swansont

These are not equivalent motions, so this comparison is not particularly useful

On the contrary, what you posted is perfectly consistent with "no physicist in their right mind would expect the current SM to be the final word on the matter of particle physics. However, when such a more fundamental model is found, this still will not mean that SM is abandoned; after all, we know it works extremely well within the energy levels we can currently probe." Much like Newtonian works just fine at low speeds and one need not invoke Einstein's theory of relativity, and at macroscopic scales QM need not be invoked. One could just as easily say the lay of the land ca 1900, was no physicist in their right mind would expect Newtonian physics to be the final word on the matter of mechanics. However, when such a more fundamental model is found, this still will not mean that Newtonian physics is abandoned; after all, we know it works extremely well within the energy levels we can currently probe. And here it is more than 100 years later, and we see this is true: we still use Newtonian physics. We know that there's more to it at the scale of the small and fast.

This is the scenario that launched this part of the discussion: IOW, nothing is in motion in this situation.

In GR being stationary in a gravitational field is an accelerated frame. Your speed is zero but you are accelerating at g

You can have one without the other; there's no inherent connection.

w, u and v are only valid for frame S. You have to use the relativistic velocity addition formula for other frames. i.e. If you were in S' and S'' was moving at 0.6c in one direction relative to S', and S moving in the other at 0.6c, your formula would have S'' moving at 1.2c relative to S, because you naively used a linear addition of velocities

Counterpoint: the point of reading and discussing books is to learn things, so presenting the option to not read the book is like offering the option to not do math, or history, or whatever. Maybe students aren’t the best to judge the value of the curriculum What statements?

To a certain extent, sure. Some of us end up with jobs like building atomic clocks.

! Moderator Note Posting to advertise your youtube channel isn’t permitted. The discussion needs to take place here

Synchronize? No, because that implies frequency and phase are the same. You can set them to the same value, as a one-off, by accounting for light-travel-time delays. (and we also do this in thought experiments all the time) Make the readout agree? Yes, we do it with GPS. Since the satellite clocks run faster than the ground clocks, the oscillators on the satellite clocks is set to be at a lower frequency. After a time T on the ground the satellite clock will also display T, even though the time passed on the satellite is > T. e.g if the net time dilation were a factor of 2, you set the satellite clock oscillator to 5 MHz, while the ground clock is at 10 MHz

Prof Reza Sanaye has been suspended for repeated thread hijacking and not arguing in good faith

Discussing science. Which doesn’t happen if you never present evidence, which has been your repeated failing. I don’t think this is a difficult concept, and I can’t discern the reason you fail to understand it.

You need to know trigonometry. That’s explained at the link. The numbers are given and identified as wavelength (numerator) and iris diameter (denominator)

Axion has been suspended for repeated and egregious bad faith arguments and soapboxing.

! Moderator Note I don’t care why you post. I do care that you are repeatedly violating the rules, and don’t seem to comprehend the feedback you’ve been given. This is posted in philosophy. Was there some philosophy you wished to discuss?

You have this backwards.The burden of proof lies with you. Your “skepticism” doesn’t need to be debunked. Nobody is required to prove science isn’t a conspiracy. This BS. The standard model is known to be incomplete. It has not been discarded, and that you do not distinguish between these very different situations is a large problem.

As Phi implied, there are places you can discuss such unsupported claims. This is not one of them. You are “choked by the mainstream” because you aren’t discussing mainstream science.

You can apply the Rayleigh criterion to find out. Size is going to be an important factor. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/Raylei.html

People practically begged you to present evidence, and you didn’t This isn’t evidence supporting a theory. This is a list of things you want science to explain. Which would be an acceptable discussion topic, but you claimed to have a theory, and did not present evidence to support that claim. You had your chances. Every time you bring this up, you complain about how you’ve been mistreated, instead of presenting evidence - the one thing that would keep a thread open Sure. Open up a thread and ask that question. But don’t discuss your theory because you’ve used up you chances to do that. At this point, bringing it up again probably gets you banned.

Absent any actual physics, that’s all one can validly conclude

rule 2.5, every time you bring up unrelated material Stay on topic. Posts should be relevant to the discussion at hand. This means that you shouldn't use scientific threads to advertise your own personal theory, or post only to incite a hostile argument. rule 2.7 (this is only an excerpt), every time you posted a link to a discussion board as evidence 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. rule 2.12, every time you refer to the dogma of science, or conspiracies like “big pharma” controlling things We expect arguments to be made in good faith. Honest discussions, backed up by evidence when necessary. Example of tactics that are not in good faith include misrepresentation, arguments based on distraction, attempts to omit or ignore information, advancing an ideology or agenda at the expense of the science being discussed, general appeals to science being flawed or dogmatic, conspiracies, and trolling. Please note that this is also in violation of rule 2.12 Yes, and we will deal with it once events have played out

I, in fact, did not move the thread, though I have no disagreement with that action. People with biology expertise explained the shortcoming of your claim Your original assertion implied CBD was a viable alternative to the COVID mRNA vaccine, and it’s laughable to suggest that’s not speculation. Further, your critical analysis skills are suspect, considering you can’t sort out the “lack of scientific evidence” from the “conspiracy” issues. (the latter are things like your assertions involving “big pharma”)

Mainstream science is backed with a large amount of evidence. It is subject to change if you come up with a better model, supported by more evidence. It is not dogma. Calling it dogmatic isn’t a good faith argument. At best it shows a lack of understanding of science. It should be offered in speculations, following the rules of that forum, which includes requiring evidence. It is not the WAG forum.

“it was noticed that” There doesn’t seem to be a claim that there is an actual connection or physical significance.

Where does the proton mass "refer to the electron mass" in this way?