swansont

They are viewed differently. A rainbow is not projecting the light onto a screen as we do with a prism. i.e. we typically don’t look at the prism. If we did, from a similar distance as a rainbow, we would only see one color. But if we had a bunch of prisms, separated by an appropriate distance, we would see a rainbow. The same principles of refraction and dispersion apply. With rainbows, there is also a reflection..

Not having found it yet does not mean it won’t eventually happen. And there’s experimental evidence that there is mass we can only detect gravitationally, and that the universe’s expansion is accelerating. There was a time that beta decay appeared to violate conservation of energy and angular momentum.

What evidence do you have that dark matter and dark energy are unverifiiable? And you are wrong. It’s not a measurement issue. That’s a separate phenomenon.

Which is color separation, as a result of refraction and dispersion, which is what’s happening in a prism.

They did not discover life on Enceladus, or anywhere beyond earth, and state this in the article.

We can explain some of the universe. So is length. We don’t know what length is in the same way we don’t know what time is. So would any set of numbers. “We” don’t think it was random. Babylonians used a base 60 numbering system, and there are reasons why this makes sense. (both 60 and 12 are divisible by a lot of numbers)

Possibly, but as Hal Holbrook said in All the President’s Men, “these aren’t very bright guys” One photo of the many boxes showed a photocopier. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/photos-from-trump-indictment-show-boxes-of-classified-documents-stored-in-mar-a-lago-shower-ballroom

The sycophants are running for VP. They know Trump’s getting the nomination, unless he has a stroke or something, so they can’t alienate him. The question I have is did anyone copy classified documents, and if so, have they testified to the grand jury? Because there’s no reason to make copies unless you’re giving (selling) them to someone else.

What does this have to with my point that the multiple views were of the fireball, not the alleged aliens? Though there is something to look at here; everyone agrees that there is a fireball, because it’s bright and green. Quite obvious. But we don’t know how fast it’s moving or how big it is, because we don’t know how far away it is. Any estimates on that will vary; if it’s 100m away or 1000m away, the numbers you’d get would differ by a factor of 10.. As for the back yard, the video has been “enhanced” and we don’t know how it was altered. We don’t have any “control” video to see what kind of visual artifacts show up with this enhancement under similar lighting, but where everyone agrees no aliens are there. These are the kinds of things that have to happen for these to start to be considered scientifically rigorous. But nothing connecting the UAP and the alleged creatures. The lack of objectivity is the problem.

These are of the green falling object, right? That something fell is not in dispute. Don’t substitute this for the video of the alleged beings. Nobody claimed this, and presenting a straw man makes your position less credible. Further, it’s not entirely clear that one can claim that whatever caused the fireball landed in the yard. Some people are just assuming this.

Heisenberg uncertainty principle is not a measurement issue, despite his early description of it. It’s a fundamental feature of QM for non-commuting variables; position and momentum are Fourier transforms of each other, and that’s the source of the relation. You can’t give a valid criticism of something you don’t have a grasp of.

That applies to the first day only, as an anti-spam measure. You can say this, but you would be incorrect. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is not superposition or superstate (whatever that is)

They could have seen something. Not aliens, but not a complete fabrication. It’s night, they’re on edge, and it’s difficult to judge sizes and distances without a reference. Why does this have to be the specific scenario? The 911 call, and discussion with police in the video just says two beings, 8 to 10 feet tall, with big eyes. Did the 911 call say anything about the craft? Did they say it landed there, or is that just being assumed here? What if there’s no actual connection between the light in the sky and the call to the police. Just in the mind of the people. The light triggers the imagination, perhaps the hear a noise, and all of the sudden everything unusual they see, they think it’s aliens. We don’t know. But neither do the people that are filling in the blanks with the assumption that it’s aliens. None of that is evidence.

There are more possibilities than aliens vs prank. Lots more.

It’s reminiscent of ghost hunters who record sounds, and then “enhance” them to extract sounds. It’s noise (data noise) so something in it is likely to sound like something, if that’s what you filter to find. And add in looking for faces/shapes, which is pareidolia I was also amused by the interpretation of someone stammering a bit as hiding something, rather than being unpracticed in ad-libbing in front of a camera. When all you have is a hammer, etc.

That’s underwhelming.

Is this relevant? Links to a substack article (not really a “report”), with Matt Taibbi as one of the authors. How sure are we that he’s not just making stuff up or distorting the facts, like with his twitter files “reporting”? (apparently Michael Shellenberger was also involved in that fiasco)

! Moderator Note It’s pretty clear that it is pointless to continue. Your understanding is too limited, you don’t appear to be interested in learning anything and you admit to not being able to follow the math. You have not presented material asked of you. It’s all potshots and repeating the same misunderstandings. If you view what people have posted as nonsense, the problem is with you, not with them. The posts are fine. The problem is with your comprehension. Thread closed. Do not bring the subject up again.

The speed of light was measured long before Einstein. It had a value. c refers to that speed. Not rational to you, but your demonstrated confusion about all this points to you as the problem. The argument is quite rational to people who can follow it. Yes, exactly. So when the rod is moving at v, light should move at c+v if they are moving in the same direction. We can find the time to travel the distance of the rod + the distance the rod moves (which we have already established as r + vt) using d = velocity * time t = d/v = r + vt/c+v rearranging, we get ct + vt = r + vt, which simplifies to ct = r, so t=r/c But Einstein’s equation, using the constant c in all frames, is t = r/c-v The equations are different. One of the motivations for the paper Light has a speed, so of course it has a value. Einstein never specified that value; the actual number doesn’t matter for his argument. He never refers to it as “consistency of motion” he calls it the “constancy of the velocity of light” meaning it is a constant and not variable Yes, a fixed value. Not variable. The number attached to this isn’t mentioned. Einstein was not advocating an absolute system. He was arguing for a relative system. Hence the name, theory of relativity Einstein wasn’t spelling out the current (prior to 1905) state of physics, he was proposing something new Whatever What? His proposed solution is the explanation I fixed the post, but it would help if you could learn how to use the quote function properly Einstein’s equation did not use “classical” physics. He used a constant c for the moving frame!

! Moderator Note It’s been moved to Speculations, wei guo, you need to follow our rules - post your material here, and provide evidence to support your claims

We know this now, but that was not the state of physics in 1905. In “classical” physics, as you are calling it (it’s Galilean relativity and Newtonian physics), the speed of the source was added to the speed of whatever is being sent. The speeds added linearly. If c were acknowledged as being constant in Newtonian kinematics, there would have been no point in writing the paper. None of this is mentioned in the paper (no numerical value for c, no Zylon), and I thought we were limiting ourselves to the paper. No, this is wrong. You are misinformed or misunderstand that state of physics before relativity. The constancy of c is a postulate of relativity. It is taken as a given in the paper, to investigate the ramifications of this deviation from Galilean relativity. A problem here is that Einstein assumed readers of the paper would understand the state of physics at that time, and you don’t seem to.

And you were told that it needs to be posted here. People have to be able to participate without clicking on links, per the rules.

At the end of section 2 he has shown that time is relative, owing to the constancy of c, which was not part of “classical” physics. If that had been applied to the problem, the light would have acquired the speed if the source rather than being constant, and the time in both frames would be simply r/c

In QM superposition is in regard to the state of the particle, not its position. You can describe such a system with one state if you change the basis. In classical physics it’s about the addition of wave amplitudes in e.g. interference. “Super” simply means “on top of” in this context, as in the word “superimpose” It’s probably a mistake to read too much into the verbiage used; the equations are the proper description. A superposition of two states is a|1> + b|2>

If the tick of the clock is a round trip of light, the tick will be r/(c-v) + r/(c+v) in the moving frame. In the rest frame (v=0) that same tick is 2r/c They are not equal. Thus, the ticking of the clocks are not synchronous. This can be easily checked for any value of v (less than c, of course) It’s a consequence of the constancy of c. There is no force. They tick at different rates, though they can both start at the same time