Strange

Maybe you should create a post with a list of words and their definitions that we all have to use. The thread is not about rotating electric machinery so please don't take it off topic. I'm sure you have heard of RMS and if someone referred to a "constant AC voltage" then that is what I would assume they meant. But I'm sure you will tell me I am wrong. And that's fine.

Yes it is. Obviously. Switzerland is not in the EU. Norway is not in the EU. There is no point lying about that. A lot of people (including leave campaigners) thought it was a good idea. Only one of those has any value. The other just causes immense damage to the country's economy and leads to decades of further argument and attempting to negotiate trade deals with the EU and other countries (including all the ones that the UK currently has trade deals with). This article highlights both the blatant dishonesty of some modern politicians and that leaving without a deal is a Really Bad Idea: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49833221

Here is one source: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/open-britain-video-single-market-nigel-farage-anna-soubry_uk_582ce0a0e4b09025ba310fce It is possible to stay in the single market and leave the EU. This would obviously be entirely consistent with the referendum result. As you said, the vote was to leave the EU. The way in which the UK leaves was not part of the vote. It would have the advantage of being the least damaging way of leaving.

That is not true. Before, and immediately after, the referendum pretty much all campaigners for leave said things like "we will keep all the benefits of membership", "it would be crazy to leave the single market", and so on. For example: Michael Gove: "There is a free trade zone stretching from Iceland to Turkey that all European nations have access to, regardless of whether they are in or out of the euro or EU. After we vote to leave we will remain in this zone" Daniel Hannan: "Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the Single Market.” (He also claimed that EU citizens would not lose any of their legal rights.) Owen Patterson: "Only a madman would actually leave the Market" Nigel Farage: "Wouldn't it be terrible if we were really like Norway and Switzerland? Really? They're rich. They're happy. They're self-governing" Arron Banks, (Leave .EU founder): "Increasingly, the Norway option looks the best for the UK" And so on It is, of course, entirely possible to leave the EU and remain in the single market. (Whether that is what you want, is a different question.) And yet, if you say that to many who voted leave, they say "it's not about immigration, it's about 'sovereignty'."

I guess we will never know now, because the increasingly divisive attitudes probably make any such deal impossible. But, for example, leave campaigners were originally promoting something like the EEA to remain in the single market, etc. And that is close to what Labour are still arguing for. That would probably have been acceptable to quite a few Remain voters, as a way of maintaining most of the advantages of EU membership. But now Leavers say it isn't "really" Brexit.

Possibly. Except the idea of leaving without a deal was never raised. All the leave campaigners promised an easy deal; that the UK would stay in the single market after leaving the EU, etc (even though that is obviously impossible). The duty of a government is to do what is best for the country. They do not have to be bound by the meaningless promises of a previous PM who ran away when things didn't go his way. The EU are happy with the deal they agreed with the UK government. Not completely happy, because they had to make at least one major compromise. The UK parliament then decided to walk away from the deal that the government had agreed to. Mainly because people in favour of Brexit repeatedly voted against it. Strange days. A sensible government would have decided what they wanted from Brexit, and a plan for achieving it, before making the Article 50 notification. A sensible government would have flexibility about "red lines" in order to make a deal that was acceptable to Parliament. Instead, the government has used increasingly polarising language and tactics, that has made Brexiters move from "we could leave with a deal like Norway or Switzerland" to saying that a deal like that is completely unacceptable and that only leaving without a deal is "really" leaving.

This is complete unadulterated gibberish. And irrelevant.

Not in the UK. The army and the police are separate and have different functions. In some countries like Italy or France, the police (or some of the police) are a part of the army. The role of the legislature (which includes the courts and the police) is to uphold the laws of the country. This is, quite rightly, separate from and independent of the executive and the legislature. The laws are created by government and parliament, together. In the UK, parliament is sovereign. The government can suggest legislation, but it is decided by parliament. The government does not have power or the right to overrule parliament. Nor, as we have seen, to close it down so that parliament is not able to scrutinise and control the government. So, I take it that your cryptic comment "police means city" is somehow supposed to mean that you disagree with the decision of the Supreme Court? Have you read the judgment and considered the case law they cite? Can you point out the flaws in their reasoning? (It looks pretty compelling to me.) (Also, the cases heard by the Supreme Court had nothing to do with Brexit. Just the relative power of the government and parliament.)

Don't post drunk, mate.

If the police stop being on the side of the law, then we are really in trouble.

You can approximate curved space-time as a series of inertial frames of reference. You can model these as accelerating towards the mass and, in fact, Painleve-Gullstrand coordinates make this explicit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gullstrand–Painlevé_coordinates https://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/waterfall.html Someone in free fall with those frames of reference is actually not accelerating - which your description makes clear: they are always in an inertial frame of reference. Someone in free-fall feels no force acting on them (unlike someone undergoing acceleration). That is a good insight

! Moderator Note I have hidden your other threads on the same subject. This one appears to be in the most relevant area.

Of course.

F = ma IS the theory. Of course. Because gravity is purely attractive. So you can say a spaceship is attracted to the Earth by gravity. And when it travels to the Moon, it will also be attracted to that. And the Moon will be attracted to the Earth. That doesn't work with electric charge. If the spaceship is attracted to th Earth, then they must have opposite charge. If the spaceship is also attracted to the Moon, then they must have opposite charge. That means that the Moon will have the same charge as the Earth and they will repel one another. And so the Moon will fly off into space. Gravity and electric charge are completely different for this, and many other, reasons.

I think that is reasonably accurate. But it doesn't contradict the fact that only force acting on the gas is gravity. The reason the gas below is denser is because of gravity.

There is a loose but well-organised network of like minded far-right extremists (Bannon is the prime example; Trump and Farage are part of it) who are skilful at getting their message out in a way that appeals to the tabloid-reading masses. (A few years ago I would have thought that anyone who wrote the above was delusional. I still find it hard to believe that this is going on, but it seems to be an unavoidable conclusion.)

! Moderator Note This is not appropriate

He can't. He has tried twice, and failed to get the required two thirds majority. He will not be allowed to bring the same motion again. And if he were, it would probably fail again. He should resign but probably won't because he doesn't think he has done anything wrong. One of the other parties (or even the government) could call for a vote of no confidence. That would probably succeed, and lead to a replacement government and PM. But who? No one has a majority, so there would need to be some sort of coalition "government of national unity" with a caretaker PM put in place purely to call another election (having first asked the EU for an extension to ensure the UK doesn't leave with no deal while that is being organised). Who are you going to appeal to? The highest court in the country has decided that they do.

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations

If the OP were correct that SR is wrong, then GR would have to be wrong as well. In which case there are no gravitational waves and the CMB does not exist. So I suspect the OP may be incorrect.

@lidal has talked about the constancy of the speed of light, but this is less important than the fact that is it invariant. That does not appear to be mentioned in this "theory".

How about you present some evidence that 1. Relativity is wrong, as you claim 2. Your hypothesis is correct. Without that evidence there is no reason for this thread to stay open.

The other thing here is that you comparing almost completely unrelated phenomena. The light from the bulb is not electromagnetic radiation caused directly by the current (that would require a changing current). It is a side effect of the resistance of the wire to current flow, and is caused by this heating the wire. If you wanted to compare the magnetic field with electromagnetic radiation generated by the current, then you would have to compare a static, DC, current (which creates a static magnetic field) with a changing, AC, current that generates a changing magnetic (and electric) field and therefore electromagnetic radiation. I suggest you go and re-read about Faraday's experiments and what he discovered about the relationship between current, magnetic fields, chaining currents, changing fields, etc. Maybe after the discussions here, you might see things there in a new light (excuse the pun) and get some fresh insight.

How? Because they are different things. A field is (roughly) a set of values at each spatial position. When a particular current is flowing, it will create a field that has higher values (depending on the current level) near the wire and decreasing values as you move away. If the current doesn't change then neither will the field values. There is no "flow". The field values are just what they are. There is an energy associated with the field, but like the field it is static, not radiating away. Light is radiation. This means it is a flow of energy (electromagnetic waves or photons, depending how you want to model it) away from the source. If you were to look at any point around the light, you would have light waves / photons passing by (and carrying energy away). Yes.

What? We are talking about a constant, unchanging current when the constant unchanging field is already there. Why do you keep asking the same thing over and over and over and over and over ... Maybe you should start reading the answers ?