Strange

Also because they are finely divided and will bur very rapidly. Small amounts of flour or sawdust dispersed in the air with a flash (or an explosion, for larger amounts, so don't try this at home). It depends on whether they are also being mechanically dispersed at the time. For example, burning a strip of magnesium will not cause any flashes. But if it were being torn apart or something, so that fragments got thrown off, then it could. It is impossible to answer something this general. It has almost nothing to do with the type of metal. I'm sure you could build a mechanical devices which knocked off chunks of burning metal about once per second (with those bits being small enough to burn in less than a second). Could that happen in a building fire? Possibly. Water vapour in the air is already vapourised. And I'm not sure why water vapour would cause these flashes. Why are you writing a report you know nothing about? Why not employ an expert?

This is well understood (by some people, at least) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone Note that an "event" is a single point [x,y,z,t] and has no duration. That is the only way your description above makes sense. Feel free to start a thread in Speculations to explain what you are thinking.

Apart from the fact that YouTube is not a reliable source of information(*), why would the existence of a large sarcophagus be evidence of anything? It is probably empty, especially as it is claimed to contain the remains of someone who only exists in myth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabi_Habeel_Mosque Although I have doubts about Wikipedia, at least it has references for its sources. (*) Especially a Russian news channel (not noted for their honesty). And especially one sponsored by the Russian government (the less said, the better).

There’s not much point. Conspiracy nuts don’t believe their theories because of evidence so (more) evidence isn’t going to change their minds. It is better to just ignore them and let them fester in their own basements. Apart from the anti-vaxers who should be prosecuted for manslaughter.

Important to note that the distance is observer dependent. The only thing that is invariant is the "four-distance" between two events: (x1, y1, z1, t1) and (x1, y2, z2, t2). So there are two cases to be considered, (t<d) and (t>d). 1. An object cannot be seen if the light has not reached us yet (t < d). That is basically the case of Betelgeuse mentioned earlier: it may already have gone supernova but we have not seen that yet. 2. An object cannot be seen if the light has passed us (t>d) and the object no longer exists. This describes, for example, supernovae that happened in the past. They were visible at the time but the light has now passed us and there is no more coming (because the event is over). In other words, we can't see a lightning flash before it happens (or, more exactly, before the light reaches us). And we can't see the lightning flash after it has finished (or, more exactly, after the last of the light has passed us). Well, duh. Both of these are pretty obvious. And neither are very relevant to almost everything we see, which exists for a significant period of time (billions of years in the case of stars and galaxies. So I still don't know what point you are trying to make. It doesn't seem to be anything very insightful or interesting.

Exactly. (Emphasis added.) The point was to show that even in mundane, everyday situations the concept of "now" or "at the same time" is not necessarily well defined. Irrelevant. We experience exactly the same thing with signals that take a few picoseconds to cross from one part of a microprocessor to another. (The cosmological case may be complicated by the fact that light travel time is not always proportional to distance because of expansion. But that doesn't seem relevant to your confusion.) You just said that there were not two elements (signals or, in astronomer speak, messengers). How about explaining what you are talking about instead of being so evasive: What "t coordinate" are you talking about? And why wouldn't it correspond to distance? So what exactly is the reason we can't observe them? Please provide a proper (mathematical) answer, not one based on incomprehensible hints or metaphor. What does "the correct time coordinate" mean? Again, a precise mathematical answer would be helpful. How can some things have the "right" time coordinate and others have the "wrong" time coordinate? What causes them to be different? If you still refuse to answer these questions, I will request this thread is closed. The delay is mainly due to the time (a few hours!) it takes the light to escape from the star itself, which is not due to refractive index. Further discussion of this fascinating subject would be off topic... But excellent summary here for anyone interested: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/01/23/this-is-what-well-see-when-betelgeuse-really-does-go-supernova/#673e896743a2

Maybe a 1:1 scale reproduction of the building. (And the cause of the collapse.) I can see that easily costing a lot more than €1M. Computer models are widely used in modern design. Perhaps supplemented, occasionally, with physical models. You are being taken for a ride by someone who has only proposed the (probably impossible) challenge so they can say, "see it never happened". Why pander to this sort of conspiracy theory? I would bet a million euros that the money does not exist and no one will ever win it. You would be better off buying a lottery ticket (which I often describe as a "tax on stupidity").

I think that warning you that you are being set an unrealistic and impossible goal to ensure that you fail (and hence implicitly support the false claims being made) is pretty constructive.

Do you think either of those accurately reproduces the mass, strength (tensile, compressive, shear), rigidity, and other attributes of a real building?

Of course not. And I'm sure excuses would be made to reject any model that demonstrated the truth. That's a yes then. (I'm not sure if it is legally binding, but ...) More seriously, you haven't said what your current level of understanding of the problem is. I think people need to know that to understand what sort of help you need. Do you have a degree in materials science and/or structural engineering? Or mechanical engineering? Or some experience in the construction industry? Have you built models in Lego or Meccano? Have you made a start on the problem? How far have you got? (I wonder if this should be in Homework Help? )

! Moderator Note This is a science site, and this is a very serious subject. Do not spread unfounded rumours and conspiracy theories.

Great. Are you going to share the money with the people on this forum who help you?

This Anders Borkman: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nuclear_energy_denial I think I would be sceptical that his million euros exists

! Moderator Note Welcome to the forum. Please don't hijack threads with nonsense. Thank you.

That there are things that are too dark or too small to see s pretty obvious. I don't know if that is what you were referring to. Perhaps what is less obvious is that there are things we cannot see because the light from them hasn't reached us yet. And there are things that we will never be able to see because the expansion of the universe means the light from them will never reach us. "Hidden in time" is poetic, but not very meaningful. What "t coordinate" are you talking about? And why wouldn't it correspond to distance? So what exactly is the reason we can't observe them? Please provide a proper (mathematical) answer, not one based on incomprehensible hints or metaphor. What does "the correct time coordinate" mean? Again, a precise mathematical answer would be helpful. How can some things have the "right" time coordinate and others have the "wrong" time coordinate? What causes them to be different? I prefer reality.

I don't know what that means. There are things we can't observer? Well obviously. There are things we can observe but we don't know how they are moving? Well, it can be harder to know speeds orthogonal to the line of sight if the objects are moving slowly. This is all pretty obvious. Another example: https://www.universetoday.com/144812/voyager-2-went-into-fault-protection-mode-but-engineers-brought-it-back-online/ That means that between sending a message to Voyager and getting a reply, it has moved about 1,970,000 km further away. Why is that problematic for you?

Obviously. By the time you hear the thunder a few seconds after seeing the lightning, the storm may have moved a bit closer or a bit further away. Do you think that this is a novel insight that no one has thought of before? Or do you just like stating the obvious for no reason? No, in my statement of fact (it wasn't an analogy) the light is a wave called "light" and the thunder is a wave called "sound".

So what was your "we only hear the thunder" comment supposed to mean?

Of course they will still exist in the year 3000. The lifetimes of galaxies are measured in many billions of years. They are not going to disappear in less than 1,000 years. I think that galaxies we see as being 1 billion light years away will be roughly 1.1 billion light years now.

As seen from Stonehenge? The idea that it was built as a basic calendar, to measure events like the solstice, seems more plausible than a superficial resemblance between two circular objects.

And everybody will say that (their) now is "now". But even if you could synchronise all those different perceptions of "now", then the next "now" would not be synchronised.

1. Accepting that Newton's laws apply universally is not a "belief". It is mainstream science, based on evidence. 2. I don't know if that is why the thread was moved.

As long as your solenoid doesn't overheat and melt!

No. Everyone will (possibly) measure a different value for t. (As was explained in the thread this was split from.)

I don't know when exactly it was moved (or by whom) but may well have been when you said: But you are not just asking questions, you are also making assertions contradicted by physics.