swansont

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

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.