "proof" that relativity is wrong is to assume relativity is wrong.

99% of "issues" in relativity come down to the relativity of simultaneity. That observers inside and outside the ship can agree the light pulses reach the detector at the same time, yet can disagree that S1 and S2 emit the pulses at the same time, is well understood. There's no issue here except ignoring the relativity of simultaneity. (Disclaimer: 99% of statistics are made up) Oh! And then another cross reference: https://forum.cosmoquest.org/forum/the-proving-grounds/against-the-mainstream/3722813-a-disproof-of-the-principle-and-theory-of-relativity

Do astronauts in the ISS feel themselves thrown to the side of the station?

Cross reference: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=86571

Instead of ASCII, use EBCDIC. And try Pi in base 9 instead of base 10. Does your numerology still make anything you recognise?

I make a lot of curries so it's the spices that get cooked first.

The current math for gravity and orbits (Kepler, Newton, Einstein, ...) works very well, and does not show evidence of these "grooves". Do you have math, to apply to the orbits of things, that shows they get positioned in "grooves"? e.g. the idea of these "grooves" implies certain discrete distances from the object orbited. I'd also point out that orbits are generally elliptical, with an apogee and perigee. Multiple things in orbit around the same central thing* (e.g. the eight planets and our sun) do not have ellipses that coincide - the direction from the sun of their apogee and perigee are not the same; they don't indicate being in "grooves" that follow any kind of pattern. (* that's a simplification for now.)

Elves.

The chance of someone who has no idea about current theories of abiogenesis correctly calculating the "probability of life" is approximately zero.

Makes me think of Dire Straits, Industrial Disease:

What do you mean by "averting"?

It's hard to know how to improve something when it doesn't seem to do anything. You start by claiming it's to help understand complex numbers, but "understanding" something by doing even more convoluted things with something adjacent to it, is counter-productive. How about showing how you use this system? What's it for? What's it do?

Forget "relative mass". (It's a deprecated concept. Modern physics has pretty much dropped the idea.)

Yeah, and people with longer legs should pay lower rates (city council fees, whatever) since when walking a given distance they make fewer steps than short-leg people so wear out the footpaths less.

Yikes. Right at the start of your OP you claimed: (A) Global Warming -> (B) disrupted ecosystem -> (C) slowed down the earth's core -> (D) weakening the magnetic field When asked for evidence you provided none, you waffled about how there'd be no evidence (or something like that). So you claimed something extremely wild (especially the B to C step) then provided nothing to back it up. That's what led to the "met science" comment, which was well justified.

It goes both ways. I've never read "The Expanse" but am near the end of Season 5 of 6 of the T.V. show ... The former Mars colony (now independent) has political and sometime military conflict with Earth. Martian marines get special training at 1G in case they ever need to fight on Earth. Regular Martians have more trouble if they visit Earth. "Belters" (the culture developed in the outer planets and on asteroids), basically can't function well on Earth, being human but individuals having grown up with only weak gravity, and weak pseudo gravity from spinning stations and accelerating ships.

1. You never really explain what an "atmosphere lamp" is. 2. Given you then talk about regular LED bulbs it's not clear what new effect you seem to have found. 3. You don't explain why positioning them at the poles matters. 4. Your claim that your small scale local tests has "already prevented multiple apocalyptic warming scenarios" is an extraordinary claim that you provide zero evidence for. 5. You "haven't been able to exactly describe the phenomena just yet" - so what exactly do you expect us to discuss? 6. Your claim that the orientation of an LED bulb "instantly and definitely has a dramatic effect on correcting the layers of the atmosphere" is an extraordinary claim that you provide zero evidence for. 7. Your claim "When I did this I think it may have corrected a disgusting amount of disorganization in the atmosphere from all the atomic bomb testing in the 50's, 60's" is an extraordinary claim that you provide zero evidence for. 8. With "firing a gun causes cavities in the atmosphere" ... what exactly do you mean by "cavities"? 9. Your claim "which otherwise would last for an indefinite amount of time until something disturbs where the cavitation occurred" is an extraordinary claim that you provide zero evidence for. 10 You never explain why "light is good for doing this." [fixing these "cavities"] 11. What's Newtons first law got to do with these "cavities"? Basically, it's all gibberish. You might as well say a hovercraft full of eels will fix climate change.

He's managed it before: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=82016.0

In step 4, you want "goto 2". Curious, and I do believe this is relevant, do you accept 0.999... = 1 ?

Has anyone mentioned the water byproduct of hydrogen fuel cells? (not quite what the OP is after, but slightly related.) https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/fuel-cell-gemini/nasm_A19660646000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_vehicle

Real, schmeal, I prefer purity:

I'd bet a dollar they are in the root.

True, but moving isn't much more of an exercise for the disk than renaming (moving a file does not mean all of its content is shifted to some other area of the disk), and it achieves the immediate aim of tidying. If nothing breaks immediately, moved folders can stay where they are for a while. If only renaming, the root folder stays "messy" until the decision to delete.

I think these are "temporary" folders where updates are loaded to, before being applied. So while I'd expect them to not be needed once those updates have been applied, my inclination (especially in the lack of context) is to just leave them alone. If anything, (and if sufficient rights are held) moving them to some subfolder, so they can be moved back if stuff stops working, or deleted a year later, would be what I did. (There is no money back guarantee for this comment.)

Why should base 10 be special? I did this in binary, and the last digit repeats as 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1 What does that prove?