swansont

Not in precision or accuracy, in reality, but one generally postulates an ideal system, and in that regard, how much would it matter? An ideal clock has whatever precision and accuracy is required.

It typically ends up heating the material in the vicinity. If you dropped 1 kg mass a distance of a little over 40 cm, it would transfer ~4 joules of energy. If the impact was on a 1 liter container of water, it would raise the temperature by about 0.001 degrees C (heat capacity of water is 4.186 J/gK, and there are 1000g of water per liter) That’s not a big temperature increase, nor does the situation you describe involve a humongous amount of energy. But you could scale this result according to whatever details you want to. Hitting the ground will involve a smaller heat capacity but a larger mass.

Bold and ALLCAPS are used fr emphasis. When all of the text is presented that way, it’s considered yelling.

You appeared to cite it. Did you just make that number up? And we’re supposed to take your assertion as fact? If you answered my question, or read what Markus posted, you’d see that such pedestrian speeds are small compared to recession values of distant galaxies. Ignoring it in certain calculations is completely reasonable, e.g. when it’s smaller than uncertainties in the result. If you only know z to one or two digits for z >1 , ignoring a speed with z ~ 0.01 is not a problem, if you understand how significant digits work.

You were talking about galactic redshift, which is due to expansion. As I said, you do some math and separate the effects. If we know our velocity, we can subtract it. As has already been pointed out, it’s a small number with respect to distant galaxies Again, one needs to do the math. What is the red- or blue shift for 300 km/sec? z=?

Orbital motion is not expansion. This is a pretty fundamental issue; motion constrained by being gravitationally bound systems is not expansion. Orbital motion is quite definitely from being gravitationally bound. I’m sure you aren’t the only one. Some people can do math and distinguish these two components of motion, and the effects that arise from it. Andromeda is part of the local group, and so is gravitationally bound. Also not subject to expansion. In however many millions of years, anyone versed in the appropriate science will be able to figure out that Andromeda (or whatever is left of it) passed by/through us.

Moving 222 km/sec is (largely) tangential motion, while 120 km/sec wrt Andromeda is not. I think the most prominent issue has has to be discerning what orbital motion is, why that’s not the same as linear motion and why it has nothing to with expansion, since you seem to be confused about this.

AI is not a valid resource for science discussions. AI has no expertise, and no actual intelligence. You can ask all you want, but it’s not really much different than asking somebody at a bar. The rules require citing mainstream science in discussions, and AI does not limit itself to that (i.e. it makes stuff up) GR makes specific predictions, and they have repeatedly been shown to be correct.

! Moderator Note You need to provide more context for this

! Moderator Note Replies need to be relevant to the discussion (rule 2.5). Videos, too, and you have to explain what that connection is. (rule 2.7)

If it were a quote I’d want to know the context of it. In regards to this discussion, it’s flawed. And I notice you didn’t answer the question, or invite any discussion as to why it’s flawed (and it’s things like this that gets your threads closed; it’s soapboxing, which is against the rules) It’s trivially wrong, as Newton had a model for gravity that did not invoke curvature. It also contains a tautology, since the currently accepted model is spacetime curvature, but is it the only evidence? Models make specific predictions. Time dilation and bending light depend on a particular model, and not merely the existence of gravity. And to echo what Markus says above, models are accepted based on all the evidence, not just one data point. Same goes for rejection of flawed models.

Energy is conserved, so the total energy of the system remains constant. Any decrease in PE would show up as an increase in KE. There is no change in the binding energy. The minimum energy of the system at annihilation is the ground state energy of positronium.

The positronium ground state energy is known, which allows for some knowledge of the potential energy.

1. I don’t see how Jesus is in any way connected to the movie. 2. Asserting that anyone “never once” did anything a ludicrous assertion when you don’t have a full record of their history, and when any given day is full of acts that simply don’t fit in the category. Is scratching an itch a selfless act? Coughing? Trimming one’s nails? Eating a meal? Going to the loo? Please spare us the hyperbole.

Is that an actual quote from someone? If so, who? Or is it your summary of the situation? In which case it’s flawed.

Agree. This is all extrapolating from a value that’s got a very large uncertainty https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/33_Polyhymnia “For example, the 68 km (42 mi)-diameter asteroid 675 Ludmilla was originally measured to have a density of 73.99±15.05 g/cm3 in Carry's study,[5] but improved orbit calculations in 2019 showed that it had a much lower density of 3.99±1.94 g/cm3” If it’s right, someone needs to explain how superheavy elements are found on an asteroid but not elsewhere, as Ken points out.

Is it that you can’t answer the question, or just won’t answer the question? I didn’t ask for a hand-wave. I want the equation. This is a science forum. If you can’t provide this, you aren’t doing science.

Being wrong is part of doing science. The average person doesn’t see a lot of this, because the first thing one tends to do is check for errors/problems, and the second is to have colleagues do that. Even the act of publishing doesn’t mean an idea is in its final form. Einstein published several papers, refining general relativity as he went. He was also wrong about QM. If your temperament is to discredit people for disagreeing, maybe it’s a good thing you aren’t in the field.

And why is their momentum different at the same velocity? Yes. So close… And you lost it. If it plays a role, it plays a role. It’s not omitted. It just isn’t explicitly written out, because it’s simple to write “p” than the equation for it.

The Gossamer Albatross, winning one of the Kremer prize competitions. But that wasn’t by flapping wings, as described in the OP.

A particle at rest has energy, so I don’t see how that would work. A particle at rest has a momentum of mc? DeBroglie wavelength of an electron and proton moving at the same speed is not the same. Mass definitely play a role.

You clearly identify it as velocity in your first post

Why on earth would the momentum change if you observed wave vs particle behavior? p = E/c applies to both

For something with mass.

In classical mechanics, this would be the case. Physics is more than classical mechanics. EM radiation possesses momentum. This was predicted by Maxwell (i.e. before relativity and QM) and experimentally confirmed in 1903 by Nichols and Hull.