swansont

What would be the oscillation frequency? Why don’t you get radiation emission at that frequency? There is no trajectory here. Why should this be treated as an oscillation? When we look at electron states, we say the electron is at all points in its orbital until measured. Not oscillating between them. Why should the proton be different?

A shift in the frequency emitted by a photon means the transition in question has shifted by that amount, and you're saying the shift is in the opposite direction predicted by GR (you say the lower system has a higher frequency). Is that correct? 2 problems with this: 1. If the frequency shift is predicted to be two times as large, then what happens if you just don't send a signal, so there is no photon. You move a clock to a certain height and let it accumulate a difference in time, and then move it back to the reference point, and check. No photon to worry about, and there's a factor of 2 difference in the predicted effect. Easy to observe. (Yes, the experiment has been done.) Therefore, easy to disprove the conjecture. 2. I don't think this having asymmetric shifts is consistent with the Pound-Rebka effect. You have the photon shift of one value, but the resonance of the atom has shifted by a different value.

There is the equivalent, in the part you seem to be worried about. In fact, all scientific endeavors proceed with the notion that the same basic natural rules apply, and the idea that we are not being "tricked" For archaeology, we find can dig things up that tell us about past civilizations, because they interacted with each other in the same basic ways we do now. And yet, there was a stone age, a bronze age, an industrial age, a computer age, etc. — things have changed over time. Also that information can be lost. There may be some groups that lived whose entire existence has been wiped out and we will never know about them.

You must have a problem with archaeology and paleontology then, too. Some natural event wipes out evidence, and now we have no clue about some bit of history.

No, they will not infer different physics, if you mean that the physics will be contradictory. They may not have enough data to construct some physics (should knowledge be lost), but the physics they have will be the same.

That's what you're trying to show, so it does not "follow" in that what joigus stated is part of standard electrodynamics. The speed of light can vary for other reasons, such as from the change in index when it's in a medium. It also deviates from the invariant value if you are in an accelerated frame of reference. OK, so what's the prediction about the net effect on time? How is gravitational redshift an "illusion"? Why do we get good agreement with the GR formula if there is this other effect of opposite sign?

It has nothing to do with a universal now, which is a discredited notion, as it is inconsistent with physics. It’s not being invoked.

As joigus said, you have given the definition of the fine structure constant. You haven’t presented any connection between GR and QM. Did they measure this? Did they do it in free space? The key here is “irrefutable proof” Science doesn’t deal in proof, and is never irrefutable. They will never pay out, since they have a way out of doing so.

You can’t summarize?

Strange already asked you not to steer this thread in that direction. I agree with that request.

As an analogy, a set of twins will look the same. But compared to each other, at the same age, not comparing different ages.

The devil’s in the details. How do you do this? Why are existing experiments insufficient to confirm relativity? Where does Yanchilin's formula come from? Why is it necessarily correct if GR is correct? How do you arrive at that interpretation? They measured the magnetic field near a black hole binary, not the permeability of free space.

So if we’re near the middle, then it must also state that the universe will end in another ~10-15 BY. That still doesn’t get you to “middle” Your wiki quote Nothing here says the universe can’t change - what part do you think implies that? Also, you omitted the part where this is a quote from one astronomer. In this case, “playing fair” might be compared to creationism, where some proponents claim dinosaur fossils were buried to trick people. “Playing fair” means this is not happening. Scientific inquiry can yield results that help our understanding. The beginning of the article gives a more general explanation Note the emphasis on “large-scale” structure. No issues of dinosaurs, no implication that things can’t change.

Can you point to the evidence that this “central position in time” is the paradigm? Will you address the observation that zapatos made about “special” vs “preferred”?

We go where theory takes us, when it has experimental confirmation. What we have that works is time as a continuum. You can synchronize/compare clocks before and compare after. As long as they agree within the required precision, you would say events were coincident. The limit of the HUP only matters if you are also measuring a frequency or energy at the same time. What “simultaneous event in relative frame” experiment did you have in mind?

No. Why would you think so? What are the mental gymnastics involved in such a question? Oh, FFS. It’s hardly an argument, when it contains intellectual dishonesty

Where did this red herring come from? We’re not talking about all criminal activity, we’re talking about police, who are supposed to protect and serve the public, and who should be held to a higher standard. We’re also talking about violent behavior. That’s not an instance of excessive force. I was short of straw before but now I have a lifetime supply. Sure. But you had only proposed screening for white supremacy Yes. If they had not tolerated such behavior, you might say...

Who is claiming otherwise? I think you are misinterpreting the statements about being lucky. I think you’re erecting a strawman so you can complain about things that a scientist said. zapatos was right. It’s not a requirement. I don’t see where that is implied.

You could have had this discussion, easily and with people on different continents, if you had been born 100 years earlier? That’s not a fortunate happenstance?

Which wouldn’t have stopped George Floyd’s death, apparently. Zero tolerance for excessive force behavior, regardless of motivation, might have.

When one says “casts doubt”x it’s usually to deflect a claim. Does the motivation for police killing an unarmed, handcuffed, black man matter? Or are we only trying to stop white supremacist cops from taking black lives?

It's a way to make e.g. applejack. Freeze distillation, which John alluded to http://www.distillingliquor.com/2015/02/13/how-to-make-applejack-freeze-distillation/

One could just say "No, you're wrong" but I doubt you would accept that as a rebuttal. Even though it has the same amount of support that you made in your first post. Then again, that's basically your argument here, so perhaps I'm wrong about that. "Are too!" "Nuh uh" is a grade school argument. Please make your own arguments, and back them with science.

Was it alleged that he was? Does that make a difference?

! Moderator Note Rebuttals to this article point out cherry-picking of data and misleading arguments, which are also arguments that are not in good faith. https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/washington-examiner-op-ed-cherry-picks-data-to-mislead-readers-about-climate-models-patrick-michaels-caleb-stewart-rossiter/