swansont

My prior comments have nothing to do with any understanding of physics. I have been relaying the pertinent rules you agreed to follow when you joined the site. As for my understanding of physics, I personally am not befuddled by the location of a factor of 2, as the constants of proportionality and similar terms are IMO the least interesting part of an equation. (I am an experimentalist, though, so this does not extend to setting everything to 1, as I do want to be able to calculate physically meaningful results) Your croissant comment serves to reinforce the notion that this is personal taste, i.e. subjective, so it is an overreach to say one is better than the other. Better for you perhaps, but there's nothing inherently better about it. IOW they are the same. It's a notation difference, i.e. a triviality.

! Moderator Note 1. "more elegant and understandable" is subjective 2. If you are going to ignore the rules then I will go ahead and lock this. Is that the path you wish to take?

! Moderator Note The rules mandate that discussion take place here from rule 2.7: Attached documents should be for support material only; material for discussion must be posted. Documents must also be accompanied by a summary, at minimum.

That doesn’t tell you the likelihood of it happening.

EM waves (and other classical phenomena) are limited to c, making everything local.

! Moderator Note Your style and clarity don’t seem to have improved from your previous thread about a new “model” for the universe. Don’t re-introduce the topic.

Agree. nothing vs something is a tautology. It’s always true, so there’s no predictive value. something vs something else is some of the tortured logic; Phi gave details. As applied to science, it’s just wrong. Something always happens in any properly designed physics experiment, even if it’s measurement that’s consistent with zero. If nothing happened you wouldn’t be able to distinguish between a null result and broken equipment. So the OP is describing bad science. (which happens, no doubt, but shouldn’t get past cursory self review, much less peer review)

Which will be great for interstellar travelers, but irrelevant for folks consumed by the red giant. Five billion years from now. If there is human (or any) life on the planet at that point.

It applies to any pair of conjugate variables, so in QM it includes energy & time, and angular momentum & angular position as well. These variables don’t commute, so the order you do the operation matters. It’s inherent in QM i.e. it’s in the math. These variables are fourier transforms of each other. The observer effect is a distinct phenomenon edit: more detail here - https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/08/12/ask-ethan-where-does-quantum-uncertainty-come-from/?sh=60c0a134794e

Yes, because I’m not making an argument. I’m pointing out that your claim is wrong.

An axiom is not a system. Neither is tortured logic.

That’s how these systems work That will work with NIR but not thermal. Si cutoff is ~1.1 microns I asked a question about this?

! Moderator Note No. Speculations has to based on some kind of scientific principles, not some WAG of what would happen based on no understanding at all.

Oh, come on. That nonsense has nothing to do with relativity.

That’s how that imager works Your link describes multiple imaging methods. You should read it more carefully. “The moving scanner line in a traditional photocopier (or a scanner or facsimile machine) is also a familiar, everyday example of a push broom scanner.” Maybe you could read the links you post

Did you read you own wikipedia link? You need multiple pieces of information per pixel to get the image. The link explains ways to do this. Meaning your understanding is incomplete

I see no reference to experiment, and your point seems to be that incorrect equations give unphysical results. Nothing original about that. You’ve basically said 2 + 2 = 7 and concluded math is wrong. You’re wrong, and demonstrably so. Pointing this out is not disrespect. Declaring yourself the be greater than people who were right is disrespect.

It does what? Not unless they are transparent at the wavelength in question. You ignore the third dimension, or incorporate the info in the image. You do realize the 3rd “dimension” is wavelength, right? “There are four basic techniques for acquiring the three-dimensional (x,y,λ) dataset of a hyperspectral cube.” In this sense a regular photo is a 3D image.

It was, as you say, the early days, and it was not known how the virus spread. CharonY has given details above. Fauci publicly corrected himself. Has Trump? Ever? What business does a politician have offering their own views on matters outside their expertise? Especially when the view is that a serious situation is a hoax?

Include a “d” term for both and it may make more sense. It will cancel, of course. The change in the path difference is entirely from the upper path. You could do this at 1 Hz and the path difference would be the same, wouldn’t it? I don’t see how the speed of the mirror ties in with the data you’ve presented.

When are you going to start using them right?

I wasn’t aware that Nature (or any science journals) were behind this. Trump was de-platformed for documented reasons. If he didn’t lie incessantly, his accounts might still be active.

If that’s your best example, you’ve got nothing. It’s a report about others, not Nature taking a position. More rigor is needed on your part for your accusations Stories don’t always merit equal weight on both sides. If there’s a story on the earth being an oblate sphere, equal weight need not be given to flat-earthers. “both sides” is not a justification in and of itself.

They didn’t. They supported one candidate over another, and explained why, and their justification was based on who supported science and who didn’t. But since rejection of science is basically the position of the GOP, it would be reasonable to do that, IMO. How, exactly, does this affect their objectivity?

Well, yes, but the rest of the information is needed to determine what’s going on. The mass of any other particles, photon energy, direction of emission, etc. You can’t solve for anything without this.