swansont

justqwer has been banned for trolling us with ID nonsense.

! Moderator Note Similar threads merged.

The mainstay cartoon character from the Looney Tunes collection of Warner Brothers animated works. From back before cable TV. There might be more information on him if one were to search this "internet" thingy With friends like that...

I want to note for the record that when I had the chance to go to Albuquerque a few years ago, I made sure to make the proper left-hand turn, and ended up where I wanted to be.

If you learn it as 3D, rather than projected onto the 2D surface of a sphere.

Oldand Dilis had been suspended for trying to bully the staff into letting them post their material without regard for the rules.

ag400002 suspended for repeated hijacking with a pet theory

Even more generally, any dissipative process. Wind resistance being another example. Inelastic scattering, too.

That latest one embeds automatically for me. Try a different browser, perhaps? Different computer, if possible?

This one embeds just fine for me, if you use the direct youtube link (click on the "watch on youtube" icon and use that address. Not the embedded link — that gives me a "no video at that link" error) If you still have trouble, you may have browser settings that are in conflict with embedding it

So the apparent velocity and absolute velocity are invariant. ...except that it's not. Which is it? Please stop doing this. The rules state that the discussion takes place here, and that you must provide enough information to have the discussion without people clicking on any links.

OK, then, quarks.

There are only two choices here. Either they are the same, or they are not the same. The electron and proton have opposite charge. Same magnitude, different sign. Thus, they have different charge. And something with no charge has a different charge than something that does.

No. SR has no ether, and predicts no fringe shifts. It doesn't "make up" for anything. Aether theory, as described in the late 1800s, predicted a speed of 30 km/s through the aether. The M-M experiment excluded that result by a very large margin. What part of c being invariant assumes an aether? An "aether frame" is an oxymoron, since the aether was the rest frame. As in The Highlander, there can be only one.

Also my questions

Um, no. The peaks and troughs are the maxima of the E & M fields of the EM radiation. I don't see how that is "ether thinking" There are also experiments that rely on these fields existing.

Acceleration is a behavior and mass is a property, so the former statement is saying there is a behavior which is not dependent on the property. Charge is another property, so the latter claim is that these two properties have some relation, but that relation does not actually exist, and the statements are not similar. The statement isn't even true. I can pick a bunch of different particles with different masses and with different charge. (e.g. a neutron, a proton and an electron)

Speaking of the hydrogen 21 cm line: I suspect that if there was an absolute velocity then a hydrogen maser would undergo a frequency shift if the maser was in motion relative to the absolute frame. And Cs beam clocks would see a frequency shift for different orientations of their beam (and Rb fountain clocks as well)

Why is this not 50 MHz? If I send a signal down an optical fiber, would I see similar results? (Optical fiber is a much more common method of sending a signal) And instead of just sending pulses, what if I sent an analog signal at, say, 5 MHz? Its frequency would change, right? See above. (Though I don't see how GPS would work if there is an absolute speed.) You might want to get in the habit of providing links for experiments you cite. It will save everyone the trouble of having to ask for them. And, of course, an explanation of how they support your hypothesis. But the key is finding an experiment that would be able to show your idea is wrong, if it is indeed wrong.

Thank you for admitting your earlier claim was wrong. I asked for numbers. Is it consistent with all phenomena? You have to come up with an experiment that would show you to be wrong, if you are indeed wrong. Not just ones where you could accidentally be right. So, no theoretical framework to present? His work has been discredited already. Why? Shouldn’t a timing difference occur for any orientation, as long as the angle to the direction of absolute motion isn’t the same? Some orientations would yield maximal differences, to be sure. I asked for numbers. Let’s see your predictions.

You can't. Self-consistent theories are only invalidated by comparison with experiment. No, the argument is that classical (i.e. Newtonian) physics fails to match experiment, and relativity succeeds. Is this consistent with experiment? Such as absorption and emission of resonant light when there is relative motion between and atom and the light source? What experiment will show that one is at absolute rest, or determine one's absolute velocity? So your idea contradicts actual experimental evidence? Then why do they behave otherwise? How do you get a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution and basically uniform intensity from this? No. Especially without a theoretical framework to back this up. Massive amounts of evidence is required, too. Over the course of a day, this alignment will change. We should see diurnal effects. And we do a similar experiment (with clock measurements), and don't see this effect. (If we had data that showed relativity to be in error, people would jump at the chance to publish it) How big should it be if you sent signals, say, 100m? What fractional frequency shift or timing shift would you expect between orthogonal directions of light travel?

That’s valid if you have eliminated the scenario where Belichick is a better coach than most, and the Patriots have amassed better talent than most other teams. (In part because they work well within the salary cap limitations)

A serious flaw here is that you are thinking that you can come up with a strategy that perhaps 50 other professional head coaches have not been able to devise, along with the reality that strategy (and its success) is impacted by talent. The best strategy, it seems, is to make the Patriots play in Miami against a Dolphins team that isn't historically bad (i.e. not this year's incarnation) Brady was 7-10 in Miami going into yesterday's game

Still not game theory.

Obvious BS, no evidence Fast is not quantified Since when are vegetables “prey”? You don’t hunt fruits and vegetables So walking upright gives an advantage that is not due to carrying a club for defense. Congratulations! You have rebutted your claim.