Strange

What does that mean? What is “exchange of energy”? What is the quantity measured in? What is exchanging the energy? What causes the exchange? What units does it have? Relativistic energy of what? And if it is relativistic energy, what is the relative speed? How do either of these relate to time? You are just inventing more meaningless equations. I will suggest this thread is closed.

I guess this might be because there are downvoted as well as upvotes. There are some people who would respond in a bad way if they knew who had given them a negative vote. We occasionally get people who vote down everything by another member because they believe they have had a negative vote from that member (often wrongly). Another forum only has positive votes (likes) and does show who gave them This works pretty well (it is nice when someone you admire likes a post!) But some people get upset when they think this is evidence of a conspiracy against them

Some areas have always had regular floods; eg the Nile valley and Mesopotamia which is, not surprisingly, the source of the Biblical flood story.

The use of base 60 goes all the way to the Babylonians

I'm sure more is available. Almost everything he wrote/published is available here: https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu (a bit of background on the project here: https://www.aip.org/history-programs/news/einstein-papers-now-online) Some available here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_publications_by_Albert_Einstein

And once again, some low-quality evidence with several plausible natural explanations. Yes, it remains unexplained. So what? I can't see how you can say the Air Force dropped the ball. They investigated, found there wasn't enough evidence for a definitive explanation and noted the possible causes. I'm not sure what else you wan't. This is a really, really good point. There have been some absolutely amazing footage of meteors, rocket launches and other atmospheric events (a lot of them from Russian dash-cams, partly because insurance fraud is so common there). And yet not s single video of an alien spacecraft. This should be the end of UFO theories.

And 'minute" for the same reason: https://www.etymonline.com/word/second#etymonline_v_23075

Acceleration is different because it is not a relative phenomenon: you can tell if you are accelerating or not. The speed of light would still be invariant: being under constant acceleration is indistinguishable from the effect of gravity. So, your local measurements of the speed of light would be the same.

It works because relative movement changes our measurements of time and distance. Are you familiar with Galilean relativity? This is the idea that if you are in a space ship in empty space and see nothing but another spaceship passing by, there is no way to tell if you are stationary and the other one is moving, or vice versa, or a bit of both. (Galileo used ships on the see, of course!) Well, if three is no way to tell if you are moving or stationary then that means that all measurements you can make must be the same in either case. This includes measuring the speed of light. Therefore the speed of light must be independent of your state of motion. Another way of viewing this is just the fact that the laws of physics are the same independent of location, time, inertial speed, etc. These "symmetries" all have corresponding conservation laws. Both the symmetries themselves and the conservation laws have been confirmed experimentally to vey high levels of accuracy.

I gave up looking in detail at these cases decades ago when it became clear that they were all the same: dubious witness testimony, lack of consistency in the evidence (unless people were together and talked about what they saw), consistency in different forms of evidence (eg visual and radar) usually exaggerated/fabricated, people combing facts from different events to make it seem more plausible, etc. However, I have never seen a single example of eye witness testimony being "dismissed". (And I think your use of language like that is close to a fallacy; certainly it is an example of "poisoning the well".) People might present plausible mundane explanations (some of which I have mentioned) based on known possible causes. That is not dismissal. It is presenting possible hypotheses. In nearly all cases these explanations are sufficiently compelling to say there is no reason to consider it further. In a small number (5% or 10% maybe) these possible explanations are not convincing. So that leaves us with a small number of unexplained sightings. But just because no one has come up with a convincing mundane explanation doesn't mean there isn't one. One would need to demonstrate that no such explanation was possible (which has never been done) before even considering extraordinary explanations. So, I remain convinced (and disappointed) that, on balance of probability, all such cases have mundane explanations. We just don't know what those are in a small number of cases (because there is not enough data to form a conclusion).

The quality of the sightings is almost defined by the fact we are talking about "unidentified objects". If the witnesses all agreed they saw a 747, there would be far less reason to doubt the sightings (we know such things exist). You have to eliminate all the well known, common causes before you can even start suggesting it might be something extraordinary. To leap straight from "unidentified" to "Aliens!!!1!" is deeply irrational. I am not suggesting that is what you are doing, but if there is no way of ruling out mundane, well established causes, then there is absolutely no reason at all to consider anything unusual. I have seen plenty of cases, where one could invent some mysterious explanation (after all, you can do that for absolutely anything from your Wi-Fi going on the blink to the fact our politicians are idiots). But not one where you have to because all other possibilities have been definitively excluded.

1. Because the situations are completely different. 2. Because you are inventing a straw man argument. Uncorroborated eye-witness accounts should not be taken seriously by a court. And this sort of thing does not reinforce your claim; it undermines your basic argument. The introduction of more objective evidence (cameras) changed the "reality" of what was seen. It is obviously also wrong to dismiss eyewitness testimony out of hand. For example, in the case of a crime that would mean that a large number of crimes were never eve considered: Caller: "Hello, police. I just saw a man being murdered!" Police: "Nah." Or in the case of unidentified objects in the air, I would not deny that people have seen something (which there is insufficient objective evidence to identify). There are then a huge number of questions to ask about that sighting: was it something with objective reality (rather than, say an optical illusion or a hallucination), was it a mundane object (bird, airplane, insect, meteor), etc. etc. Or some combination of the above. For example, a common illusion is to stare at a bright star or planet and see it making rapid movements across the sky. (This is where expertise might come in; I have heard astronomers report this and saying that they could absolutely see the object moving even though they knew it wasn't and therefore knew it was an example of the illusion.)

I think I know where you want to go with this argument, but the example you give above is of people identifying a specific person that they have seen before, one or more times, from a line up with good lighting, and where they have as much time as they need to consider their decision. (I have also been picked up off the street to take part in a line up - the witness picked me! The police officer sighed and said, "this happens fairly regularly, we just need to ask you a few routine questions before you go.") This is completely different from people seeing something unexpected and unrecognised in conditions of poor lighting or a rapidly changing environment or for a very brief time. People often say it was a certain size and moving at a certain speed. But they can't know that without knowing the distance. And they can't know the distance without knowing the size. And all of those are things that people are really bad at estimating. (And before you say, "but some of these people are experts" (pilots or whatever) evidence shows that such people are no better than anyone else at observational tests.) If you have two (or more) completely independent witnesses who have similar descriptions, then that may increase the credibility of the description. (But they might both be misled by what they saw in similar ways.) If they have had a chance to to talk about whet they saw, then that weakens the usefulness of their testimony (because memory is so plastic and easily changed by talking about an event).

I would hope that is not true in any democratic country. I have served on a jury and heard the witnesses describe the person they saw at the scene of the (alleged) crime. He was tall/average/short. Had light/dark hair. Was young/old. Was wearing a coat/jacket/t-shirt. Was walking quickly. Was standing still in the park. The car was blue/silver. The car was a Ford or something Japanese. (The young male witnesses were nearly all consistent on the colour and Molde of the car. Nothing else.) And on and on.

Length contraction and time dilation had already been deduced from observations. Much of the math of SR was already in place because of the work of Poincare and others. Einstein’s main insight was that this could be derived from first principles. There is more on this at the start of the thread

You still seem to be confusing invariant and constant. No one expected the speed to vary; ie they expected it be constant. But they did expect that the speed you measure would change if you move towards or away from the light (as you would expect from bullets or sound waves) in other words, they did not expect it to be invariant (but it turns out it is).

You are right that we would expect a "thing" (whether light or a boulder)to continue at the same speed unless something explicitly changes its speed. That means the speed is constant. The difference is that if you run towards the boulder, it is moving towards you faster than if you run away from it. That means the speed is not invariant. It depends on the person who measures it (i.e. the speed depends on their frame of reference). But with light, it makes no difference if you are heading towards it or away from it. You will still measure its speed as c. That means the speed of light is invariant. It does not depend on the state of motion (ie. the frame of reference) of the person who measured it. These are separate concepts. Even if the speed of light were not constant, it would still be invariant. This is for the case where assume, as Galileo said, that we can only measure speed relative to something; eg. our frame of reference. But as Janus points out, the same argument applies even of you assume there is such a thing as "absolute motion".

Thinking a bit more about this, I would break it down to a sequence of problems and then add the result. For the first combination: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1. Just one permutation. For the first "mixed" combination: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2. There are 9 possible permutation here (the 2 can be in any position) Then the next one: 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2. There are 7 + 6 + 5 + 4 + 3 + 2 + 1 = 28 permutation. So that is 38 permutations so far. Carry on for all the others ... That is a shame. I often use and recommend Google Translate. It is obviously not perfect! I think you want to say "in pairs" or "pairwise" or "two at a time".

Two ways: one at a time, or two at a time. Or do you mean, how many ways can you permute 1 and 2 out of the 10 stairs? In which case, I would recommend writing them down. Start with the easy ones: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 and so on Maybe start with a number less than 10 and see if you can work out the pattern and hence equation. If that is the question, it is an interesting one. It is bit subtler than the usual combination case, because the total number of "objects" (steps taken) varies. (And you should look up decussate in a dictionary. I don't think it means what you think it does.)

I don't understand the question, but this might help: https://www.mathwords.com/c/combination_formula.htm Maybe it will help you ask a better question. I assume the answer is: n stairs, n stairs. But I don't know what it means. How do you climb stairs in an X-shape?

How can we show that it won't work mathematically when you refuse to present the math?

If you are going to invoke science-fiction then you can do anything. Perhaps best to stick to science. (And if you are going to say "but an Einstein-Rosen bridge is science", then I require you to show the full mathematical analysis that your idea works.)

Same here (until I checked the domain name registry). I was going to suggest (if the problem hadn't been fixed) that we announce what was happening on some other forums. A lot of the regulars hang out elsewhere (traitors!)

It sounds like you are mixing up "constant" and "invariant". The above might be enough to convince you that the speed of light is constant (after all, why would it change). But it isn't obvious that if you are moving towards or away from the source, you will still measure the light to be moving at the same speed.

The latest XKCD is relevant to this: With a particularly good alt text: Well, there's one right here at the bottom, where it says "53." And the same thing with more science: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/10/17/for-the-last-time-no-a-nasa-engineer-has-not-broken-physics-with-an-impossible-engine/