Winston

Sans vouloir vous insulter, votre texte est extrêmement confus.

I concur, static device. Quite an interesting answer here.

@DescheleSchilder: Just added a simple simulation to the question body.

@Deschele Schilder: not sure that would amount to a lot of energy, but you are right regarding energy storage. What energy is not reflected must go somewhere.

@llama: if by rotating you mean an axis perpendicular to the sight direction, like a turnstile, I thought of it too but yes, low limit, especially from a practical mechanic design point of view.

Yes I thought of that and forgot to mention I was looking for something static. But thanks anyway.

@Emilio Pisanty: just read your opinion about JEB comment, thank you for your evaluation.

Ok thanks

I don't find his tone "kind and welcoming" to paraphrase rob, though.

No idea what QVC is. But rfl's answer was helpful and wavelength shifters do exist.

He just added a second part "The is physics stack exchange, not QVC."

I am refering to JEB last comment.

Here: physics.stackexchange.com/a/623745/230132

I am seeking an official opinon about how I am to react to what I believe is a joke

Having recently been lectured by rob about my bad behavior and my lack of social skills (or motivation to use them in accordance to the code of conduct),

Hi again. Looking for a moderator opinion here.

I like the question about chickens. Shows the site can still have humor.

Yes I will delete because I have what I was looking for, thanks to you. Bye.

You are right. But usually wrong answers tend to attract a reaction, downvote or comment and there was no sign. Anyway, thank you.

Should I delete my question?

I thought Holger was right, and you are clearly saying he is not

Ok thanks ACuriousMind, this is actually very helpful

The alleged good answers give zero information about frequency

Have you even bothered reading either one?

How is the question given as one offering the answers to my question answers my question about photon frequencies?

damn mobile phone, sorry about that

How is the past questiin

How is the existi question

Like I suppose I cannot ask if entanglement is connected to gravitational phenomena, or can I?

Mainstream physics yes, not inventing anything. I am just affraid QM not being gravity oriented, this might end up in a disaster (question closed).

Hello. Is there a way to ask if entanglement is behind some astrophysical phenomena without getting the question closed? This is not a joke. I repeat. Not a drill.

"I claim that there are 6 base colors". What are the 3 other ones?

I am still trying to figure what the 3 other base colors are in your scheme.

Thank you. I appreciate all the efforts you made to answer my questions. Although this is not much, I am happy to grant you the bounty.

Thank you. I am just trying to figure why time and space would not add together if they were truly orthogonal dimensions. Is there a simple explanation for the negative sign?

@PM 2Ring: ok my problem is that there can be a particle staying put while the clock is ticking, but there cannot be a moving particle in zero delay. So that makes space and time dimensions not entirely orthogonal in my opinion. So, unlike X and Y that are independent for 2D coordinates so sqrt(x^2+y^2) gives a distance to the origin, this is not feasible with time against space here. So what I am seeing in t^2-x^2 in that time passes anyway, but if the particle moves, it cannot be counted twice. See where I am going?

@PM 2Ring: but delta T can be considered an invariant too if one decides so, is that not an arbitrary choice to choose delta S as such, mathematically speaking? How do you justify substracting space to time otherwise? The radius example may look obvious but I do not see how that makes it right when adding time.

@PM 2Ring: thanks for your answer, as well as robphy's addition. I understand everything you wrote, I think. And yet your use of complex numbers to remove minus sign seems artificial. Worse, it seems unnecessary. If (\Delta s)^2=(c\Delta t_2)^2-(\Delta x_2)^2, why not just say delta T is the hypotenuse and delta S and X are the sides? i.e. T being the distance and S and X being orthogonal dimensions?

Ah bon? Moi il m'a l'air clair l'intérêt sur un plan linguistique. En anatomie on fait constamment des comparaisons entre les espèces animales pour identifier les points communs et les différences, et cela me semble être le cas en linguistique aussi. C'est un objet de recherche fondamentale, et la recherche fondamentale a rarement un but immédiat. En fait c'est quoi exactement un phrasal verb? L'usage d'une expression de plusieurs mots pour exprimer un verbe?

Non je ne connais pas cette étude qui a l'air très intéressante. Est-ce qu'elle est disponible en téléchargement?

Je pense quand-même qu'il est assez courant d'entendre que le français est une langue difficile à apprendre, en comparaison de l'anglais. Que cette difficulté persiste à l'âge adulte, c'est peut-être différent. Mais si je prends l'exemple des dictées de Pivot, il mettait en évidence ce côté de la langue. Un élément objectif auquel je pense c'est le nombre de mots ou de syllabes pour dire la même chose. Native speaker donne quelqu'un dont c'est la langue maternelle... C'est ou bien maladroit ou bien très long.

D'accord donc ce serait purement subjectif.

Je me trouve plus souvent à me poser de questions sur l'orthographe, la conjugaison ou l'accord corrects en français qu'en anglais, parce que je pense qu'il y a objectivement plus d'exceptions en français qu'en anglais. Je vais vérifier tel subjonctif uniquement parce que je ne veux faire aucune faute de français. Si je m'en fichais, comme beaucoup de gens de nos jours, ce serait évidemment un faux problème. Il y a aussi les tournures de phrase qui sont allongées en français.

Par exemple la régularité et la variété des conjugaisons.

Mais il y a des éléments de comparaison objectifs entre l'anglais et le français.

C'est effectivement une piste. En fait cela m'a paru spectaculaire au moment de m'exprimer en français sur SE French Language, alors que j'évolue en temps normal sur SE Physics.

Great. The only interesting answers are now moved to the junkyard.

I am flagging your comment, as it does not add anything new.

@allure: you clearly have a problem understanding what Coulomb interaction is. You seem to believe it acts instantaneously.