swansont

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)

You modified the quote without acknowledging that added emphasis. That’s frowned upon. Our speculation rules say “Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof.” and we require testable predictions. The only way to quantify such predictions is with n=mainstream science. But you haven’t. I don’t see a single equation. You were asked about entropy and energy but there’s no analysis of these quantities. It’s your burden to show that it follows established science, and present any experimental data. Not enough effort has gone into providing evidence and testable predictions. Solely? No. There’s plenty of evidence that Newton’s laws are valid, and that the laws of thermodynamics are valid (and the latter were established in the 19th century) (edit: xpost with exchemist)

! Moderator Note You can’t separate these. Any operation of a device must be based on established physics. Some of the ones in thermodynamics are referred to as laws. Hand-waving is no substitute for rigorous analysis

! Moderator Note From rule 2.7 members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. IOW, you can’t just tell someone to go someplace else to read the content necessary for the discussion You’ve been told this a number of times

If “we” can see the box move, then “we” are in the lab frame. “we” would not see it take 5 sec for the light to hit the far wall, because the wall moves - the light travels more than 5 m. We can look at this like a light clock if we do a round trip The light travels ct1 to the right, and the travels a distance d + vt1 (distance across the car + distance the wall travels), so these are equal (c-v)t1 = d 37.32m, or 37.32 sec On the return trip the light travels ct2 to the left while the wall is moving vt2 to the right (c+v)t2 = d 2.68 seconds Total is 40, while in the train-car frame, the light travels 20m round-trip. The moving car clock runs slow by a factor of 2, as expected

As you say, it overlaps. Some satire is humor. Some humor is not satire. One is not conflating the two. But a humorist who uses satire is probably doing the humorous version.

They also said “It can be both” so I think that counts as an attempt.

Satire is (or can be) a form/subset of humor, is it not?

It can be both, can’t it? There are a number of comedians who do political satire.

Causality is limited by c, which is the speed of light in vacuum, not the speed of light in a medium. There isn’t a scenario where an answer arrives before you send a message for signals slower than c.