swansont

Somehow I got to the patent with the links you provided. That’s how I figured out you’re misrepresenting it.

! Moderator Note Now that you mention it, you were told not to bring this topic up again, and that you should contact a moderator if you had a formula to present.

Still no explanation of what it means for a coordinate to be empty.

We already have a definition of time dilation from SR, and this isn't it. Pick new terminology. Further, there is only one path that minimizes the light/information travel time between two points, and that path is one dimensional. What anomaly? Why would one photon give rise to 5 signals?

Earlier you were asked what it means for coordinates to be "empty." You didn't really answer, but you implied that an event happening meant that the coordinates were not "empty." Now you seem to be implying the opposite. The frustration I feel is not only with your lack of rigor, but also with your inconsistency.

When I hear "stabilization" I think of feedback to small perturbations, in order to maintain some steady-state. Not banking or turning, which are not mentioned in the title of the patent mentioned first in the OP: "Plane stabilized in roll by a pendulum" Roll is rotation about the front-to-back axis of the plane. One wing goes up, the other down. AFAICT t he pendulum animation given is not an example of roll. What I think is required is a clear and concise summary of what these efforts were trying to achieve. Otherwise there is the prospect of arguing about something that was not intended by the patent, which is pointless. And it will take time for a pendulum to swing into position. Further, if you look at the patent in question, it's not just a simple pendulum, and it isn't oriented vertically. starting at line 77: "under normal conditions the pendulum 87 is at sub-stantially right angles to the aeroplanes and maintains the valve 82 in its closed position" So what are we to think about an objection based on a claim that the patent is discussing a pendulum aligning to the vertical?

Is there an interpretation where it is claimed that an item is "copied"?

That explains the fallacy, and I agree it doesn't seem to apply, but I'm also interested in how the Wright brothers tested their idea and how it "worked flawlessly" and yet there's no followup on that point.

Is that the motion the system is trying to stabilize? Is that a motion commonly observed with airplanes? Where does the quote come from? Is there a description/report of the test where the stabilizer "worked flawlessly"?

Patents aren’t peer-reviewed science. AFAIK the patent office checks them to see if the idea is novel, not to see if it works.

That's not consistent with being unable to erase history. How can you advocate both positions? Eise already gave an example of this. Napoleon was in Paris on a certain date. That doesn't change because it's later.

The form they are in makes a difference. Chlorine can be deadly, but people tend to put it on/in their food without its poisonous nature being an issue.

Do you mean this as a third alternative? Incarceration for either punishment or reform achieves this goal, but as an independent choice it would mean not doing other things to overtly punish, nor doing things to rehabilitate.

If the ball exists, it has a set of spacetime coordinates, has had spacetime coordinates, and will have spacetime coordinates.

No, we can have data that tells us this. No guesswork necessary.

An army tends to move around, and as Endy's link shows, you need expertise, time, and resources to make gunpowder. Could Washington's army make gunpowder? Probably not. Could the colonies? Yes, but they weren't making enough.

Please establish that we are "psychologically predisposed to favor" punishment rather than rehabilitation. The fact that you have given examples of societies that do the latter would seem to undermine your position. Alternately, you can change your premise.

If you can't access the coordinates, I don't see how they are "free" If an event happened at x1, y1, z1, t1 in some frame of reference, those will always be the coordinates for that event. That set of coordinates is not "free".

It makes no sense to say you aren't there anymore, referring to a 4-d coordinate — you are giving two pieces of information about the time. It only makes sense of you use a 3D coordinate. Events are probably what we have to refer to.

I'm not sure what you mean by coordinates being "empty" If you were at location x1, y1, z1 at time t1, that won't change, even though your current coordinates are different. As you say, you can't change the past.

Which you agreed to a post or two back. Something that has an extent in space also has an extent in time. The way around that issue is is to only consider points, and be consistent about it, so as to not introduce needless complications. Is there some interpretation of time where changing the past is possible?

! Moderator Note If you wan't discuss something, do it here

! Moderator Note If you wish to make your case for space being a medium, you may open a thread in speculations where you can present your model and evidence. Otherwise, kindly do not hijack other threads, especially with non-mainstream commentary.

Click on your user name in some post. In the black stripe, near the top, on the right, there is a box called "see my activity" Click it. On the new page, on the left, under "all activity" you can choose between posts and topics It's almost as if you'd expect someone applying these concepts to kinematics would have based it upon the behavior of electrodynamics. Einstein, maybe. In SR, time dilation is purely a consequence of motion. What's different about motion of an unstable particle? Where is it specified that it wouldn't apply to an unstable particle?

Keep in mind that what the president wants is not what necessarily ends up in the budget. While the president proposes a budget, it's congress that hammers out the details — a fair amount of give and take can occur along the way — and the president can either sign or veto.