swansont

! Moderator Note All I get from your post is “the more the Sun, Moon and the Earth's center have been aligned, the more disturbances have been observed” If you’re saying the video contains no further info, great. I don’t have to watch it. You still need a model and evidence

! Moderator Note Check out the rules. Specifically this part of rule 2.7 Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion So it’s stronger as you get closer to the equator? Great. Now all you need is a model and to present us with evidence. An opportunity to do real science.

That’s not what the redshift is - it’s not like having redder light at sunrise or sunset, because blue light has been scattered out if the path. It’s light of a known source, and thus known wavelength, shifted to the red.

! Moderator Note You need to do as joigus suggested - a clear explanation of what you are trying to achieve is crucial if this is to remain open

“pattern” implies multiple data points, but that’s just semantics. The “dot on the wall” will appear only in areas that fit with the interference pattern, which is only going to happen if there is a wave. i.e. it’s because of the fact that the dot can appear where you would get first order interference, or second order, etc. that you must conclude there is a wave involved.

The rotation rate changes all the time; the length of the day fluctuates on the scale of a millisecond over perhaps a month The angular momentum of the entire earth is basically constant, but that does not mean the rotation rate is. Mass moves around. Hurricanes/typhoons/tornadoes rotate and have angular momentum. Ocean currents change. The earth shape is slowly changing as ice melts (one of the suspects in the recent speedup of earth rotation) https://hpiers.obspm.fr/eop-pc/page_princ_frame2.html https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0210rotation.html The variability of earth rotation is why it’s not used for precision timekeeping.

You didn’t say anything about the transmitter being inside the cage. You talked about covering(!) it, and then about a reciever. Did you ever wonder why microwave ovens don’t cook food placed next to it? How do you transfer vector to something?

What is your theoretical and experimental evidence to support this?

To me it sounds like a deflection. You don't have to defend fleecing the system as long as you can blame someone else by portraying them as lazy and therefore undeserving. It makes the middle class jealous of the poor for "getting free stuff" when nobody would actually trade places with them, least of all the well-off. It also suggests that the poor like being poor because of "getting free stuff" Plus there is rampant use of outliers being presented as if they were typical (as you highlighted with the welfare queen example), which is dishonest. The narrative is that these people are somehow cheating the system, but when the wealthy take advantage, they're just being shrewd. Poor people deserve to be poor, and rich people deserve to be rich. It plays well, but doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Relativity is why we think there is dark eneregy and dark matter. What has failed to happen is for some new theory to emerge to explain these things. How does it fall to relativity to propose other realities and other dimensions? What "I" have is a theory that has passed every experimental test thrown at it. What have you got? From this perspective you have nada. That was tried early on. Clocks were left uncorrected and were observed to not be running at the correct rate. The relativity corrections were correct to about 1% Why would there be "needed corrections" if relativity were wrong? We already know and adjust for light travel time; it's part of clock synchronization. "Now" is not a value that ever gets used when you try and quantify such things. "Now" is pretty useless for a wide swath of applications of relativity. That you are not aware of these applications doesn't make them any less real. I don't see what the pulsar "experiment" has to do with the validity of relativity. You have a distant pulsar, you have a bunch of pulses that are en route. Is there something more than that?

Muon decay has nothing to do with this beyond being another example of relativity My point was that you can explain the magnetic force with only the electric force and relativity. Because, in fact, all the classical magnetic force is is an electrostatic force viewed from a moving frame of reference, via the relativistic transformations. But you knew this, right? Because such criticism has to be based on a thorough understanding of relativity Physics isn't attempting to explain reality. It's explaining how nature behaves.

We use such aids to understanding in a lot of ways, and in lots of disciplines. As they say, the map is not the territory. But maps are useful. But where has the science failed? Do you have any concrete examples of relativity not working as advertised? Again, you are projecting your own lack of comprehension on to others. We may not know everything, but that's very different from saying we know nothing.

! Moderator Note Seeing as this is a science site, this is a showstopper. Closed.

You seem to have forgotten some Did you, through no fault of your own, hit a rough patch? ---> Get assistance while paying (or having paid) taxes Do you have to overcome bias within the system? ---> Get assistance while paying (or having paid) taxes Are you wealthy? ---> get boatloads of assistance, aid, bonuses, and loopholes that are not available to people of lesser means But they can rig the system so they don't have to pay, and still get the benefits A lot of times their "skills" are luck and sociopathy It's been implied already, but I would like an explicit clarification/defense by the OP of "Are you lazy ? ---> Get free assistance, aids, bonuses..."

It does if you want to do anything related to time and distance. Perhaps the most famous example of time dilation's impact on the modern world is that it has to be accounted for in order for GPS to work. Without it, no GPS. So it would seem that it does have an impact. We can't measure length at the same precision as time, but there are examples of length contraction having an impact, too. Certain high-energy collision physics must take it into account. We have the well-known muon decay example. It's critical in order to explain why parallel, current-carrying wires exert forces on each other. I think this translates to it makes no sense to you, and you don't know what spacetime is, but to project that onto other people is quite something.

No. A functioning Faraday cage shields external EM radiation, at least over some range of frequencies, so it's the opposite of what you claim. Really? I'm going to need a non-Star Trek reference for that. ("clear" implies transparent to visible light or nearby frequencies, and given the context of the discussion, the implication is that it's a standalone material - i.e. not some transient effect induced in the lab) Relativity is mainstream physics, and time dilation is not a misconception. But your characterization is not really on line with how most knwledgeable people discuss relativity, which suggests that part of this misconception is yours. I'm afraid that is woefully insufficient to pass as science. We need a testable model. Something that is falsifiable, i.e. can be compared with experiment.

Citation needed.

I don't see any physics being discussed here. I don't see any coherent explanation of what is being discussed.

Wind has momentum, and that's reduced when the turbine harvests some of its KE. I think the argument here is that wind direction is not uniform (especially near the surface) and momentum is a vector, so these effects tend to cancel.

Nobody has built a structure that tall. And it would likely cost a minimum of a billion dollars (4x the cost of the CN tower) added: Lets say you could get a 10MW system on the tower; you'd generate a little less than 100,000 MWh if it ran at full capacity 100% of the time. That's 10^8 kWh, and if you could sell the electricity at $0.10 per kWh, that's $10 million a year. It would take 100 years to pay off a structure

That’s called a Faraday cage, and you get no EM signal inside of it.

The distance shortens by the same factor as the time, leaving c the same.

What is the amount of wind power in the world, that we might harness a non-trivial fraction? I would expect a lot of it is away from the ground, like the jet stream.

The only hit I get on Google for "Da er's Law" is this thread Can you provide a reference for it? Is it a typo?

! Moderator Note You were asked to copy/paste the passage in question