Strange

True. Obviously, I was only referring to what we currently know. I can’t see into the future. Nonsense.

A teeny bit racist?

For exactly the same reason as the apple does (as Ghideon cleverly points out). Janus's explanation involves relativistic velocities just so you can easily see where the "moving" photon goes. The diagram would be the same in the case of your bicycle (except you wouldn't be able to see that the path of your photon was not vertical because the angle would be too small).

I mean the theory of evolution by natural selection originally proposed by Wallace and Darwin and confirmed (and extended) by many experiments and observations since then. As you didn't define what you meant by "practical" we were left to come up with our own. I think that progress in science is very practical. Of course it is. And is also confirmation of that tree (many relationships are known from genetics, where there is little fossil evidence). Theories explain "facts" (evidence). In this case, the theory of evolution explains the genetic relationships. And therefore the genetic relationships are yet more evidence confirming the theory. That makes no sense at all. A theory doesn't rely on practical applications. It just has to successfully explain the evidence. We have no practical use for neutrinos, that doesn't make quantum theory a myth. Again, you may think that gaining knowledge of the world around us is a waste of time. Many of us think it is an admirably practical pursuit.

Amusing. But not really relevant. The reason for the inverse square law is that the intensity of light (electric field, gravity) is spread out over the surface of an increasing large sphere with increasing distance. The area of the sphere goes up as the square of the radius, so the intensity follows an inverse square law. You cannot reduce that to two dimensions.

They match the received waveforms against simulations of what would be generated by various combinations of black holes sizes. They start of by using a set of templates corresponding to different types of events (two black holes, two black holes of different sizes, two neutron stars, a neutron star and a back hole, and so on). These are used to identify possible signals (the gravitational waves are so small, that signals are not much larger than the background noise). Then they run a series of simulations to find the exact mass, angular momentum, orientation, etc. Not sure how much detail you want to get into, but this web page has all the papers from the first detect along with a brief summary, a more detailed description and a link to the paper itself. The papers are quite mathematical but some can be read without following all the math. https://cplberry.com/2016/02/23/gw150914-the-papers/

Good example. And an extreme one where detecting the wave/particle destroys it. But you can (usually) minimise the effect. For example, making sure the impedance of your voltmeter is high enough that it has no significant effect on the circuit. Or... Taking a very small core sample to count tree rings without actually cutting the tree down. This may still have some effect on the tree (and there is the risk of disease) but it is less than chopping it down. Not really. And this is where the observer effect differs from the uncertainty principle: both the "randomness" (probabilistic nature) and the uncertainty principle are, as far as we can tell, fundamental aspects of the way the universe behaves. Absolutely. Opinion polls are banned before elections in some countries because they could change the way people vote.

Well, I'll admit I'm not deeply familiar with the holographic principle but ... "The holographic principle is a principle of string theories and a supposed property of quantum gravity that states that the description of a volume of space can be thought of as encoded on a lower-dimensional boundary to the region—preferably a light-likeboundary like a gravitational horizon." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle

As speed increases the energy of the object increases. Energy and mass are equivalent so this increase in energy can be described as an increase in mass (called “relativistic mass”). Most people avoid using relativistic mass because it causes exactly this sort of confusion. We cannot counteract gravity

Oh that’s great from someone who refuses to answer questions or explain anything. But here you go https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckminsterfullerene It has absolutely nothing to do with relativity or the shape of the universe, of course. Now. How about you answer all my outstanding questions and explain what your “theory” is. Actually, I don’t think you know what your theory is. You are just making up random nonsense as replies to questions. So, in summary You have drawn a more complex diagram (with irrelevant circles) than the standard SR geometry You have produced much more complicated (and less useful) equations for the Lorentz transform You have claimed SR is wrong but produced no evidence - even though you claimed to have some You claim to have a theory but refuse to say what it is You introduce random, irrelevant nonsense like C60 and the shape of the universe (and refuse to explain why) You refuse and/or are unable to explain your diagram or your theory This thread has become completely pointless. I’m not sure why you are being so difficult.

But you failed to explain how they were relevant to your idea. You have also failed to address the many other aspects of physics that cannot be treated as 2D problems. What about the inverse square law? Or gravitational waves? What about the Lense-Thirring effect? It's not even book-keeping. It is just arbitrary and meaningless grouping of the dimensions. It changes nothing and explains nothing. You need to explain this. You know, with the appropriate mathematics. (You could start by explaining what you mean by "quantum jumps".) And no new physics has been introduced. You don't appear to have done anything useful. Or, if you have, you have spectacularly failed to explain it.

This was published in Nature: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature01944 Full paper available here: https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310253 That is my impression too. I agree.

A group of Chinese scientists measured the speed of entanglement to be at least 10,000 times faster than the speed of light: https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.0614 Because no information is transmitted. Measuring entangled particles shows a correlation between measurements. But you only know about this correlation if you compare the measurements, and this can only be done at light speed (or less). More detail here: https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/ask-ethan-can-we-use-quantum-entanglement-to-communicate-faster-than-light-e0d7097c0322 https://www.forbes.com/sites/chadorzel/2016/05/04/the-real-reasons-quantum-entanglement-doesnt-allow-faster-than-light-communication/#5cb783023a1e

Nothing can exceed the speed of light. And what gravitational forces are you referring to?

As far as we know it is instantaneous. But as there is no movement or communication involved, this does not violate the restriction on faster than light travel. A lot of experiments have been published related to this. This isn't the right place for conspiracy theories.

You said: "There were NASA speculations about the universe in the shape of a buckyball." None of the authors of that paper work for NASA. I'm not sure why you think this is relevant. Apart from anything else C60 molecules are icosahedrons while the paper is about a dodecahedron model of the universe.

Why are so unwilling to answer questions and explain your idea? Are you not able to? Because you don't understand your own idea? I was not aware of these experiments. Interesting early confirmation of SR. Not sure how it relates to your idea or this thread. And you aren't going to explain so ...

Please provide a reference. Please provide a reference. You provide references to things but don't explain the relevance. Then you make statements but don't provide any reference. Why? That makes no sense. Just because they involve geometry doesn't mean they are connected. What is "cosmic energy"? If your next post doesn't either answer some questions or explain your theory, I will suggest the mods close this.

This happened in the UK where some emergency (A&E) departments checked people in at reception as soon as they arrived and then dumped them on trolleys in the corridors. They had to wait just as long, possibly in worse conditions, but it didn't count in the waiting time stats. Almost any target is liable to be gamed like this.

Can you explain the relevance of this. The first sentence of your link is: "A relativistic kinetic kill vehicle (RKKV) or relativistic bomb is a hypothetical weapon system sometimes found in science fiction." I didn't read much further. But perhaps you could EXPLAIN why it is relevant. Please stop just posting more information without explaining the reason for posting it.

Can you tell xplain the relevance of a science fiction idea to this thread? And can you answer my questions

Vanholten, are you willing to answer my questions now? Or is your theory still secret?

Do you have access to the edit history (what has changed) of a post? Because I can imagine someone (*) changing their own post after being quoted in order to accuse someone else. (*) not thinking of anyone in particular!

The moon goes round the earth about once a month. Something between the earth and moon would go round faster. So not really stationary. Maybe you are thinking of something like this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_orbit

And when you measure a particle, you destroy the particle. Meh.