swansont

It’s not my example. I’m giving a response to the example. That’s my understanding - everything gets redshifted. Cosmology says there is a cosmic neutrino background, with a temperature below 2K (neutrinos decoupled earlier than photons)

No, in the observer’s frame the photon moves at c. There is no frame of the photon, so there is no time dilation for the photon. You can only observe time dilation with respect to some other frame of reference.

The attenuation coefficient for lead is easily found with a search. It’s a function of energy, so you need to know that. One solution, of course, is to not be in the room while the machine is on, just like the dental folks do it. You could share that.

But with expansion you don't have a single frame. What will make a difference is the length of travel, and if expansion is an issue, that the v of a massive object will diminish. You should still be able to apply vt to the problem, but v will now be a variable. A 10^-4 fractional difference in the speed means 10^-4 difference in arrival time over some distance. If that's a light year, then it's 10^-4 of a year, or 3.15 x 10^3 seconds. That's less than an hour. At 100,000 LY, it's about a year. The mass of the object matters , since the wavelength is h/p Sorry, I though this was readily apparent. For a photon the wavelength shift is the is the same factor as the energy shift, since energy is hc/lambda - twice the wavelength is half the energy. But for a massive object, twice the wavelength is half the momentum, not half the energy.

That’s a different example, in several ways. A rock is not interchangeable with a neutrino. A photon losing half its energy does not imply a neutrino or a rock would. The wavelength relationship to energy is not the same for a photon and a massive particle.

It's not about my alleged cleverness, it's about your incoherent argument. And your evidence of this is...? I mean, the evidence of the damage of inbreeding actually exists. So you need even more evidence that this is just being used as an excuse to horn in on this "action" Not just a bald claim. That won't fly.

You say this as if it were relevant. And true. You can predict the result of raising the temperature of a gas without knowing the trajectory of each particle. You can predict how many particles will decay from a sample after a period of time without knowing the specifics of the particles. There is a lot you can quantify, without having to (or being able to) quantify other things. My point was that "we can't know everything" is not equivalent to "we know nothing" and you have done nothing to rebut that.

Something being widely believed makes it untrue? This makes no sense. And if it's untrue, it wouldn't be illegal? WTF? Anyway... Effects of inbreeding are a matter of scientific fact, and not merely an instance of being "widely believed" Try for a coherent argument, please.

! Moderator Note There may be legitimate reasons why there are no studies like this. It is potentially dangerous/harmful, so getting permission to do such a study might be problematic. (That said, I am sure there are sleep deprivation studies, probably carried out by the military or on their behalf) It's not something we can condone. In the spirit of our stance on not giving out medical advice and not permitting the posts involving dangerous substances or devices, I am closing this pending staff discussion. Do not share any results here.

No, photons travel at c. "Light speed in a medium" is not "photon speed in a medium" Light propagates at c/n, but photons still travel at c. The delay is in absorption/emission involving virtual states. A photon does not possess an inertial frame of reference.

And also superpositionally with you.

Then you meant "not being able to quantify everything" which is not at all the same as "not being able to quantify anything at all"

I guess it shows there is no topic that is so solidly accepted that someone won't debate it with some poorly-informed objection. People debate evolution, too, and that's even older.

What role do you expect expansion to play on one that does not affect the other in the same way?

"Perception of the observer" to include biological processes is NOT physics. Generally we strive to remove the human from the process when biological processes will skew the results. The "perception of the viewer" that matters in relativity is the relativity part —that (as MigL notes above) the observation of motion and measurements of energy, momentum, etc. will depend on the frame from which they are observed. This is idealized - there is the assumption that any bias or error from biological processes has been corrected for.

In supernova 1987A the arrival was almost simultaneous. Neutrinos actually arrived first (by about 3 hours), owing to the fact that photons had to scatter in getting out of the event, while the neutrinos were essentially unimpeded https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurements_of_neutrino_speed#Supernova_1987A For the difference between 0.99990c and 0.999999c you can still use d = vt

No forces are instantaneous, and entanglement isn't a force.

Vermuda is northeast of Vrazil, right? ! Moderator Note I assure you that they would not. You don't have a theory (you barely have a conjecture). The current theory works quite well, and you haven't provided a whiff of science that might compel anyone to think you have something better. On top of this, you have hijacked a thread to post something that doesn't even come close to the level of discussion we want for "new" physics. Which is why this resides in the trash can.

AFAIK it's diffraction from something that can be approximated as a point source (as opposed to a plane diffractor, e.g. a grating)

! Moderator Note That's still a form of advertising, and not permitted here.

! Moderator Note OP has indicated they would like to get some things sorted out and start this fresh at some time in the future

In support of discussion, not in place of it. ”members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos.”

You still have not connected the dots. 1.5 x 10^6 J per mole, and you want 10^19 J. That’s a lot of Argon It was also shown in that thread that what you want isn’t physically possible, and you haven’t addressed any of those objections. For similar lack of rigor. You don’t get to start it up again. You didn’t even ask. It might have been granted if you had some science to present.

Because that’s where the heat source is, meaning it’s not evaporation. You say so yourself - it’s boiling.

What does “satisfy E=mc^2” mean? What question? Is this a continuation of another thread? Why isn’t it in that thread? Normal air is mostly N2 (~80%) Show your work. Give context. Science, not hand-wave.