swansont

! Moderator Note Enough of this crap

To add to this: we can agree that an event happened. It can't happen in some frames but not others. What we can't do is agree on when and where, and sometimes even the order of multiple events will not be agreed upon.

! Moderator Note Well then, you have provided the link, and I guess there's nothing to discuss — you're just being a messenger. No reason for you to post anything more. Thread closed.

! Moderator Note You can't claim to just be the messenger when you are advocating for something that misrepresents the claims and is not a conclusive deduction of the evidence. Further, none of the objections hear are equivalent to calling the pilots stupid or ignorant, and nobody has claimed that they are. Everyone has been pointing out that "unidentified" means we don't know what it is. The evidence is inconclusive to make a determination. But you are claiming we do know. The burden of proof here is on you.

Yes, mixing the frames in your setup is the exact problem Gideon pointed out. It is incorrect using S' to refer to a distance between those points as x. Incorrect statements make nothing clearer. next issue: you say "At the same time, an event, a light signal, occurs in the point Px " At the same time in whose frame? (I have to note that both of these issues have come up previously in these discussions. I'm not saying anything that hasn't already been pointed out. We will get nowhere if you persist in making the same omissions or errors)

You have a similar problem to one Ghideon already pointed out. This is the S' frame, yet you are saying it's a distance x. S' should be using primed coordinates. I also don't see the point of making the problem more complicated.

! Moderator Note DON'T. You popped up in this thread, which had not been active in more than 10 weeks, to split some hairs regarding aerodynamics vs hydrodynamics. Don't you dare try and pass the buck for people responding to your pedantry as if you hadn't instigated the whole thing. Modnotes are not an invitation to a debate.

There’s nothing practical here. Less-qualified doctors. Discrimination law violation. An attempted coverup. It had not occurred to me that a reasonable person would categorize a “I think you misspelled X” response as an attempt to put words in someone else’s mouth.

I believe you misspelled “discriminatory”

Ghideon gave you some feedback about shortcomings in your drawings, and you ignored it. Then you scolded him for trying to give better drawings. Others have given feedback as well, and much of it has been ignored. I'm leaning more and more toward "not arguing in good faith" here. You can show that this is not the case by actually addressing the comments that have been made.

Oh, come on. You can't tell someone to not post something as a counterargument and then complain that they haven't posted counterarguments. You wouldn't want to give the impression that you aren't arguing in good faith.

! Moderator Note Please leave Sir Elton out of the discussion. It's one thing to be uninformed about science, but another thing to disparage someone.

Physics obviously works differently in the Star Wars universe (relativity seems to not be an issue, for example), so levitation may be easier, and/or power sources are much more prevalent. And, to the OP, the physics behind how you can jump to light speed — whatever is in place instead of relativity — would undoubtedly have won the equivalent of a Nobel, if it's something other than just "Galilean relativity works here"

Han Solo? Chewbacca? Anyone who isn't a Jedi?

Wow. Not only were they denying qualified women, they were admitting unqualified, or marginally-qualified men. "The investigation found that in this year’s entrance exams the school reduced all applicants’ first-stage test scores by 20% and then added at least 20 points for male applicants, except those who had previously failed the test at least four times. ... The education ministry official’s son, who had failed the exam three times, was given a total of 20 additional points, which eventually elevated him to just above the cutoff line." So a double-whammy. Instead of being treated by a women who had earned her way into the program, you could be treated by a man who couldn't pass the entrance exam. Good luck with that operation!

But you are now changing the scenario. The topic is RFID. Yes, other devices/technologies can be used and are possible targets for misuse, but that's a different argument. If one can read a chip because no (or bad) security protocols have been implemented, they can make a duplicate. That's a potential flaw in any system. It's not inherent to this one. As with Sensei, you are now changing the scenario that was under discussion. But if things are different, I agree they will be different.

thethinkertank has been suspended for rampant soapboxing and spamming the forums with nonsense. The mod queue did not have the desired effect on this behavior.

You mean the part where they discuss taxes that could be implemented by each country to lower their emissions? The link is entitled "Suggested measures for the achievement of Kyoto standards" Yeah, that's not what you were claiming. You said these were in place, and imposed/collected by the UN. That's wholly different from suggested methods for individual governments to put in place in their countries. That's only part of what you had asserted, and is not the part that is in question. From the first link in that list "Carbon taxes are one of the policies available to governments to reduce GHG emissions." Again, this does not describe the situation you claimed. Second one: "The world should dump the "inefficient and ineffective" Kyoto protocol and replace it with a global carbon tax" Meaning such a tax is not currently in place. Again, claimed without evidence. Do you understand what a quota is? If such a system were in place (and you have failed to show that it is) you would pay tax only of you exceeded your quota, and pay none if you didn't. You cannot validly conclude that a lower quota would result in a lower tax. What would be the point? I have other ways to waste my time.

Much like Arnie in Total Recall, you can shield implants. In this case, it's much easier. RFID is very short range.

! Moderator Note A reminder that this is a politics thread. Discussions of the science details belong elsewhere

Who is Darron Arronfsky and what all does this have to do with special relativity/Lorentz transforms?

Trying to get better information disseminated in the thread. You were mistaken, and I pointed it out.

Thank you for the link. Now perhaps thethinkertank can point out the details of the tax he was claiming. I did a search and the term "tax" does not appear to be present. In any event, I still don't see how one can conclude that China will pay double the emission taxes (or whatever) as USA without citing the CO2 production and what the cap level is. Those numbers are not present. I am trying to get thethinkertank to do something that passes as something resembling scientific effort (research, citing a source, perhaps even crunching a number or two)

Thinking that looking up a definition in Google constitutes "research" sums up your approach and its shortcoming quite nicely.

No, not that either. Protons have two up quarks and a down. Neutrons have two downs and an up. Nuclei can have many protons, and most kinds of nuclei have even more neutrons.