swansont

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.

One object at rest with respect to another object This is special relativity, which is a classical theory, but yes it would be an approximation. The SR effects are negligible. SR means no gravity. If you want to follow that tangent, I will give the same advice I gave Michel — start a new thread.

You can be at rest with respect to space, but not time.

! Moderator Note Hijack claiming length contraction is an EM interaction has been split https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/122900-length-contraction-is-em-forces-split-from-lorentz-contraction/

False dichotomy. Time and distance are relative rather than absolute. i.e. it’s not merely perception of the observer. It’s what the observer will measure. And there is nothing wrong with their instruments. If I am moving relative to some markers in space, the distance between them will be length contracted. There are no bonds, no EM forces that could be contracting, in that empty space.

If you want to discuss expansion, I suggest you open a new thread rather than continuing to hijack this one

I will note that the OP’s suggestion is fairly specific, and does not really fall under the mundane act of recycling aluminum. i.e. it’s not suggesting you melt down the aluminum and then make something new.

Non-sequitur. We are not observing our relative motion, per se, we are observing effects of expansion. Special relativity implies situations where we don’t have to account for expansion. Regardless, unless you are measuring the redshift, you aren’t noticing the effects, so my statement about “usually not noticeable under virtually all circumstances the average person encounters” still holds.

I would imagine so. It will also depend on the wavelength of the waves. A channel will naturally impede some wavelengths already.

Solar energy isn't expensive. https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/sunshot-2030 "In 2017, the solar industry achieved SunShot’s original 2020 cost target of $0.06 per kilowatt-hour for utility-scale photovoltaic (PV) solar power three years ahead of schedule" I think your solution isn't utilized because it would not be cost-effective to repurpose used aluminum foil.

It is, though. There is only one component of time in the velocity four-vector, so only that component can be affected. IOW, you can only go one direction in time.