swansont

You have to be careful. You don't get to arbitrarily "place the frame elsewhere" because mixing frames of reference causes troubles. Many values are only valid in the frame in which they are calculated. Invariant ones are an exception. studiot mentioned moving frames which are common in SR, but I don't know what the applicability is to GR. In a curved geometry, things are different. As Markus said in the other thread "If the geometry is flat, then that means the relationship between any pair of neighbouring events will be the same, regardless of where/when in spacetime you are (like on a flat sheet of paper). If spacetime is curved, then this is no longer true - the relationship between a given pair of neighbouring events depends on where that pair of events is located in space and time." There are situations where you can assume the geometry is flat, and in that case, things are as they are in SR. Once you can't make that assumption, things are different. As was discussed, energy is no longer conserved, because conservation assumes you've stayed in one frame. It's not an invariant quantity, so it's not preserved when you change frames.

Must we? No. But in many cases this will be the most convenient one to use.

When a grid's misaligned with another behind, that's a Moiré https://xkcd.com/1814/

Photons have no mass, and even if they did, the effect would not be due to velocity, since all photons travel at c. They have energy and momentum, owing to their frequency (or wavelength). The effects on our observations is real, but spacetime is a coordinate system. Like latitude and longitude on a globe, the coordinate system is not flat, it is curved, because that's the proper coordinate system to use to describe the very real effects. When you look at them on a flat map (with a projection that lacks distortion), the lines are not straight. But latitude and longitude are not physical objects.

The electron has a spin axis - a way of knowing something about its orientation in a coordinate system. We can’t know the actual direction of this vector, but we can determine the projection along an axis (usually the z-axis is chosen, by convention). So we can speak of an electron being “spin up” or “spin down” and that tells us what that vector is, which matters to certain interactions and measurements. But there isn’t a physical rotation. Nothing is physically spinning.

That’s not a term I’ve run across in physics. We often approximate things as points, making the phrasing moot. Simultaneity for an extended object runs into issues, since the location of a point is a contributing factor in determining simultaneity. Agree. Coexistence would seem to refer to objects, while simultaneity refers to events.

ahmet specifically stated the use of academic: "I mean she/he needs to work at any university with suitable academic position" So, no, it's not vague. It's pretty specific. That was my point when I said not all academics are scientists

No, actually, it's not. You've told us what you don't mean by policy. And. you then linked to a definition that's consistent with what others are using, which isn't consistent with your secret definition. You have not made it clear what you mean, and instead blame the people asking you to clarify, for not being able to read your mind. Here you say you have a definition that differs from what CharonY used, but then link to the wikipedia definition. When I apply that definition, you tell me that's not the one you are using. But somehow your contradiction is my failing.

You simply linked to the wiki definition, which is "A policy is a deliberate system of principles to guide decisions and achieve rational outcomes. A policy is a statement of intent, and is implemented as a procedure or protocol." So nothing here is inconsistent with the definition you provided, except your insistence that it means something else that you haven't actually specified..

An observer who teleported instantly would have information from their original location that would not be available to an observer at point C for 5 hours. No specific information was listed, but that's because of the vague description of the scenario. It certainly exists. As you say, you can certainly build a paradox (or causality-violating scenario) from this. You could envision the observer at A seeing a display describing the status of something. They teleport, knowing that condition plaid has just been put into effect at A. C should not know this for 5 years.

Yes it mentions ""Presidential Executive Orders" as an example of policy. Not as its definition. So you get to make up your own definition of a word, and we're all supposed to go with that? That's not how language works.

The fact that they are spinning it allows one to infer the policy. Or are you under the impression that WH officials go out and say whatever they want to the press, rather than having coordinated talking points?

Show what you’ve tried. Nobody is here to do your homework for you

Yes, there is some overlap. Scientists comprise some of academics. Academics comprise some of scientists. In the US, in my field (physics), 10-20% of PhD students end up with permanent positions in academia. IOW the vast majority are not academics.

Almost. Science makes predictions with some level of precision. Also measurements with some level of precision. It’s something that’s quantified. No science? Seriously? This isn’t being studied scientifically to be able to make such predictions? Who are the people investigating this, then? Astrologers and palm-readers?

Academic ≠ scientist Not all academics are scientists and not all scientists are academics

Gas vs liquid is one effect (density). More degrees of freedom is another - more bonds, more opportunities for a resonance. Oxygen has a very strong absorption peak at 63 GHz, and this peak rises out if a continuum, so to say it doesn’t offer “resistance” to radio waves is a lazy, uninformed claim. https://www.rfcafe.com/references/electrical/atm-absorption.htm Why would that prevent the noise? Why would it have an effect on the signal after it left the planet (i.e. why does the distance in space matter)?

Called into question, yes. That will happen from both scientists and crackpots. Discredited? No. You really should learn about science sometime.

Not even that. Under the scenario offered by Charles, Einstein would not have become a scientist until Eddington confirmed GR. Which is ridiculous.

No. Sociology is a social science, not a physical science.

If you break the laws of physics, you can’t use the laws of physics to tell you what happens.

Yes, if course it’s science. The question is whether String Theory deserves to be called “theory” not whether or not it’s science. Special relativity took a few decades before it could be confirmed. Bose-Einstein condensation the better part of a century. Models are a part of science. Full stop.

Doing experiments is part of science. So is developing models, which are tested by those experiments.

Why do you need “magical technology” for this scenario? Seems like you can just ask this question about a point midway between two stars 10 LY apart.

What values were measured? How do they compare to safe levels? Any peer-reviewed research on this?