Leaderboard

mar_mar suspended for reintroduction of material from closed topic mistermack suspended for bad-faith posting

! Moderator Note You were warned about hijacking other people's threads with this inanity. If it continues, your account will be banned. You couldn't support this garbage in its own thread, so please stop messing up the work of others!

I didn't say anything about a feather and a brick. Don't flatter yourself. I was doing other things for the bulk of that time. It took a few minutes to research this. Which makes your refusal to put in the effort all the worse. I'm glad you pointed that out. Punishment. As the NIJ link repeatedly points out, it's the fear of getting caught, not the fear of punishment. You're saying it's obvious, and yet the experts disagree. And it's because lay opinion doesn't always reflect what's actually happening is precisely why we defer to the experts. ! Moderator Note The bottom line here is that you don't make the rules, and you don't get to decide, without consequence, that you're going not to follow them. The ironic thing here is that fear of punishment has had absolutely no effect on your behavior, despite your insistence that it should.

Again? Sorry, you said we can a few times. Doing a gauge transformation has nothing to do with collapse of the wave function. They are very different things for many reasons. Mentioning gauge invariance was meant to argue that the wave itself is ambiguous in its definition (gauge ambiguity). A further reason why we can't measure it. Well, not of what's seen. Of what could be, if somebody took notice, happend to be there, or came later and checked. You can rest assured when the tree falls in the forest it does make a sound, even though nobody's there to hear it.

Let me give it shot ... I apologize for not reading the previous 6 pages but I'm recuperating from eye surgery ( Ahmed valve installed for Glaucoma control ) and gave up after the lengthy title. A variable light speed to explain numerous 'problems' with modern Astrophysics, such as the horizon problem,, expansion and red-shift was first proposed by R Dicke, in the 50s. The biggest drawback is that there are simpler solutions that don't 'break' Physics like a variable speed of light would. Variable c ( with time, energy, distance, etc. ) would eliminate two very important 'pillars' of modern Physics, Lorentz invariance and CPT symmetry, and all Physics would come crashing down. This is still really hard to type, even with 150% screen magnification, so I'll let PBS explain in more detail

Thanks, that'( i)s exactly what I needed. Tkepler~ra1.5 Tkepler=k*ra1.5 Ok. Rooted gives k=T/(r^1.5). But, I do NOT see why (NOT). Surely you mean ONLY the end result; NOT the starting basis. ? From Janus's post Independent of this thread's presentation syntax: (as side_track) I quickly (also) see** (in her 1st line) (that) Newton's gravitational_force Fg=G*(M/R)*(m/r) is 2 mass_per_distance (linear_)ratios (M/R)*(m/r) multiplied together, & then multiplied by a proportionality constant G, where their (common) center_to_center distances R=r are (intended as) identical(ly the same). (I.e. Caution (poor) syntax, (clash): Distance, NOT just a radius. It's a ruff approximation. NOT to be confused with each (masses') radius separately (with their own (different) radius size); but instead the sum of both radii (distances + 1 height), (all) together. E.g. r=rm+rM+h=R, h=separation_height, surface to surface. Disclaimer: That'( i)s how I intuitively interpreted Fg, in a flash. That example of (symbol) r has NOTHING to do with my orbit radius r, later.) ** The Key (move=mano[e]uver): is shift (=move) the rooted_G*M (denominator) 1/((G*M)^0.5) (to) under the 2*π (numerator) (to obtain the proportionality constant k). T=(2*Pi/((G*M)^(1/2)))*(r^(3/2)). GM/(2pi)^2 = R^3 / T^2 (is (surely) enough info to follow thru correctly, & ignore the typo) ((2pi)^2)/GM = T^2 / R^3 Great inspiration. Thanks. --- So giving it another go, again. A circular orbit_Period, is Tcircle=2*Pi*((R/g)^0.5). Equating, the Weight (Force) Wt=m*g of a mass m, with Newton's gravity_Force Fg=G*M*m/(R^2) for the Earth's_mass M, separated by their total (radial) distance R (center to center), (& due to Newton's 3rd law of opposite & equal reaction) we have (equal & opposite forces, balancing (out)) Wt=Fg m*g=G*M*m/(R^2), /m & dividing both sides by the (small(er)) mass m we get the free_fall (gravitational) acceleration g=G*M/(R^2). (Please Not(ic)e: that g is typically measured near the Earth's surface; but (g) gets smaller as the separation ((e.g. orbit_)radius R) gets large(r), e.g. to a GSO (geo_stationary orbit's) radius RGSO~g*(T^2)/(2*(Pi^2)) where the weightless(ness) gGSO=0 is zero.) Inserting that (g, as inverse factor 1/g=(R^2)/(G*M)) into the circular orbit_Period Tcircle=2*Pi*((R*(1/g))^0.5), gives Tcircle=2*Pi*((R*(R^2)/(G*M))^0.5) & we get R^3 under the root(_sign) Tcircle=2*Pi*((R^3)/(G*M))^0.5). The Key (move=mano[e]uver): is shift (=move) the rooted_G*M (denominator) 1/((G*M)^0.5) (to) under the 2*π (numerator) (to obtain the proportionality constant k). Tcircle=((2*Pi/(G*M))^0.5)*((R^3)^0.5), rooting the (R^3) to (R^3)^0.5=R^(3/2)=R^1.5 we get Tcircle=(2*Pi/((G*M)^0.5)*(R^3/2), 3/2=1.5 Tcircle=(2*Pi/((G*M)^0.5)*(R^1.5) or ingesting(=incorporating) the 2*π into under the root_sign, as rooted 4*(Pi^2); we have Tcircle=((4*(Pi^2)/(G*M))^0.5)*(R^1.5). Janus's (wonderful method) tells me: Newtonian Physics says the period of an orbiting object is T=2*Pi*(R^(3/2))/((G*M)^0.5), *1/(T*2*Pi) Thus 1/(2*Pi)=(R^(3/2))/(T*((G*M)^0.5)), ^2=Square both sides 1/((2*Pi)^2)=(R^3)/((T^2)*G*M), *G*M Move G*M to the left side of the equation (by multiplying both sides by G*M, gives): (G*M)/((2*Pi)^2)=(R^3)/(T^2), invert both sides ((2*Pi)^2)/(G*M)=(T^2)/(R^3), swap sides (T^2)/(R^3)=((2*Pi)^2)/(G*M), multiply by R^3 T^2=(((2*Pi)^2)/(G*M))*(R^3), ^0.5=root both sides T=(2*Pi/((G*M)^0.5)*(R^1.5) So Swansont's (searched (for (proportionality))) constant, is k=2*Pi/((G*M)^0.5) for the circular orbit_period T=k*(R^1.5) with orbit_radius R.

On what reason? And I apologize in advance for my question and for being foolish but I want to ask. And ask for permission. If i am not right I'll accept it and leave it. You told that birds prepare for winter because of survival and time. That they know about the future. In one topic, don't remember the name, the moderator said "don't anthropomorphize particles". Don't people anthropomorphize animals? This is YOU, who knows about the the time. And you endow that birds with concept of time. While they obey cause and effect. This is my speculation and I don't insist.

Following on from my concept on Time, certain things "fall out" from the theory. For example early humans would have existed in time, evolving from the apes which I agree with. But I propose the evolution was quick helped along by a "substance" not yet discovered by scientists. This would explain why we have not been able to find fossils showing the GRADUAL changes which is absurd. My theory also tries to understand the present and takes a guess at humankind's future. For example, will we ever be able to conquer outer space??? The distances are just too far. Are people hoping for travel at light speed or teleportation???

Time is a pure concept of people. Is there time in Space? On Mars? Time will occur there, if a human with clock got there. Do animals know what is time?