swansont

! Moderator Note For someone who rants about the misguided notion of a caloric, you spend a lot of time treating heat as a substance, and mangling the laws of physics. All you’ve done is preach, without supporting your claims, which is not in accordance with the rules of speculations.

Inelastic refers to KE, not momentum. A wall effectively has infinite mass, being anchored to the earth. Up until it breaks apart.

Well, no, it doesn’t. I requested rigor from you in this thread. To my mind, there still hasn’t been any. I’m sorry - to what math are you referring? I see one equation, that of conservation of energy. And what identical appliances? I haven’t been paying attention to recent discussion between you and sethoflagos and exchemist. Irrelevant. Overturning mainstream science requires evidence that it’s wrong. Analysis of a proposed device needs to be based on mainstream science. We don’t permit anyone to bootstrap speculation on more speculation - it has to be one step at a time. One curious thing, though, is that I haven’t posted anything here in two full days, and you go out if your way to call my attention to the thread, and the fact that you still aren’t complying with the rules.

True paradoxes, or just things called paradoxes because they require proper application of a concept, and are not actually paradoxical? (rather, they are not intuitively obvious)

What paper? Link to it, or quote a larger section, so that people can read the context of the statement.

It may help to note that Newton’s second law is F = dp/dt (p is momentum). This becomes F = ma if the mass is constant. So one can view a force as the rate of change of momentum. As studiot points out, there is a change in direction, meaning there is a change in momentum. Thus, a force.

Without knowing how a fourth spatial dimension would manifest itself, I don’t see how this can be answered.

At the crossing point they are the same age

Why, though? What prevents it? Time is relative. Saying this can’t be true stems from some assumption, and that assumption is flawed.

There is no inconsistency; the situations are symmetrical for the two frames so getting the same answer should be expected. For any frames the time is given by the Lorentz transformations. There is nothing inconsistent in the math. The unspoken assumption is that there is an absolute frame that shows the “real” time.

The tail is caused by the solar wind and radiation pressure. https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-resources/why-do-comets-have-tails/ ! Moderator Note This isn’t the WAG forum. Enough is enough. Don’t bring this nonsense up again.

In addition to the clarification studiot seeks, the size of this surface relative to the size of the planet is likely important.

Especially one small enough not to deform into a spherical shape. And one wonders how fast could it rotate without falling apart with such weak gravity.

BINGO! You cracked the code. No matter what happens, Biden’s response is wrong.

Your straw-clutching is getting more and more contrived.

The other way around. Better resolution if you’re 2 miles up than ~19 miles up.

Your proof was contingent on A being true. Its conclusion is only valid in that case. It says nothing about the state of affairs if A is false.

Why would it return to the ground if there was no gravity? If you aren’t in an inertial frame, Newton’s laws of motion don’t apply. There is no expectation of an object moving in a straight line.

In the US, information is classified if release of the information is a threat to national security (that’s supposed to be the only reason) That the public knows the information does not change this; if someone leaks classified info to the press, it’s still classified. And as I pointed out earlier, even if knowledge of the balloon isn’t classified, that doesn’t mean that there aren’t details that are. (about the payload, for example)

! Moderator Note If we build a time machine begs the question of whether we can build a time machine. Try opening a thread not based on a logical fallacy

Not opposing viewpoints if they aren’t describing the same problem. I think your typical person (even well-educated person) doesn’t know details about Einstein’s work beyond perhaps E=mc^2. They live in a world of absolute length and time. Disagreement in time is a paradox: How can it be 1 PM and 2 PM at the same time, in the same location?

I thought we covered this already. Was it the military that showed the public, or was it the news? As you say, there was significant press coverage. The video toucana posted was from Ward Carroll (who or whatever that is.) Not the DoD. If the press had the info, it could not have been kept quiet. How do you know that there aren’t aspects that are classified?

I griped about your math, not your diagrams. A thought experiment is just applied math. If you get inconsistent results, either math itself is flawed (have fun showing that) or you made a mistake with the math. Scientific theories are accepted as true because they agree with experiment. To show a theory to be false, you have to show disagreement between an experiment and the theory. e.g. the Eddington eclipse measurement not showing the proper deflection of light, or the Hafele-Keating experiment not showing the correct amount of time dilation. “I can’t get these numbers to agree” is an error (yours) in applying the math, nothing more. It’s as if one calculated that 100J of potential energy became 200 J of kinetic energy. That doesn’t disprove conservation of energy. It means one screwed up the math (dropped the 1/2 from the KE equation, for example)

They should have phrased the critique as “I have posted incorrect analysis and think it’s meaningful” I’m not sure what you mean by “chasing its own light” since the light is “chasing” the wall, and the wall is definitely moving in the lab frame. It’s moving at 0.866c.

Um, no. “it’s obvious” is less rigorous than required. In the lab frame, the wall is moving, after 5 sec the light has moved 5m, but wall isn’t there anymore. It has moved 0.866c*5sec = 4.33m away. But after 9.33 sec it still hasn’t hit, because the wall is still moving. The closing speed is only 0.134 m/s As I showed above, if you made a light clock with a return trip, the relativistic analysis is perfectly consistent You have made a common error: a thought experiment in relativity is just applied math. If you get inconsistent answers, then you’ve done the math wrong. (To disprove relativity you’d have to do an actual experiment and show that it’s not what relativity predicts)