swansont

In an interview, Goldberg said that the CIA director named a covert operative in the texts. So much for no classified info (not that anyone was buying that)

Yes, it’s defined a particular way, in order to be useful to us. The realization of some constants relies on c being invariant, since we can then pick c to be a defined value. But realizing these constants don’t generally rely on measuring durations, since that would be an intermediate step which would reduce precision. Indeed. And smart people work on these problems, and find ways to do comparisons that don’t have extra biases and errors

Tulsi said she couldn’t address a few points while the situation is under review, which I think translates as “can’t answer until we get together (on signal) and get our stories straight, and have time to also fudge the paperwork”

The CIA director claimed that the info is recorded per government rules, and using signal is allowed under that stipulation (I don’r\t know if that’s correct) but I don't think that applies to classified or CUI. (I say: let’s see the record. Now, before anyone fiddles with it) One of the senators chastised him for saying you can’t say this was unclassified but can’t reveal the content in the hearing - can’t have it both ways. And Gabbard said something about war plans not being classified. LOl

As iNow noted, they do. An AP story on this said they used secure communication, but I think that just means encrypted. The DoD has a secure network, meaning you have to have special credentials to gain access to it, and the devices attached to it are located in secure facilities. A reporter/editor would not have those credentials. They were flouting the procedures. Nothing accidental about this.

Trump is doing more than expressing views. He (via Musk) is firing people and cutting off funding, which are tangible actions, and not mere expression. Yes. I’ve asked a number if times for you to show where the right not to be offended is written out in any constitution. Now you question the legality of something without citing what law they allegedly broke. Are you not capable of researching these things? What I just mentioned would be one reason. You seem to want people to answer in a certain way, and when they don’t, you ask again. It’s like you want your opinion to be an objective fact. If you don’t report posts and bring them to the staff’s attention, we might not see these posts. Have you done so? Keep in mind that simple disagreement is not a rules violation. Not all moderator action is public. Cutting off funding appropriated by congress. He doesn’t have that authority, and courts have begun to say so. There’s also the issue that “freedom of speech” is a freedom from the government punishing you for speech, but Trump represents the government. He doesn’t have this freedom when acting in an official capacity. That’s true of any person in government- you can say things as a private citizen that you are not allowed to express at work, or in representing the government

I asked before for you to explain what you are talking about rather than what you aren’t. But what’s left? At this point it seems you are just having a tantrum when anyone disagrees with you, i.e. trolling. You’ve presented no evidence of any democracy guaranteeing the rights/freedoms you want.

Math has rules. The wave equation has a specific form to it. If you’re going to dive into a discussion on the subject, it’s good to have a grasp of the basics. We’re talking about Maxwell’s equations in a vacuum, since that’s a condition for c being invariant. In a medium, light doesn’t travel at c, so the wave equation uses c/n (n is the index of refraction). Sound waves don’t travel at c, either (or at all, in a vacuum) If you are discussing the invariance of c, one of the stipulations is that it’s a vacuum, since c is the speed of light in a vacuum.

The performers don’t have the right to not be offended by the views of the religious, and I suspect they are very offended by some of those views. The symmetry is not having the right to not be offended. Apparently you do

Given that they had to make up the part about it being about Christianity, it seems that they are offended by the mere existence of certain people. I have a hard time reconciling that with the basic teachings of their religion.

It’s not my opinion. It’s a judge’s ruling, and one in a long line. I’d probably be upset. That’s the price of having the right of freedom of speech. I defy you to find freedom from being offended in any constitution of a democratic country. In dictatorships, they enforce rules about not offending the dear leader and those in power. Have fun living there if you aren’t one of the oligarchs You seem to want to have freedoms that you would deny others.

This ignores what I said completely As far as Maxwell’s equations go, it’s the wave equation. If c isn’t invariant, you no longer have a wave equation. You can’t transform to another inertial frame and recover the formula. There’s no time measurement involved at all. For the fine structure, there’s no time measurement either. It’s a comparison of two measurements - any time dependence drops out.

! Moderator Note keep ChatGPT out of mainstream discussions. see rule 2.13 As studiot notes, the invariance of c is embedded in Maxwell’s equations. EM waves wouldn’t be waves if c wasn’t invariant. Yet they are waves even when there is relative motion between source and observer. The solution here is straightforward: you measure the stability of the fines structure constant without measuring a duration. Say, by measuring transitions in different elements. If alpha changes, the transition frequencies change by different amounts, and you can measure that

In case there’s any question about the US version of this right, a quote from recent ruling on banning drag shows https://www.thefire.org/sites/default/files/2025/03/Opinion - Texas A%26M Queer Empowerment Council v. Mahomes%2C et al..pdf "To ban the performance from taking place on campus because it offends some members of the campus community is precisely what the First Amendment prohibits." (p.28)

I asked all three who built the first rubidium fountain clock. They gave three different answers. Perplexity got it right, and gave a decent summary. Consensus gave a list of references but couldn’t figure out that 2004 was earlier than other dates.