swansont

In a way it does, because you’re going faster, so it’s harder to come to a stop.

A claim that you have not established is used to any large extent To me it looks like a passing comment the first time you used the phrase, and it wasn’t in the OP How does “the other sex has never been known to take a woman staring at him as anything other than a compliment” (bold by me) get interpreted as “the average guy” You could ask people (though your original claim was stared and not leered, so the goalposts have moved), and disprove the statement. The question is, how would you be able to support the claim that this never happens, as you are expected to do?

Asking the questions again hoping for different answers is not a viable approach. How about you show us this post, since AFAICT nobody has made this claim.

That’s not a citation, but it’s not hard to find examples of such. And this wasn’t included in the quote where I asked for a citation. It’s not my burden of proof. You made the assertion. “the other sex has never been known to take a woman staring at him as anything other than a compliment” There are slices of personalty categories that might not. Introverts might not. There could be others, who are uncomfortable with attention being paid to them. There’s a wide spectrum of people. Staring isn’t always sexual, either. If I spill my lunch in my lap, I doubt I’m taking being stared at as a compliment. If I have some physical irregularity, I doubt I’m taking being stared at as a compliment. I didn’t know this was the point you were going for, because you haven’t explained what your point is and been consistent in supporting it. You started with a vague discussion of dress code and body image. Now it’s “human nature isn't gender neutral” You need to clearly state a thesis and not wander off into tangents.

The clocks use magnetic shielding to minimize any impact from external fields Well, yes, that’s actually what that means. Not an enforceable standard. Well, then, identify these biases Which is something that must be demonstrated, not asserted, as with all scientific discussion.

! Moderator Note That's not going to work, because I don't see where anyone said this. That's one of the problems of paraphrasing instead of providing a quote, with context. Even if the quote is unattributed. A second problem is the extrapolation of one purported statement as being representative of thousands of people on the site, as if this were The Borg. I'll leave this open you you can copy/paste the quote

Your equation implies RH is 2Lpl at 2tpl but your diagram isn't consistent with that.

! Moderator Note Ah, the other shoe drops. Coming to a discussion board to not actually discuss your idea was a clue, but as this is admittedly bait to sell books, it violates our rules on advertising and having discussions in good faith

"system such as they describe would be able to reach Pluto in a time of approximately 6.5 years. This gives an average velocity of 21.5 km/s" This suggests the speed when they get to Pluto is more than 21.5 km/s (if you have constant acceleration, it's twice the average speed, but you won't have constant acceleration since the sun's intensity will drop as 1/r^2)) So: how do you slow down when (or better yet, before) you get what you're going?

It's more likely that you are limited by the reflectivity of the mirrors, but you can do the calculation: The photon imparts a momentum of ∆p = 2E/c with each reflection. The target is massive, so it gains KE of p^2/2m from the first photon (this is quite small, so this will continue to be a good approximation at the beginning of travel). That energy has to come from the photon. The energy loss is therefore 2E2/mc2 Keep in mind that a visible photon has energy of order 1 eV, and a single proton has a mass energy of order 1 GeV; so mc^2 is going to be something like 10^39 eV for ~1000 kg (10^9eV x 10^27 atoms per kg, and 1000kg. Alternately, you can say that c^2 is ~10^17 and the conversion from J to eV is about 10^19, which also gets you to 10^36 eV per kg) So your energy loss is tiny. (You need to scatter millions of photons to slow a single thermal atom down to rest, which is how I'm familiar with this) Meanwhile, the losses in the mirrors will limit you to perhaps millions of scatters. 10^6 <<10^39 (the engineering implication here is that almost all of your photon energy goes into heating the mirrors)

GPS satellites don't recede when moving from overhead to horizon? Wavelength is not an invariant, so how does that matter? By "behaves differently" do you mean that there is a change, but in agreement with theory, or are you contending there is a deviation from this? Like a transmitter/receiver communicating with a target moving somewhere out in the solar system? Something that NASA does all the time? There are also these experiments: https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#moving-source_tests

! Moderator Note From rule 2.10: Posting pet "theories" in mainstream science forums is considered thread hijacking. So it's "black letter law" that what you did here was hijacking.

You’re going to have to explain this in more detail.

Not a direct measurement, to my recollection. Since c can be measured and the invariance can be demonstrated, by the transitive property you know c stays the same when there’s relative motion. There’s little incentive to do the harder experiment when you can do easier ones. You can do experiments that rely on it, and that confirms the behavior without doing a direct measurement. It’s not really an experiment, but the technology relies on it: GPS works. Would that be the case if c wasn’t invariant?

I invite you to try solving Maxwell's equations to obtain a wave equation with c being variable.

I assume you are referring to the statement "In entanglement, one constituent cannot be fully described without considering the other(s)" which is because you need to write the wave function in terms of the entangled superposition, rather than the separable individual wave functions. If you can write it as |s1>|s2> you can focus on just one of them. But if it's |s1s2> you can't.

This is not apparent to the people responding to you A number of your questions have been answered and points refuted, which are direct responses. SR has been verified countless times, so yes, SR is true. That's the baseline for any science discussion.

! Moderator Note Moved, because this is not a "Lounge" topic Radio receivers regularly have to compensate for Doppler shifts in spacecraft. It would be true for relativistic speeds, too. The bandwidth would be important as well, since having a narrow frequency sensitivity is how the Pound-Rebka experiment worked edit: I can't recall if it was reading about voyager or pioneer craft (or perhaps some other mission) where I first encountered this, but the receiver had to be tuned depending on the time of day, owing to the changing Doppler shift of the signal from the earth rotation

But you don't know one, unless you've measured it.

You said I see opinion is divided on this. And of course the object of this thread is to give the whole subject a proper airing. which is the bit I was responding to Seeing as he described something as THE characteristic trait of QM, it doesn't sound to me like generalization would be embraced in this case. Plus the faulty syllogism (that mathematicians generalize some things, does not imply all mathematicians generalize all things) The description is of the system before measurement, before you know the state of a particular electron.

If you want verification of Maxwell, all you have to do is test if your radio works when you are in a moving car, which is evidence we've had for some time now. The EM wave equation works, and relies on c being invariant.

The term "entanglement" entered the scientific lexicon after the EPR paradox paper was published, in a response by Schrödinger. He used a German term (Verschränkung), and translated that as entanglement. "I would not call [entanglement] one but rather the characteristic trait of quantum mechanics, the one that enforces its entire departure from classical lines of thought." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement So the person that coined the term did so to describe quantum behavior and argued that entanglement was a purely quantum phenomenon. It's used to describe a situation that cannot be replicated in classical systems, which means there is no classical entanglement.

And every observer will agree with this. What it looks like depends on the observer. Your personal model of how this works is wrong and needs to be abandoned.

You can shield E&M fields This is not so simple that such a blanket statement applies. Neutrons, for example, have a magnetic moment. You can induce dipole moments in neutral atoms.

Will you explain how? I really hope you aren’t going to make me keep asking you for specifics. There’s no quantum mechanics here, thus, no entanglement But it has to be a Bell experiment, which is not generally the case. It must be the case that you can’t separate the wave function - it’s in a superposition of the states.