swansont

What is x? If it’s the direction of propagation of a plane wave, why do you expect lensing?

Information that does not mention the cause of the sleep issues does not support your hypothesis. It just doesn’t falsify it. This is the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc (happened after, therefore was caused by)

I will ask again: If the speed of light is infinite, what is the dependence on various parameters that allegedly slow it down? i.e. how to you get from infinite, to c, in laboratory vacuum and the earth’s gravity or gravitational potential, or whatever the proposed dependence is? It’s not enough to assert that gravity slows light down. You need to quantify this effect, similar to how relativity quantifies time dilation.

IOW you can measure it. Arguing that it’s a defined quantity is pretty much meaningless in the context of a claim that it has some different value (infinite, in this case) and/or that it’s variable in ways other than ways that mainstream physics says (e.g. in a medium, with an index other than 1). Claims are falsified by experiment. Defining c is a choice, albeit a logical one, not some mandate. Which is irrelevant, seeing as nobody mentioned planck length or time.

The photon is not at rest. There is a standing wave in the classical picture. but the photon is bouncing back and forth. There is no rest frame for a photon - no way to transform between an arbitrary frame and this proposed rest frame and back.

But it can still be measured. That it is defined means other constants don’t need to depend on the measurement. —- If the speed of light is infinite, what is the dependence on various parameters that allegedly slow it down? i.e. how to you get from infinite, to c, in laboratory vacuum and the earth’s gravity or gravitational potential, or whatever the proposed dependence is?

How would you test this? We can have EM radiation produce a pretty strong field.

You were asked specifically about special relativity.

Yes, there are things that are not matter and have no mass that have energy. Such as photons. That doesn’t follow. If X exists, everything is X, is faulty logic

Not to me. “Unnamed Democrat” has no specific weaknesses and is for whatever the person polled is for. But no real candidate would match up, or measure up, to this.

The neutral pion (which has mass) is its own antiparticle, so no, that’s not it.

How silly of me to assume you meant what you wrote. It should have been clear by comparing your statement to the research citation you posted to support it.

I guess “Identical twins often have different sexual attraction” was a weird echo, then.

Unless they are new and you’re trying to get rid of the fraction of the dye that easily leaches out. Which is what I was taught to do - always wash anything that was dyed, by itself, in cold water, before washing it with the rest of the laundry, lest your other clothes get stained.

Did anyone suggested they were? They can, but it’s not common “it’s important to point out that recruiting twins with different sexualities is extraordinarily difficult. Researchers estimate that just 0.012% of the population consists of a gay or bisexual person who happens to have an identical twin” https://kinseyinstitute.org/news-events/news/2019-07-26-twins-sexual-orientation.php#:~:text=If they have the exact,while the other is gay.

It would be a man and a woman. It’s still possible for them to reproduce, even if one of them were gay.

! Moderator Note Seeing as a pop song is generally not offered up as a peer-reviewed source, I don’t see why one would post it in response to a call for more rigor. We’re done here. Don’t bring the subject up again .

Yes; the transform is between frames of reference (which is what Markus described). The parameter need not be a constant, and constant can refer to to a universal constant (won’t change over time) or something that’s merely unchanging under a specific set of circumstances.

The answer referred to observers in different frames. That’s an issue of invariance. Being constant was not mentioned. Being invariant does not imply that something is constant (mass, for example)

Differing between the train and the observer is an issue of invariance. Being a constant was not addressed.

The ISS does not represent the experience of all astronauts. See e.g. the Apollo missions. edit: xpost with exchemist

That’s different from claiming that it’s the only success. Besides, people with an agenda will find fault wherever they want; some (most?) of the critiques of H-K are from people who clearly don’t understand timekeeping, and/or don’t understand relativity. Only if it’s about how it’s not invariant. A sound source inside a train car, or a plane, will acquire the speed of the train or plane.

The machines had fusion power, so the role of the humans isn’t really adequately explained. But it’s also fiction, so…

I have to point out that relativity is a classical theory. As in, it is not a quantum theory. Yes, Einstein’s relativity was born after the failure to detect motion through the aether, long after the observation of stellar aberration indicated that such motion was present. But Einstein said that the M-M result was not an influence on his work published in 1905. What about the Hafele-Keating experiment?

The Matrix was designed so that the machines could exploit the humans. “Utopia didn’t work” was a comment of the flaws of humanity as perceived by the machines. Humanity’s diversity and the existence of emotion and irrationality. No such thing as perfection, because no matter what situation you create, some fraction of the people will be unsatisfied. Probably related to the evolutionary background of having to struggle/compete to survive, and removing that caused issues.