swansont

No, that’s not true. Possible but unlikely. The false positive rate is something like 1 in 25 years.

Saltwater corrosion is a problem for your pipes and pumps. Runoff would be a problem. And I don’t know how refreshing it would be after spraying, with the salt residue on your skin.

We don’t know for a fact that the GW event originated at Betelgeuse. It came from that direction.

! Moderator Note You added one sentence that says Betelgeuse is dimming. Not a paragraph. No substantive science to discuss. Insufficient to be a basis for discussion. Maybe you could focus on discussing the topic, instead of these off-topic sidelights.

! Moderator Note Dropbox is not YOUR noncommercial site, and you’ve ignored the part that says people have to be able to participate without clicking any links.

! Moderator Note Your posts got locked because you AREN’T posting the article and the relevant paragraph.

Feynman diagrams deal with virtual particles, which are not constrained the same way as real particles.

If someone makes an argument based on the moon being made of cheese, I think people should call out the flawed premise rather than waste effort on the rest of the argument. YMMV

! Moderator Note You can re-introduce this if you comply with the rules (2.7 in particular)

! Moderator Note Please start following the rules. You can re-introduce this topic if you comply (specifically rule 2.7)

Its maximum density is at about 4 C

It may wobble less, but it wobbles. The direction of the north pole (rotational axis) is not fixed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_motion

Where is the quote where someone claimed this?

Schmelzer has been suspended for hijacking/spamming his pet theory all over the forums

That’s not the topic of this thread.x It may be hard, but others do it rather successfully. And the correction to it is mainstream science, not some alternative to it. Evidence means an experimental result, not conjecture.

What is the shortcoming of saying it’s based on the two postulates?

I'm afraid you miss the point, but studiot has posted a link to where this can be discussed. Was SR developed with no basis in Newtonian physics? I don't think so. You're being absurd. I have only excluded a self-reference to it, because that's a circular argument — the two concepts need to be established independently. Unless there is a (mainstream) explanation of time dilation that does not use relativity, you can't use time dilation to explain relativity, because it's part of relativity. Einstein was able to develop SR and then GR. You aren't Einstein and there's no shame in that, but that's the standard. If two clocks make different measurements, how is that absolute time? And how does your description differ from SR? Where does the non-ad hoc Lorentz transformation come from, if not SR? There is no aether in special relativity, so there can be no aether interpretation that one can count as being part of special relativity.

I don't care, and I doubt my colleagues on staff care, either. That's between you and SF. But if you are trying to forestall any administrative action here, pointing out you've been banned elsewhere doesn't help your case. Following the rules is not more of a burden for you than for anyone else. Mainstream science (i.e. science that is well-established and with lots of supporting evidence) is discussed in the mainstream sections. Mainstream science is used to rebut speculation. If you have an alternative idea (which lacks the standing described above), you can discuss it in a thread in Speculations. Things that get you banned here are this: breaking the rules. But one must take care to realize that going off-topic to complain about how you can't bring up your non-mainstream idea is a violation of the rules, as is trying to sneak the idea into a discussion.

! Moderator Note Comments on rules and running the site have been split https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/121279-speculation-split-from-entanglement-split-from-unification/

Is there some reason to think it's not the usual definition of moving?

The gravitational field? From...GR? More of this alleged "forbidden here" nonsense? You're smart. You can read the rules and understand them, so you can see that this is BS. Being willfully ignorant (or appearing to be) of the rules and whining about this is probably not garnering the sympathy you might think it is. What's "forbidden" is bringing up your own pet theory to answer a mainstream issue. For your position to be true, it would have to mean there is no mainstream physics upon which you could base an explanation, in which case, time would have to be a foreign concept, and clearly it is not. Time is included in Newtonian physics. Really? Special relativity isn't based on c being invariant, and relative time being a consequence of that?

Math itself is an abstraction

The issue at hand is whether or not you can see what's going on. You can see an impact even if it takes milliseconds. You just need a sufficiently fast movie camera. But you aren't going to film a photon absorption. (Not claimed by me) Not everyone in the discussion has a PhD in atomic physics. It doesn't make them wrong. You also probably don't want the conversation to be phrased as it might if the only participants were PhD physicists. Would it be helpful to you for me to say it's like the intermediate state of a Raman transition (with the expectation that I wouldn't have to do any followup explanation)? Does it "hit its target" after scattering? Do you think that the OP, or others asking questions, know what Raman scattering is, that they would consider it as part of the problem?

Apples and oranges. "Abruptly" in the case of a macroscopic object is typically a much larger interval that we see with the HUP. It still takes a measurable amount of time, even if the naked eye can't discern it. And is not what is being discussed. The OP describes light that goies into a medium and makes it out the other side. It is describing light that is not absorbed. IOW, a perfectly transparent medium is a model for this. (if there is loss, we are ignoring it) You can describe this classically or quantum mechanically. They are two descriptions of the same phenomenon. If the explanation uses waves, it's the classical description. Once you say photon, though, you must use the QM explanation, because you are invoking the particle behavior. Yes, and it takes more time for reasons that have been discussed.

You didn't answer my question. Is my coordinate time the same as yours?