swansont

It would be 20 years before the first muon decay measurement to confirm SR. Einstein might not have had as much influence, nor have attracted as much relativity research interest, without a relativity confirmation. But recall that his Nobel was not for relativity, so probably not a huge difference.

! Moderator Note Very well edit: people who want to pursue this discussion are free to start a new thread, free from the distractions inherent in the OPs posting style and post content.

You should be able to come up with values on your own. There may not be a formula, or it might be complicated, which are reasons to find/use a solution that doesn’t depend on the details of the acceleration.

There is no law of conservation of matter that applies over the time scale of the universe.

yes. Linear acceleration is not understood for KE = 1/2mv^2, since it is not assumed. Your equation only works under that very specific scenario. Any acceleration that isn’t constant (a better description than linear). Which is probably most cases. A car, for example. Either speeding up or slowing down. Engine performance depends on the engine rate. Air resistance is a function of speed.

More than slight, if the moon was smaller or further away. The moon’s position would have to nearly coincide with the star’s in order to see the star. Also need a smaller field of view so you don’t capture extra light. You get, at most, 1 star, instead of the 13 here Determination of the Deflection of Light by the Sun's Gravitational Field, from Observations Made at the Total Eclipse of May 29, 1919 F. W. Dyson, A. S. Eddington and C. Davidson Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical or Physical Character Vol. 220 (1920), pp. 291-333

You defined v as a speed difference (vf-vi) and I was pointing out that that’s not what goes into the KE equation. Then don’t make up new definitions for terminology, or extraneous terminology. Your set of equations are not widely used, so that’s not a reasonable conclusion. The accepted equation for KE does not suffer from the limitation of only working for constant acceleration

As you have admitted, we know the rules “in the fishbowl” i.e. there is nothing about local spacetime that would change the behavior of the signal. If anything happens in transit, we should see it. What we don’t see is a change in behavior while in transit that’s inconsistent with the laws being universal. That would be up to anyone who claims that time is different. Show us the math. All the evidence is that time and space are homogeneous

But you didn’t say you don’t know. You insinuated that momentum isn’t conserved. No, you didn’t. That’s not what I asked. Anyway, since there is nothing “in the fishbowl” that would affect the light, then anything that happens to it must happen in deep space, or it must be different at the source. But we can make measurements and see that the physics is the same in distant locations, and nothing happened to it en route. Where does time appear in a parallax measurement?

You didn’t answer the question. Again: the burden of proof is yours

That’s not a link.

You questioned conservation of momentum, which is equivalent to that symmetry.

Where do photons we detect from distant galaxies come from, and do they traverse deep space? Please learn how to use the quote function

I asked for a link. Why is the idea of providing proper support for a claim so difficult a concept for you? (That’s rhetorical. Don’t actually answer the question. Just the link)

We send probes to places where we haven’t been before, and the laws of physics have held up just fine. You made the claim. It’s up to you to back it up, not up to me to prove you wrong.

How is it arbitrary? No? Not like it at all?

So a link is not possible...for a presumably online forum?

Why does it have no bearing? Why would spatial translation symmetry not hold there?

Where did you find this information?

A dimension.

Einzel lens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einzel_lens

Heat is energy transfer owing to a temperature difference. The energy remains - it can’t be destroyed - but the heat transfer will cease as the bodies equilibrate. If there has been net energy transferred into the system the temperature will increase, as iNow describes.

R2D2 can just plug in and get schematics and status, wherever he goes. Computer security, as I said earlier. Han and Luke do manual aiming on the Falcon when they escape the death star. Fighters have computer assist, but not tracking. Mentioned above.

Computerized weapons tracking on certain space vehicles. e.g. the Millennium Falcon The tech we see is simplistic, e.g. on the x-wing and TIE fighters

Air is not aether