swansont

And you "forget" to bring your transponder with you while you drive, so the system thinks your car is still in the garage. Enforcement would be problematic. It reminds me of the joke about how if the NSA tried to impose a tracking system on people in the USA there would be a revolt, but give them smartphones and they clamor for that system. So maybe it's a matter of making the transponder let you play candy crush... But I think a database of where you go in your car that's active 24/7 would be a hard sell to some of the people, since there would be no confidence that the government couldn't obtain it.

The scenarios we have in my neck of the woods are highway sections that are privately owned, and for which you pay a toll. Limited access, and there are slower publicly-available options. There are also privately-owned roads in developments, sometimes as small as a single cul-de-sac, and sometimes with a small tree of roads within. Only residents and invited guests (including delivery vehicles) are expected to drive there. Sometimes enforces by a gate. It's not a through-road, though, even if there are multiple access points. Non-residents drive around. Money presumably comes from housing association fees, or something like that. I doubt retail businesses would want to be located where people had to pay to drive to get to them, since it's an additional barrier to getting customers. It would take the parking meter situation and make it twice as bad. If this were by street in a city, every car needs an E-Z pass-like transponder, compatible with all the monitors, and you need monitoring stations at every access point - which I imagine would be prohibitively expensive if there were multiple road barons. Much cheaper if it's at the entry and exit points, but now how do you collect for residents who never drive through an access point? You have to have a monthly fee in addition to tolls, if you have combination of residents and transients.

As chenbeier implies, you can't have people around if you're going to displace all the oxygen. CO2 will stop the fire, but if the material remains hot, it will rekindle once the CO2 disperses. And I would think an outdoor fire is the least effective scenario for CO2, because it will disperse. I would imagine it's much more effective in an enclosed space.

The muon experiment is arguably the simplest example one could discuss.

No, that's what will be seen owing to the Doppler effect. The clock will actually be ticking slower. Once again, what we see and what we measure are not the same thing. Why won't you address the muon issue?

You are asserting this, without any physical justification whatsoever. Why don't muons have this problem?

! Moderator Note This is crap science, and your previous posts have been hidden because they were so bad. They don't get any better by repetition. Sockpuppetry is against the rules. Go away, and don't come back.

redstone has been banned as a sockpuppet of Trần Thành, Energizer and the logic00x triplets

! Moderator Note Provide evidence of a universal genetic code, and a way to test the hypothesis. Otherwise this is just a 2AM dorm-room, chemically-enhanced bull session, and not rising to the level of rigor we require

I think Eise meant how do they fail to convey the concepts of relativity, rather than how they disagree with your own pet theory. Of course they disagree with your view, since your view is inconsistent with relativity. Again: you cannot disprove a theory with a thought experiment. You have to look at an actual experiment. Like muons. Or actual moving clocks (e.g. Hafele-Keating) There is no unambiguous "frame at rest" since any inertial frame can be taken to be at rest. But you keep denying relativity, or failing to use it, so this is not a consistently-applied sentiment. In the example in play, you fail to apply length contraction to a moving frame.

In the earth's frame. You persist in not specifying frames of reference. IOW, if you assume relativity is not true, you will get an answer consistent with relativity not being true. The problem is that we have evidence that relativity is true. You can't disprove it with a thought experiment. So you need to look at actual physical evidence to do this. For example, you could finally address Eise's questions about the muon experiment. And the planets are moving, which means the distance between them is contracted. Relativity lets you understand why the other frame disagrees with length and time measurements. If something is moving relative to you, relativity applies. So in T's frame, earth and X are in a moving FoR, so the distance between them is length contracted. All lengths are contracted in that frame, in the direction of the relative motion. And seeing the distance between earth and X is not something that "happens to T" since they are not in its frame.

The proffered scenario is one where this is not the case. Hence my "untenable" observation.

The examples I’m aware of are all limited-access roads. On and off ramps, with tollbooths, or gated communities. No intersections with someone else’s roads. And they connect with public roads, not another private road. I don’t think the scenario you bring up is tenable.

What about it? Does etymology have anything to do with determining chemistry?

It’s not a mystery novel. It moves because we’re doing a thought experiment about relativity. If you like, there was already relative motion at 0.8c, and we set one clock to 12:00 to match the other clock when they are co-located, i.e. when one passes by the other. Whichever introduces less distraction by irrelevant detail.

Yes. Spacetime is affected by relativistic effects. Space (length contraction) and time (dilation)

! Moderator Note drumbo has been banned, so there is no point in engaging with them. Anyone is free to start a new thread on this, if they can formulate a better premise than what we have here, and that’s a fairly low bar.

No, they can’t. It’s not an engineering problem, that could be solved by better resources. It’s not permitted by physics.

1:15 It’s no different than the trip in the other direction. It’s space. There is no track, and it’s not a mechanical effect. This helps avoid the confusion of people who think that there is a force (i.e. compression) involved

Don’t even have to go that far. H- is used in the TRIUMF cyclotron https://fiveyearplan.triumf.ca/teams-tools/520-mev-cyclotron/ But as your link states, there is no bound excited states. Adding a third electron isn’t going to work

The HUP is inherent to QM and does not depend on making a measurement Here is a better article, IMO. It distinguishes between the HUP and back action. https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/08/negative-mass-swing-beats-the-uncertainty-principle/?comments=1&post=33737037

The article confuses the two. Did you read it? Do you see the part about random kicks? That’s not the HUP. You didn’t link to the actual paper; the article link leads to a paywalled article. From this there’s no way to tell what the NBI actually said.

The article confuses the observer effect and the HUP

The moving clock does read 45 min when arriving - that’s what the rocket’s frame reads. At 0.8c, the trip was 0.6 LY, meaning both length contraction and time dilation were accounted for. In the earth frame, its clock ticked off 1:15 for the 1 LY trip. No dilation or contraction. Just as Janus said.

New tool? Such as? The burden of proof is with you. Being tight-lipped with details is the opposite of helpful. You need to provide evidence and/or some way of testing your conjecture. If you don’t, it will be assumed it’s because you can’t.