Strange

! Moderator Note Why? Because this is a science forum. And because you agreed to the rules when you joined.

cultsmasher has been permanently banned for various abuses of the rules, including resorting to racism in their desire to get shown the exit as quickly as possible.

! Moderator Note As this appears to have turned into a bizarre and incoherent racist diatribe instead of a discussion of climate science: thread closed.

! Moderator Note OK. This is a Science forum. Not a Wild Guess forum. You had your chance. Do not bring this subject up again.

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations. Please note that this section of the forum requires you to support your claims with evidence or mathematics.

The difference is that he derived the length contraction from first principles, whereas before it had been purely based on experimental results. And, not surprisingly, the theoretical derivation matched that produced from experimentation. Why do you refuse to explain how your "related experiments in a single frame of reference" has any connection to SR? Perhaps because it doesn't? So why pretend it does? I can't see the point of this. (Maybe I should ask for the thread to be closed...)

I'm not sure where this should go so this seems as good a place as any... Today I learned that dinosaurs lived on the other side of the galaxy. This is a neat animation of the timescale of dinosaurs (and others) related to our orbit around the galactic centre:

! Moderator Note If you do not show your calculations for these in the next post, this thread will be closed.

Exactly. In some cases, initially unidentified objects have been explained (not "explained away") as ball lightning. In other cases, it is one of a number of possible explanations, but there is insufficient evidence to be certain. (And of course, many cases have nothing to do with ball lightning.) The point is, we know ball lightning exists and it is therefore available as a possible explanation. We have zero evidence that aliens are a possible cause, so they can only be considered if all other explanations have been definitively eliminated. (Not just "there is no known explanation" but "other explanations are impossible".) Some may be. Although how many radar operators are "dumb"? Why are you making this ad how attack on radar operators? More likely they are misinterpretations by very smart radar operators. Some may be faults in the equipment. Some may just be anomalous signals (which radar system generate all the time, and they are normally ignored; tell the operators that someone has seen something and they might start taking the noise/random signals seriously.) Yep. "We don't know" is not "aliens". Huh? It is still a normal, natural phenomenon. Not aliens. Every case that has a lot of (useful) evidence can be explained as mundane phenomena. Every case that lacks an explanation is because there is insufficient evidence to reach any conclusion. There were extensive reports evaluating the evidence. That is not "hand waving it away". Either, possible explanations were provided or the answer was "we don't know". To my mind, "handwaving away" would be saying "there were no lights" not "we don't know what caused the lights that people claim to have seen". (Note, allowing for the possibility that there were no lights, despite people thinking they saw some, is not "handwaving away"; it is relying on known, possible explanations.) The trouble is, you seem to think that any failure to find the explanation you want is "ignoring the evidence".

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations. Note the special rules for this section of the forum; your claims require support. So please show evidence / calculations that these claimed methods will actually result in fusion and a net release of energy.

What do you mean by "indistinguishable"? The point is that in a closed universe you would get back to the same position you started from. So, on Earth, if you travel in a straight line from Paris, you will need up back at Paris.

! Moderator Note You have started several threads where you promise to tell us things but then come up with excuses not to actually tell us anything. ! Moderator Note Discuss it here or stop posting vague claims. ! Moderator Note Then stop posting here ! Moderator Note Thread closed

You haven't yet explained how this has any connection with special relativity. Maybe I am being dense, but I can't see it.

So far. That is not because we are measuring from "inside" but simply because the possible deviation from flat is very small. Not really. It is more like saying whether space is Euclidean (for example, the angles of a triangle add up to 180º) or curved (like the surface of a sphere where the angles of a triangle add to more than 180º). In the latter case, if you travelled far enough, you would end up back where you started (ignoring the fact that the universe is expanding).

As the measurements in question were made within the universe, then the answer to would appear to be yes. Which is good, because there is no "outside". A more detailed article on the research here: https://www.quantamagazine.org/what-shape-is-the-universe-closed-or-flat-20191104/

I would like to see the context for that because it obviously isn't true in general. Yes, that is a much better (more accurate) way of putting it. You still haven't explained how doing the same experiment in two different locations (or at two different times) relates to special relativity. Maybe this is because it doesn't? (Now doing the same experiment at two different velocities would be a different matter...)

As far as I can see that has nothing to do with special relativity. And, as you have failed to provide any explanation, I can only assume it doesn't. That is not proper time; it is a spacetime interval, which is invariant unlike either the spatial or temporal separation. (Proper time is the time measured in a given frame of reference.) Do you have a citation for this "story"?

This is rather the point. Ball lightning is the mundane explanation. And stones falling from the sky have a mundane explanation. The only reason they "defy rational explanation" is because there is insufficient evidence to allow any explanation. This does not rule out any mundane explanations. And it certainly doesn't support anything beyond the mundane. For all cases where there is enough evidence then it turns out the explanation is mundane. You have not provided any examples of evidence being hand-waved away. And all the support for your claims is hand-waved into existence.

What does a "change in viewpoint" have to do with special relativity? Unless you are going to quantify the relative velocity of the Earth and Moon?

Headlines are not usually written by the authors of the articles. The editor may be a creationist, a sensationalist or just ignorant.

You will get the sum of the two signals (this is what microphones do all the time: picking up signals from multiple sources and producing an output that represents all of them). There are some practical issues that will affect this "ideal" result. For example, how directional is the microphone (and how do the directions of the two sources relate to that). Also, the linearity of the microphone will affect the result, especially if the input levels are approaching the limit of the mic.

! Moderator Note Discussion of electrons as block holes split off to here: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/120467-electron-as-black-hole-split-from-new-class-of-black-hole/

I don't see how the latter has any relation at all to special relativity. Can you explain, preferably with some math? I would assume not; that is what the Lorentz transform is for: for relating the observations in different frames of reference. No, what we have is a demonstration of the fact that your "related experiment" concept says nothing about special relativity.

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations (just because it has been published, does not make it mainstream). Also, this forum does not exist to advertise your work or promote your blog. If you want to discuss this, do it HERE.

! Moderator Note This forum does not exist for you to advertise your website. If you want to discuss this, the rules require you to do it here.