exchemist

Nothing “crashed”, that’s obvious from the widespread fireball sightings I linked earlier, but which you have opted to ignore. So all we’re left with is the uncorroborated testimony of these panicky people. The video footage shows nothing. It’s a total non-story.

Quite. Seeing what you want to see. But for me the fireball reports (21 of them) from across 4 states is pretty decisive. I searched "1st May meteor Las Vegas" and got that link straight away. Funny that people predisposed to attribute these reports to aliens don't take the elementary precaution of running a few simple checks before committing themselves to their preferred version of events.

That's fairly obviously a meteor, or re-entry of some space debris: https://ams.imo.net/members/imo_view/event/2023/2408 Note that sightings were reported across four US states. So it clearly wasn't a local phenomenon, like a spacecraft landing in the vicinity of the town. And the "alien" picture could be anything at all. Move along ladies and gents, nothing to see here.

Not at all. I'm choosing to focus on the observations because you've had a good run with @Mordred on the derivation of the theory and I can't do that as well as he can, as I'm only a chemist. But in the end, in science, observations are what count. How the theory was derived may be interesting intellectually, but the test of a theory is whether it predicts observations correctly. You seem not to have engaged at all with the examples on time dilation and mass-energy equivalence I gave you earlier. Why is that?

I can't follow you here. Invariance of the speed of light has been observed, time dilation has been observed (I gave you an example) and mass/energy equivalence has been observed (I gave you an example). If you want to argue that the observed invariance of the speed of light is some kind of artifact of the measuring process (is that what you are claiming?), you still have to deal with these other observations, which are predicted by SR.

The independence of the speed of light from motion of source and receiver is an observed fact. It is idle to pretend otherwise. All of SR follows from that observed fact. And all observations predicted by SR are found to be correct in practice. Whether Einstein's logic was sound or not doesn't really matter. Nature behaves, so far as we can tell, as if SR is correct. If you want to argue about the logic that's fine. But do not pretend the observations are wrong.

I believe baptism originated in a Jewish purification ritual involving immersion in water: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritual_washing_in_Judaism#Full-body_immersion It seems likely that this is what John the Baptist may have been inspired by.

Well the observational facts are that the predictions of SR are correct, so you have a big problem there. I gave you some examples earlier in the thread. And it all derives from the observational fact that the observed peed of light is found not to depend on relative motion between source and receiver, or between observers. It contradicts classical physics, sure, but it seems to be the case. Just as in quantum theory the behaviour of atomic scale entities does not confirm to classical physics either. One of the big insights of c.20th physics was that nature does not have to conform, at all scales and in all circumstances, to what looks to us like common sense. But I'll observe your discussion with @Mordred with interest.

That's perhaps a useful clarification on your part. Do I take it, then, that you accept that in practice SR accurately accords with observations? If so then your issue, presumably, is with Einstein's reasoning when he set out the theory, rather than arguing that SR does not work. Do I have that right?

What is this paper and in what reputable journal has it been published?

This looks like an attempt to brush aside the inconvenient fact that SR is found to work in practice. That is not what one does in science.

If it has no frequency I don't see how it can be a wave. The term "scalar wave" seems to be favoured by cranks, according to Rationalwiki: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scalar_wave

Presumably if information can't be transmitted faster than light then initiating the motion at the shoulders would result in the hands moving later, or something, wouldn't it?

Chemically speaking, plastics are organic, being made of molecules with a carbon/hydrogen backbone.

What can it mean to say an electron has awareness, or has a purpose? How do you think this would manifest itself?

Good point.

It did not need to. The whole point of the theory is to explain how adaptations can arise, purely through more successful reproduction of creatures with a trait that happens to be an advantage. This is basic. You can read about it anywhere. The evolution of the eye can be traced to creatures with light-sensitive patches on their skin. Those that had them could move towards or away from the light and this would have enabled them to find more food or escape more predators, so they reproduced more and handed on the advantage to their offspring. Etc. This is how it works, not by an organism “knowing” anything.

Disappointing. I had hoped it would be something to do with chocolate.

The Beer-Lambert law seems to have been formulated in 1913. Apart from that I can't think of any c.20th "laws", offhand. I'm speculating, but I suspect the notion of "laws" went out of fashion along with the "classical" absolute and deterministic worldview of science, which Einstein, Heisenberg et al threw out of the window in the first two decades of the c.20th. Most "laws" seem to be named after the person that formulated them - and to be broken in practice.

I thought this happened over a week ago and the police had closed the case. Later note: I'm wrong it was over a month ago. And nothing was found:https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-06-09/las-vegas-police-investigate-reports-of-alien-sightings Can you provide a reference to the claim of a large round depression?

And the police found what, exactly, when they investigated?

Time dilation? The observed increase in half life of unstable particles, at velocities relative to the observer that are a significant fraction of the speed of light. Atmospheric muons are one well-known instance. Regarding mass, the best example is probably the observed mass defect in nuclear fission, which is accounted for by E=mc². "Mass increase" is, so I understand, not a concept used that much nowadays, since mass is generally taken nowadays to mean rest mass, which does not increase. One tends instead to use the full formula, E² = (mc²)² + (pc)², in which there is a momentum term (p). Length contraction is harder, admittedly. I struggle to think of a good example, save in the sense that, when time dilation is observed, one must have a corresponding length contraction from the viewpoint of the other reference frame. Perhaps one of the physicists here can come up with a more direct example. None of this is a matter of "faith". The observations are the observations. If you consider SR is wrong, it is up to you to show what better, i.e. correct in your view, explanation can successfully account for the observations.

Because relativity works, so your supposed logical objections, however clever you imagine them to be, are beside the point. All this sound and fury about the logic behind it, faulty or not, is so much wasted breath if the theory accurately predicts what we should be able to observe. And it does. Many theories in science have arisen from conjectures or faulty reasoning. For instance Sadi Carnot's insights into thermodynamics, which we use to this day, were based on the supposed flow of a heat-transmitting substance called "caloric", which was later shown to be non-existent. But the laws of thermodynamics work. So we use them. Obsessing about supposed logical defects of a theory is irrelevant compared to the true test of a theory, which is via observation. I asked you a while back on this thread if you had an alternative model that also accounts for these observations. There has been no response.

The critical point for CO2 seems to be at ~30C and at a pressure of ~74bar. So you will not have any liquid above that temperature. At 20C, say, the minimum pressure to keep it liquid is about 65bar. Phase diagram here: https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/CO2-carbon-dioxide-properties-d_2017.html#phases So I suppose if you are supplied with a "liquid CO2" cylinder, it must have a pressure when full of 70bar or so. But it won't take much of a drop in pressure before what you have is a gas, at which point the degree to which the smaller cylinder is "filled" will just be a function of the total volume of both cylinders, when you equalise the pressure between the two. At least, that's how I read the phase diagram.

How is it, then, that observation (e.g. the operation of particle accelerators, the mass defect in nuclear physics, atmospheric muon lifetimes, and things like that) are in agreement with SR? After all, in science it is observation that is the test of a hypothesis. Do you have an alternative model that correctly accounts for the observations? P.S. You're not an electrical engineer by any chance, are you? Something about you is a bit familiar.