swansont

How big would this be? And where does it go?

Show us the cost analysis. Show us anything that’s science and/or engineering and isn’t a WAG or plot from a bad sci-fi movie.

Right. Who wants to be the first airline to announce the new business model?

This is unclear, at best. Light reflecting from a smooth surface tends to become linearly polarized; at Brewster’s angle it is completely polarized, parallel to the surface. There’s no circular polarization involved (symmetry should tell you this - why would one handedness be preferred?) Linearly polarized light can be represented as a superposition of right- and left-handed circular polarizations, but when you say that light is circularly polarized you are implying one handedness is present. There are left- and right-handed polarization, but “to the left” or “to the right” has a different implication. And what is the 90 degree rotation referring to? Light reflected normal to a smooth surface will change handedness (but only at normal incidence) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_polarization#Reflection

There is specular reflection and diffuse reflection; what you get depends on how smooth the surface is https://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/reflection/specular/ https://scienceprimer.com/specular-diffuse-reflection If the surface isn’t smooth on the scale of the wavelength of the light, the reflected rays won’t be parallel and you won’t form an image

! Moderator Note Rule 2.7 states, in part: Attached documents should be for support material only; material for discussion must be posted. Documents must also be accompanied by a summary, at minimum.

The incompatibility happens only when gravity is strong. In most cases you can simply ignore gravity, and in others you can just incorporate it as you would other interactions (such as a gravitational potential affecting matter waves that travel at different heights and then interfere)

C sees their own clock as ticking at a normal rate. They will measure A and B to be running slow. But since we are talking about light pulses, the pulses coming from A will be spaced out and those from B bunched up. This changes what is seen vs what is happening with the clocks Since the motion is at constant velocity, you can't say who is moving. Time is passing slower for observer C, as measured by A and B. You can't make a blanket statement about time passing slower - it has to be measured in some frame of reference, because time is relative to the frame of reference. Every observer measures moving clocks as running slow. To C, A and B are moving, so C will measure those clocks to be running slow. I'll add that time dilation happens to time in that frame, and that the clocks are measuring the passage of time in that frame. (Also that nothing is physically happening to the clocks is because this is not a mechanical effect)

If your equation has frequency in it, yes. What equation are you thinking of using?

You do not have an adequate understanding of relativity to contribute here.

How does assembly theory deal with/explain the Miller-Urey experiment?

Go ahead. But as I had said, this assumes there is no substance being presented, i.e. the label is all there is.

Not a fan of this style. It's lazy, for starters, to tag things with a label. Almost like you don't have an argument and have to rely on the flash of name-calling. It also implies that it's fashion, like someone is going along with the crowd, and not that the position is sincerely held. "Particularly and sadly on a science forum." Oh, the irony. How about substantive discussion instead of name-calling?

What equation(s) have you learned that would apply to simple harmonic motion, that depend on amplitude, position and period? (people aren't going to do the work for you)

Moving clocks actually run slow. Read what else Janus wrote. One effect in play is "Time dilation, which always has the moving source clock tick slow" Kinematic time dilation has been experimentally confirmed many times. To deny that it happens is ludicrous. If you synchronize two clocks and move one, and then bring it back to the source, it will indicate less time has elapsed. In such a demonstration the clocks would be co-located and at rest when the comparisons are made, so there is no doppler shift to cause confusion. Time dilation is a very real effect. It's important to define what you mean by perceive. One needs to distinguish between the raw data (what do my eyes see) and the underlying physics (what do I measure), as I mentioned earlier and the explanation I linked to. The doppler shift will make the two not be the same; the changing travel time of the light has an effect. A measurement requires that you remove this confounding effect. Once the effect of that travel time is factored out, during the trip C will conclude that A and B are running slow. A and B will see C's clock as running slow. When C reaches the destination and stops, next to B, C's clock will have run slow (C has undergone an acceleration, which allows one to distinguish between the effects; they are not symmetrical) Yes. If you are collecting pulses of light as your measurement, it's why the raw data disagree coming from A and B during the trip. But you can't make a conclusion about what the clocks are actually doing of you are excluding data that is in transit. You have to collect all the data to make a valid measurement. If you wait until all the pulses arrive, the time on A and B will agree, as they must.

CUD, SCUT, DUCT, BUST

Source? I see summaries, but the only purported links I can find are in Russian, so I have to wonder where this originated. Also, opinion is just opinion. Aiding in defense is not aggression.

An important point. They must still be entangled for the explanation I gave to hold. The measurement has to happen after the second electron reaches its destination. Holding the electron has to happen in such a way that you aren’t collapsing the wave function (i.e. breaking the entanglement)

It’s not a guess. In the train’s frame of reference, moving clocks (e.g. the tower clock) run slow, because time runs slow. The tower clock ticks normally in the frame of the tower. There is no valid absolute statement you can make about time and ticking (e.g. “The clock ticks as normal” or “Einstein’s clock is actually ticking slower” ) since all measurements are relative. This is well-established physics. There is no illusion here. If you want to peddle an alternative idea, do it in speculations. Moving clocks tick slower, but you have to distinguish between measurement and observation, because light has a finite travel time. Janus has made multiple posts that explain this better than I can one example https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/120625-are-relativistic-effects-directional/?tab=comments#comment-1123814

The military's 2021 report said no evidence of aliens had been found. Scott W. Bray, the deputy director of Naval intelligence, told lawmakers that they still haven't uncovered anything "nonterrestrial in origin," even though there are incidents they can't explain. Why do people keep mentioning aliens when the reports say that there is no evidence of aliens?

! Moderator Note links using link-shortener addresses deleted

“nobody does it” is a pretty lame excuse. Passing the buck. Not giving your income to people outside you group is also an applles-to-oranges situation, so it ends up just being a distraction; an irrelevant argument. Nobody has a huge bonfire with the cash they earn as celebration, either. Who cares? It has nothing to do with the situation In the US equal pay for equal work is the law, which is why they were able to sue and force a settlement. Can you prove they couldn’t have gotten more? You haven’t backed any of your arguments up yet. This is just so much bloviating So what? We were discussing US soccer, not other countries.

I had that happen with a paper in a journal, with a technical editor, who should have known better.

Why bring it up as a discussion point if nobody does it? If things were different, they’d be different. I was citing the facts of the matter, which includes their fight to get equal pay, which is what they sued and negotiated for. You said you’d be in the middle no matter what gender you chose, which isn’t the case when one gender makes 20% more than the other. The middle of the curve for one is not the middle for the other.

Because left to themselves, schools were biased. Legislation was necessary in order to promote equal access, using the lever of eligibility for federal funding. That continues.