Strange

I doubt anyone else does. Apart from some racists, maybe.

It doesn't cease to be false dichotomy just because you say so. BTW: it's a false dichotomy.

Reported for trolling

Because they are based on a bizarre lack of knowledge of how people behave. Which is why I assume you live in a cellar and get your understanding of human nature from sit-coms.

Stop digging. It really isn't making you look any less of a religious bigot. And, obviously, you did blame the Jews: "If Judaism did not spread to Europe ... then the Holocaust could not have happened." Which says that the Jews were responsible for the deaths of millions of Jews and non-Jews because they moved to Europe. You might also want to think about the fact that the Jews did not choose to leave their original homeland (not that there is any reason they shouldn't be allowed to). You might also want to think.

The staff can do whatever they want.

Why not (a) learn to write properly and stop behaving like a spoiled teenager and (b) LEARN some basic physics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Physical_properties 1) We are not talking about spectroscopy 2) That is nu-bar, not nu 3) Learn some basic physics 4) Stop writing like a child

Therefore, not based on science. If they are unmeasurable then, in scientific terms, they don't exist. On the other hand, people who believe in astrology seem to think that everyone born within the same 30 day period will experience the same things in their life. That should be easily measurable. In fact it should be obvious. But it doesn't happen. Not true. Studies have been done and found it to be utterly meaningless. But thanks for telling us about your [quasi-religious] beliefs. It was fascinating.

Do you live in a cellar? I think it was a pretty objective statement.

Well, if you use the wrong number in the equation then you will get the wrong result. nu (ν) is frequency. lambda (λ) is wavelength. None of these equations use "photo film distance" (whatever that means). Why would the position of a photographic film change the energy of a photon?

Now, how about explaining where your equation ([math]\frac{m c^2}{i^x}[/math]) came from?

You should explain what it is you don't understand. You should write your questions in proper English, like an adult, not like a pretentious teenager. The problem is in your failure to understand. Not in well-tested physics.

Now, how about explaining where your equation ([math]\frac{m c^2}{i^x}[/math]) came from?

10 seconds is more than enough.

All the more reason you should learn about it instead of posting ignorant crap. And, if I were a moderator, I would ban you for failing to write like an adult!

Not unless you present it here, in the Speculations forum, no. However, as you have no model and no evidence you do not even have a hypothesis, never mind a theory. You have some incoherent drivel and some nice pictures of cats. This is not science.

No. I don't know where you got that equation from and the right hand part is not equal to the middle part. It looks like you don't understand mathematics. [math]1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}[/math]is always positive so you can't get an imaginary result. So where do you get [math]I^x[/math] from, and what is x? You will need to be more specific. I am not going to read 165 pages to find something you appear to have misunderstood. And why not find a better source? I have always found Einstein's writings on the subject to rather obtuse.

It depends what frame of reference you measure the acceleration in. For example, if you are in a rocket that is being accelerated at a steady 1g (comfortable) then without relativity, you would reach the speed of light in about a year. But what actually happens is that the people back on Earth would see the rate at which your speed increases (your apparent acceleration) decrease. You can think of this being because your "relativistic mass" increases (and so the force of the rockets have less effect). Or you can say it is because velocities do not add linearly in relativity (because the Lorentz factor needs to be taken into account): http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/einvel.html However, in your space ship, you would still feel 1g and so think you are undergoing constant acceleration. Actually calculating acceleration in relativity is slightly more complex: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration_(special_relativity)

There is some discussion of this here: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=37059 It seems there is a shortage of research (or even data) in this area.

If you read the thread, you will see that that is not necessarily the case.

As you are so woefully ill-informed about the current state of science, I'm not sure why you are pontificating in this thread.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_factor Are there any particular aspects that you need more explanation of?

Learn some basic physics. Learn to write properly.

Not holding my breath.

One would have to try a set of controlled experiments to work out what is going on. Same pictures with and without the bat, with different types of light sources, different types/makes of camera, etc.