swansont

! Moderator Note You misunderstand the nature of this exchange. I'm telling you to follow the rules. This is not a negotiation. You don't get to say "no" if you wish to remain.

Instead of telling us what it isn't, how about a model of what it is? So we have some semblance of science. M-M did not assume it was the flow of the aether. They assumed the aether was at rest, and we moved through it. What evidence supports tired light? Your link explains how the hypothesis is contradicted by the evidence.

If the aether affects light, you should be able to measure an effect. If you can’t measure it, the effect has to be small. So why is this hard to detect? If light doesn’t persist for a long time, that sounds like a very strong effect. As MigL points out, it has to be a stiff medium to have a large propagation speed. So we’re moving through it. Why didn’t the Michelson-Morley experiment detect this motion?

These two properties are in direct conflict with each other. Contradictory. Why won’t you answer my question about whether we are moving or at rest with respect to the aether?

A link would be appropriate and possibly helpful. Since the tangential speed is 30 km/s, it could just be a typo

I don’t see how it can, since it’s flawed. Units matter. I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what’s going on here. You have proposed some alternative physics, and need to defend it by providing evidence. You say your equation agrees with experiment but you waste effort by complaining about abuse and making insults. Where is this evidence? Equations with inconsistent units is enough to be scientifically wrong. The rest of this is distraction from discussion.

That the claim is patently absurd is an issue I was content to leave to others. I was addressing a procedural issue - that the original claim wan't sourced, the claim implied in the thread is very different from the one in the link, and now that the later claim is very different from the original. With each response, the bad faith nature looks even worse.

Yes, I know. I quoted it. It's an argument that implies quarantining is bad, and the immediate quarantine in the US is why there are more deaths in the US. It's a crappy argument. No wonder you had to change it. STOP DIGGING

That's not the argument you made. "quarantining promotes viral contagion" and "The US quarantine consists of tiny enclosures of fewer people, which propagates contagion." are two very different arguments. Also, speaking of China's quarantine and also saying "China, who at first let the virus run its course" are at odds with each other. My advice is to stop digging. It's only accentuating the bad faith nature of the discussion.

! Moderator Note "the administration has ordered that, beginning at 5 p.m. Sunday, all passengers on flights to the United States who were in China's Hubei province—which is the epicenter of the new coronavirus outbreak—at any point in the past two weeks will be subject to a 14-day mandatory quarantine." So China's quarantine and the US quarantine are not even remotely equivalent. To say that the US began quarantining in February is incredibly misleading in this context, since it applied to relatively few people (and the wrong ones, considering that most of the early cases came from Europe). Rule 12 says (emphasis added): We expect arguments to be made in good faith. Honest discussions, backed up by evidence when necessary. Example of tactics that are not in good faith include misrepresentation, arguments based on distraction, attempts to omit or ignore information, advancing an ideology or agenda at the expense of the science being discussed, general appeals to science being flawed or dogmatic, conspiracies, and trolling.

Yes.

That assumes an aether, but you must have evidence of an aether to base your conclusion on it. Otherwise this is just a fallacious circular argument. The fact that we can communicate with distant spacecraft and get light from the sun tell us that the photon lifetime is not small. How do we see planets (much less distant stars and galaxies) if the photons don't live long enough to get to us? It's unacknowledged because there is no experimental evidence to support its existence. What is your evidence that an EM wave is a vibration of a physical medium? As I asked before, are we at rest with respect to it or moving with respect to it?

! Moderator Note Why is a thread about logic posted in applied math? It does not follow. Moved.

Are we moving with respect to this medium or are we stationary? You need to support your conjecture with a model and/or evidence, rather than bald assertion.

! Moderator Note "whereas the U.S. who immediately began quarantining" (emphasis added) is not supported by that citation.

Are you sure this isn’t a manifestation of survivor bias? Just because one population didn’t suffer significant damage doesn’t mean they weren’t at risk.

No, he noted that you have not provided a derivation. I am very much not. You seem to be reading a lot into what I said, which was that you could use an exact expression rather than merely retaining the first term for KE. You identified this as a problem. Kindly stop projecting this on me. This is your thread. Perhaps you could address the issues I raised: providing the derivation of your equation, and explaining how the units are consistent.

Does such a map tell you the population density? If no, then the maps don’t actually tell you that the majority of people living in sparsely-populated counties almost always vote Republican. The amount of red >> the amount of blue, which can be misleading. As I said. Now, tell me why the majority of people living in sparsely-populated counties almost always voting Republican matters, in terms of who gets more votes.

Thermodynamics and realistic expectations

! Moderator Note You forgot to provide evidence of this claim. Back this up before you proceed to any conclusions

Geometry. Light from a point or line source expands as you move radially. It’s related to perspective - why things look smaller as they move away.

I like MigL’s descriptions better, since they don’t involve things shrinking that don’t actually shrink.

Yes, but the objects are (or can be) locally at rest.

I don’t see how you concluded that I had a problem. I was commenting on your objection that he used an approximation. How did you derive this equation? How do you reconcile the units of the integrated part of the equation with the other terms?

If you can’t make specific predictions and compare with evidence, you don’t have a theory. You have, at best, a conjecture. At worst it’s a WAG, and it needs to be more than that.