swansont

Objects can grow or shrink, so saying an object has only one set of dimensions is inaccurate. And for something that does shrink or grow, one could write a function of the variables x,y,z and t to describe its various properties. Time is a dimension. Wishing does not make it not so.

f represents linear requency, and [math]\omega [/math]represents angular frequency. They are different by 2[math]\pi [/math], and the energy equations imply

I have responded, thus far, because most of your posts ask a question, and I thought perhaps you were sincere in your inquiries. But I don't have the patience for what I see to be dishonest discourse. I have to conclude that losfomot was right, and you are just trying to create an argument from nothing. IOW, you are trolling. I obviously gave you too much of the benefit of doubt. I'm done.

No, that would be a bit of revisionist history. The current dispute arose from the definition of centrifugal force (post 26), which is not accurate. My response was post 29, and the point was that dictionaries are not guaranteed (or even likely, in some circumstances) to give you accurate technical definitions. In that post (26), you claimed the centripetal force definition did not exist. It was only later that you discovered your typo and posted the definition of that word. (post 32) In post 38 I agreed that their definition of centripetal was correct, but noted that acceleration was incorrect, from a technical standpoint, as support for my argument. I have to ask, was this trip really necessary?

The discussion of whether a lay dictionary is a technical resource? How is it not relevant?

A rotating mirror is a way to measure the pseed of light, but I don't think anyone has used that to try and measure the small shifts you want to try and do - you're right, you'll never see that small of a change. The Michelson interferometer experiment of Michelson and Morley

Well, they're looking down, right. So when one yells, "Omigod! I'm blind!" you know you've found them.

That may be what you meant to say, but that's not what you said. See the difference? Do you also understand that the "rolleyes" icon is usually seen as being sarcastic in nature? As in, rolling your eyes? You use it a lot, and it may change the perception of how your posts are received. The icons basically take the place of inflection in speech, and add context. Sorry YT. I'm done here.

The speed of light is related to the permittivity and permeability of free space. That's the connection that led to the realization that light is an EM wave. The values of [math]\mu[/math] and [math]\epsilon[/math] also give the index of refraction, which ties into the actual speed of propagation of an electromagnetic wave through a medium. Even though it's all a model (based on Maxwell's equations) that's enough reality for me.

No. Why would you think it was?

M-M used an interferometer to measure phase shifts, not speeds.

The difference is philosphical. Are the models we have of nature actually physically correct? Does it matter if that's the way nature actually behaves? Models are what we have. We can't know if they truly depend on c, or other constants, because we can't change the values. That's why they are called constants.

I can't really tell if your being obtuse is deliberate or not. Are you really this confused about the difference between fact and opinion? Whether or not life exists outside the solar system is not a known fact, and cannot be checked. What is said in the Constitution is and can. You can't have an opinion about what is actually stated in the document. It either is or it isn't.

Yes. But they also define accelerate as "to move faster" which is incorrect from a technical perspective. Sayo's sig line is still spot-on, and applies to M-W.

It might be better say they balance, since they act on different objects. For internal forces, any momentum lost by one object is gained by another.

It's perception - physiology/psychology. Not physics.

But a lot of the nutrition aspect is determined while you are very young.

But that's not what you were arguing. "I just think that a man's business is his business and I further think that the Constitution limits the authority of the federal government and both of those things trump the so-called right to be hired--or served--indiscriminately, regardless of how honorable the goal may be." That is written as a statement of fact, not opinion.

If you define it as 'revolve so the sun goes from overhead to overhead' then I think it's in early January/July for southern/northern hemispheres. The earth's orbit is slightly eccentric and the perihelion (point of closest approach) is in early January. So the earth is moving faster and covers a greater distance along its arc, and thus must rotate through a slightly larger angle to return to solar noon. The slowing of the earth's rotation from tidal friction is a separate effect. The earth's rotation has actually been speeding up lately.