StormanNorman

How so??? And BK, walk it through with me ....how would the speed of light effect the geometric measurements of that light source? And what do you think they are measuring when calculating parallax? I have a feeling this will go the way of the statistical confidence interval discussion....

Trigonometric measurements???? What does that have to do with the speed of light???

I didn't say that GPS or TDOA proves the one-way speed of light; they just offer lots and lots of observational evidence for it....to the point where opining vastly different speeds as a function of direction is very, very wishful thinking. We had a big discussion over on the Lisle's Anisotropic Synchrony Convention (ASC) thread and I walked through the calculations for TDOA. So, say, you have 4 aircraft detecting an enemy emitter....c for all speeds provides an accurate emitter location for all geometries. But, for a given geometry, there is a bigger solution space or manifold of potential speed combinations within four-space. However, as you change geometries, the solution space changes as well. And the only solution in common with all geometries is when all four speeds (from emitter to aircraft) = c. It just seems exceedingly fortuitous that these variable speeds light based on direction (w/o any formulation as far as I can tell) always gives us the right answer using calculations based exclusively on the one-way speed of light = c independent of direction. If I recall, someone tried to contact Lisle to have him discuss it with us and, in particular, with me in that thread. But, he refused and instead offered us an offhand insult. He could've discussed his calculations with a legit mathematician, but he didn't seem interested. Oh well....

It's also observed during time difference of arrival calculations for emitters...

I don't buy it. GPS uses a constant velocity for light, c, in all calculations. And these calculations apply to an infinite set of geometries and directions. Do these guys have a formulation for the speed of light as a function of direction??.

ASC is a solution to the distant starlight problem only for the true believers; but, unfortunately, it doesn't t match our real world observations...

And, also, the hospitalization rates; if they run out of ICU beds, then things can get out of hand quickly. Now, it's up to 1,000+ deaths a day and climbing. What a disaster. Given the anti-mask attitudes and the push to reopen as fast as possible, I guess I'm not surprised...

Because Biden doesn't need large, rowdy crowds waving signs with his name on it for an ego boost... Trump says he cancelled it because he wants to keep Americans safe.....give me a break...it would've went just like Tulsa....

That sounds like Oklahoma. No offense, but that state comes off as borderline nuts; if I recall, they had serious altercations in Stillwater when the mayor mandated masks....he then had to rescind it. I'm glad you are safe from this latest decision. When will they learn??

Looks like Trump is attempting a complete policy U-turn on wearing a mask, spread and danger of the virus, daily press conferences, etc. He finally realized that his election hopes were fading with his complete lack of action and concern during the past several weeks.....even as the number of new cases far surpassed those in April. Will it be enough ??

I've been told that the best course of action is to wait to they arrive at your window; and if it is dark, then turn your dome light on right away...

Thanks, Indy. The bottom line for Trump is 1) he has to maintain at least some of the ground he took in 2016, e.g., the blue wall - Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, or take other comparable blue states and 2) fight off the shifting demographics in the south and southwest. And 2020 is not 2016; his movement caught many by surprise and I think he hit a chord with many of the disenfranchised in places like Pennsylvania. But, now he is the incumbent....and I think most have already made up their mind about him at this point. Whether or not Biden draws the turn out he needs is an important question. Hillary did not....which is why I think Trump won. Either way, I think Trump has his work cut for him....

Dude, he's completely punted on this thing. He is no longer relevant; he's completely irrelevant. It is going to be up to the individual states, their leadership, and, most importantly, their people to get control of this thing. I wouldn't look to the White House for anything...

Well, Indy, I live in Pennsylvania and there have been a lot of Biden adds on TV. As far as actual in-person campaigning from Biden, I don't think you are going see much of it....if any. Unlike the orange fella, I don't think Biden needs or constantly craves the self-adulation from those idiotic political rallies. Yeah, I would say New Hampshire, Nevada, and Minnesota are most in play. New Hampshire: Hillary won NH by less than 1% and nothing has really changed; so, NH is probably the most in play. Nevada: Hillary won by ~1.5%. But, Nevada is one of those "shifter" states; its demographics have been shifting with the Las Vegas boom. It used to be solid red, but is at the very least purple and maybe slightly blue....and it's probably more blue now than in 2016. But, I agree, it's in play Minnesota: Hillary also won here by ~1.5%. Minnesota has been solid blue for a long time. I don't see Minny going red. Others: New Mexico, Colorado, Virginia New Mexico: I have to be honest, I do not get NM. It is a large, sparsely populated state with limited urban areas....and it seems like it should be more like Wyoming than California. But, it has been solid blue for some time. Hillary won it by more than 8 pts. Colorado & Virginia: These are two more "shifter" states that have been blue for a while now. These would be big upsets. We had some big upsets in 2016; so, it could happen, but I see them as long shots. Trump States most in Play: Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida, Arizona, and North Carolina Michigan and Pennsylvania: Trump won both by less than 1%. Hillary took them for granted. These are both blue-collar rust belt states with lots of unions, etc. who I think will find Biden far more appealing than Hillary. Right now, I think Biden wins both. Wisconsin: Also won by less than 1%. Had been traditionally blue in presidential elections, but has a mix of strong red and strong blue regions. Florida: Always in play Arizona & North Carolina: Trump won both by ~ 3.5%; these again are two examples of "shifters;" NC is like Virginia ten years ago and Phoenix has been booming. I think NC went blue for Obama in 2008; Arizona has been solid red to red at least in my lifetime. Others: Georgia, Texas, Ohio Georgia: Another "shifter" with Atlanta growing like it is. Probably still red, but in the next 4 years???? Texas: Like I said to Pi, Texas is definitely shifting. I guess lots of Californians have been moving there for affordable living. I think it stays red, but 4 to 8 years from now???? Ohio: Trump won it by a whopping 8% which is a lot. On the flip side, Obama won it in 2008 & 2012. So, I don't know, but probably red.....8% is a lot to overcome. Given the number and sizes of the states that Trump has to maintain and based on my thinking about Michigan & Pennsylvania, I give a pretty solid advantage to Biden right now. Of course, the election is more than a 100 days off and this could all change in an instant.,

Ive seen it; it's a good site. Agree about Texas and Florida, but I guess I'm focused more on those 3 traditional blue states (at least since 1992) that Clinton lost by less than 1% w/o ever really ever campaigning there. Those are the lowest hanging fruits for Biden, IMHO....not that I wouldn't focus on the others....especially Florida...