swansont

No, this is incorrect. He sets that distance to be the same (the observers are co-located), in order to simplify the problem. That way the only effect to consider is the speed. As Markus points out, different distances are accounted for in the math, should you choose to analyze a more complicated problem. Given the relative nature of time, "now" is not well-defined. We generally refer to a particular time according to a clock in one's reference frame. ! Moderator Note Duplicate topics merged

But the experiment behaves as if they do Because the polarizations do not cancel each other. You get more light, with both polarization states present. It behaves like a point source, where there is no opportunity for interference.

! Moderator Note FYI, since you seemed to have missed it, the pertinent passage in 2.7 is “members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos”

! Moderator Note You can’t require people to go elsewhere to get information necessary to participate in a discussion. If you want a thread here, the necessary information must be presented here. You have been warned about this before. This is based on rule 2.7

Not with that attitude, at least. Unless the energy grid gets updated (the US is generally in bad shape), there will be problems with utility-only generation if electrical demand goes up, as it likely will with the adoption of electric vehicles.

It's not up against the wall. The shadow shows this. I imagine aesthetics is part of that.

Emily Rainey participated in activities surrounding the rally; she resigned her commission soon after being identified, and the army was/is looking into the matter. DoD Directive on Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces https://www.marines.mil/Portals/1/Docs/134410p[1].pdf 4.1.2. points to things one is not permitted to do, which includes involvement in partisan political activities. I think the issue with Rainey was that she was an organizer of the trip, and protesting that someone stole an election from another seems like partisan politics. We also don't yet have a clear picture of what happened inside of the government on that day, or in the days leading up to it. Particularly in regard to the deployment of national guard troops and any delay that might have occurred.

You can't put those in your back yard

https://www.fastcompany.com/90687369/this-ingenious-wall-could-harness-enough-wind-power-to-cover-your-electric-bill I've run across art projects that pretended to be science over the years and didn't stand up to scrutiny, and this has a faint whiff of that given the lack of any detailed analysis. But it's an intriguing idea 20 mph wind is about 600 Watts/m^2 so even if you are only harvesting 10% of that energy, a 10m^2 wall gives you 600 W of electricity. 24 hours of that per day gives you 14.4 kWh, which is only about half of what's claimed, but my assumption of only harvesting 10% of the energy could be too low*. Seems like the ballpark is that the device could be legit. If people are looking into making it, it probably means there's something there. *Betz's law places the maximum at just under 60%. Utility scale systems are something like 45% efficient. I don't know what something like this wall clocks in at

It's three, really - gravitational field, warping, and particle exchange. The former two are classical, that latter is quantum, and in that regard this is no different than electromagnetism having classical and quantum models.

Considering we've seen that military members have participated in the sedition, this loyalty to the constitution can't be considered to be universal. Their loyalty is not supposed to be to the commander-in-chief.

I think the author is taking some liberties in demonstrating his thesis. "The main error in Hasenöhrl’s first thought experiment is that he did not realize that if the end caps are emitting heat, they must be losing mass—an ironic oversight given that it is exactly the equivalence of mass and energy he was attempting to establish." From the description, it sounds like Hasenöhrl was arguing that radiation has mass, not that mass and energy are equivalent. Conceptually these are different. The other arguments were for the equivalent mass of particles moving through some field which impedes their motion. Again, not an investigation of mass-energy equivalence. Somewhat unrelated, we have "If we think of c, the speed of light, as one light year per year, the conversion factor c2 equals 1" which is just a wretched abuse of unit analysis IMO, but in line with the use of "natural units" (which essentially means "ignoring units to make the math easier")

! Moderator Note Do you have a question or something that leads to a discussion, or are you just posting a press release?

That’s not a valid link, and you need to summarize it here. Telepathy is woo and nonsense. You have to establish it’s real, independent of the mechanism. Entanglement and teleportation are real quantum effects, but it smacks of snake oil here; an attempt to legitimize the pseudoscience by tying it to a shiny bit of science that’s not really well-understood by most people, especially outside of physics To answer the question in the title: yes. Photons can transmit information slower than c, so entangled photons can do this.

Can you summarize the objections?

Which doesn’t matter if people ignore the law. Congress, too. How’s that going?

I’m not sure what you would add. People who are flouting the rules aren’t going to be stopped by more rules, and the same for people who choose not to enforce them

What did you find after asking this on a search engine?

Laser light is not a plane wave; usually it has a gaussian profile, and some (e.g. laser diodes) diverge because of diffraction. The dots are likely laser speckle

I was taught it was more like 1/10, and you do it 3-4 times. More water and there’s diminishing returns on dissolving contaminants. As Peterkin points out, too much and you don’t get any physical dislodging of particles.

You persist in focusing on the wrong argument Yes, causality is a separate issue.

But the point is that you have to do something to it to turn it white. It’s the part that turns white.

That is (or was) something in the registration process one had to explicitly acknowledge. ! Moderator Note If that’s going to be your attitude, it would be hypocritical for you not to afford that same freedom to other members. Their attitude manifests in downvoting you. It’s not their problem, so there’s no point in going off-topic to complain about it.

I thought the white part was the shell (on some eggs). On the inside, there’s the yellow part and the clear part. The latter turns white when cooked.

You continue to attack a straw man. Nobody is arguing for the particle theory of light, or the wave theory of light. It’s not one or the other. That was settled more than a century ago. If you continue to claim that light never exhibits particle properties you will continue to be wrong, and also contradict your own descriptions of light exhibiting particle behavior.