swansont

A microtesla is 0.01 gauss, so you measured 1.5 gauss. That’s about twice the earth’s field; not particularly strong. Where did you measure the field, and does it vary with position, at the same distance from the TV?

Causality is a linchpin. Losing it would be a large upheaval. The response from the purported FTL neutrino signal among scientists was largely to look for the flaw in the experiment.

What follow-up/investigation do you propose? The light in the sky they saw isn’t there anymore. You can’t collect more data from something that’s no longer there.

Paying a fixer is not what Trump was indicted for, so how is this relevant?

Scenarios that don’t cause issues aren’t the arguments that point to the impossibility of FTL signals. One could probably contrive a large number of scenarios that used FTL and didn’t cause other problems

But that discusses a different scenario, in which SR can’t be applied. One of the points was that we are always in a state where you must use GR. So this is moot; we already know causality is violated in a FTL situation where SR applies. It doesn’t rebut the GR scenario. Yes, and it underscores the requirement that a summary needs to be included when someone posts a video.

And if that signal went to any other observer, it also took time.

You didn’t specify this before. Let’s not add new things. Regardless, no matter the speed, it takes time for the signal to get from source to target.

How so? Relativity of simultaneity says that two independent events can have different orders, but that’s because the signal travels at c. Getting the signal you describe only involves one event, and in no case does it arrive before it was sent.

Not according to the person who received the signal.

Where is the causality violation?

The argument presented is that under GR no signal is sent backward in time. The paradox is only present in SR

It’s in the guidelines: rule 2.7 You have to be able to discuss the topic without watching the video. “Explain what they said” requires that you watch the video. IOW, She’s arguing against one of the objections to FTL, that of causality. She acknowledges that nothing traveling slower than c can be accelerated to be faster than c.

! Moderator Note We need a summary of the argument. From rule 2.7: Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion Is the argument that you can have v>c solutions in the relativity equations, as long as some other term is imaginary or negative (that is normally positive and real)?

A scientific argument would include references to peer-reviewed research

Common knowledge is often wrong. There have been male hetero prostitutes for a long time. A scientific argument is what we want. Not incel propaganda.

Paid for using a lawyer isn’t the issue here. Cohen was not convicted for being a lawyer. The issue is falsifying financial documents and not reporting the payments to the FEC. The Clinton payments were disclosed. Again, this information is readily available. Try and base your arguments on facts. https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-2022-midterm-elections-business-elections-presidential-elections-5468774d18e8c46f81b55e9260b13e93 “on FEC forms, the Clinton campaign classified the spending as legal services.” (emphasis added) Trump did not disclose the payments, and falsified documents to cover it all up.

Yes, you are imposing your own bias on the technical terminology The atypical case is not what it’s based on.

I assumed you posted understanding the context of the discussion, rather than just naysaying what I said. I apologize for overestimating your effort at due diligence.

It depends on the system in question. Does a pendulum swing through 360 degrees to complete a cycle? No. Does a piston? No. Nobody claimed otherwise. But if you are using angular frequency, that’s what the measure is defined to be.

Then don’t object/respond to what I’m posting, because I’m not. To make a current loop, if it’s going to be 1.5 million km from the planet.

The details are readily available, so pleading ignorance isn’t very persuasive.

The context was a magnetic field on Mars. Moontanman’s linked paper that initiated this tangent (and that nobody else apparently read) was “How to create an artificial magnetosphere for Mars” 1.5 million km away. That would mean a superconducting wire loop more than 9 km in circumference

DDOS is how I described it to other mods, but we need an admin to make changes

What I read was that basing fraudulent documents on other fraudulent documents makes it a felony. But IANAL. And the payments were not disclosed, making it an election law violation. Cohen was convicted of federal campaign law violations, so I don’t think that latter part is in question edit: "intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof." is the felony. The further crime presumably being election law violation The main difference being one was not reported and the other one was, but not properly described. So not really analogous, IMO I think the broader category is fixing it with lawyers, because you can bully people with lawsuits and pay to delay lawsuits brought against you. That would include NDAs. Works well with civil law. But, as Chris Hayes pointed out yesterday, this is criminal law, and the rules and tactics are different