swansont

And yet the subject keeps popping up And this keeps not happening. What does happen is a request for scientific evidence, when ET is offered up.

I don’t know why I would say that. Who said they have no results? Ones that I know publish papers. Books, too.

I read several of them. The dni papers make zero claim about aliens. They do mention that UAPs are a potential hazard since a lot of them turn out to be actual objects (almost half of the ones that are later identified are balloons) are potentially hazards to aerial navigation. No evidence from UAP sightings were shared. The Loeb and Kirkpatric research paper is dubious- they claim a light sail could reach c, but the paper they cite says nothing of the sort. I think we’ve discussed the limitations of light sails before.

No, she didn’t. Right-wing pundits claimed this, but they are known to lie quite often. Common when it comes to climate change. And everything else. The tweet doesn’t say what they assert. https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-greta-thunberg-delete-claim-that-humanity-will-end-2023-1787420 “inaccurate to claim that Thunberg's tweet or the article she referenced said the world was going to end this year” Try to avoid using dubious sources, and, in any event, provide references for claims made by others.

More than that, I think. People are paid to do physics. I know a number of theoreticians. The research costs are probably not high for a university position - a computer, summer salary, travel (and overhead). More if you have a grad student, but they’re pretty cheap, too. I do this for free. I was paid to do research. I was paid a lot less to do research when I was a postdoc (and worked more hours), and even less when I was a grad student. One could take the view that I did a lot of work I wasn’t paid for before I got my research gig building atomic clocks and facilities to house them.

I notice he never answered the question about how many people are working on this problem. It’s probably a relatively small number.

It’s a practical issue. A real gravitational system doesn’t have uniform acceleration, since it would be radial from a point. The direction would vary a small amount over any finite tangential extent

A spherical mass ( i.e. a monopole) rotating or undergoing an acceleration in some direction will not emit gravitational waves. The quadropole moment measures how much a sphere is flattened https://van.physics.illinois.edu/ask/listing/204

We’re talking about the emission of gravitational waves, not the equivalence principle I think it wouldn’t matter how the acceleration came about, but you need the gravitational field in place in order to perturb it to emit the waves.

No threshold (unless there is one from quantum gravity), but smaller masses and accelerations would give smaller amplitudes, and gravitational radiation requires a change in the quadrupole moment - not all accelerations will result in radiation

Red items are red because they reflect red and absorb the shorter-wavelength light (blue) which is higher in energy, and tends to break bonds. Once bonds are broken, the molecule doesn’t have the same reflection and absorption spectrum. So they fade.

Experimental evidence is that the charge distribution is spherical, and that they are identical. I’m not aware of any suggestion that they have negative energy.

It’s not arbitrary, in the they are determined by the independent quantities in physics - length, mass, time, etc. can’t be expressed in terms of each other at a fundamental level. But the issue of current vs charge, for example, tells us that there are choices. Probably not. Derived units are used for convenience, and anyone can go through the exercise of breaking them down.

Even that isn’t so clearly spelled out. In NY, the highest court is the Court of Appeals, which is superior to the NY Supreme Court. (except on Tuesdays, when it’s double fizzbin) https://www.nycourts.gov/courts/structure.shtml

People went looking for that frame with special properties and they couldn’t find it. We are not moving with respect to it nor are we at rest in it. The experimental evidence is that it doesn’t exist. The extraordinary thing here is the idea that one can make a claim that there’s a preferred frame but retreat at any request for evidence in support of the claim.

Nothing is stopping you from presenting evidence for your claims and answering questions.

I think this was a case of judge shopping. Filing the case where a particular judge is likely to hear the case. The Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine incorporated in Amarillo just prior to filing the suit, and this judge hears all such cases filed there.

It involves a federal agency

life is like science has been banned for abusive behavior. Frankly, sports fans, he used a word that's a no-no with moderators.

Your opinion in this matter is irrelevant. The issue was establishing the claims of mainstream physics. The basis of the derivation is the invariance of c (based on electrodynamics) and the variable in question is time.

deema has been excused, owing to persistent soapboxing and spamming

Especially since they didn’t exist back then, though the idea had been proposed. Zones as offsets from GMT were still a few decades off. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_zone edit: xpost with Genady

7/8 I missed the music one (the order gets mixed each time)

! Moderator Note Speculations must be backed up with evidence and/or a model. What do you have to offer?

An engine propelling a car isn’t a proposition that’s contrary to accepted science. At SFN there are requirements for such speculation. Another unsupported claim. You made the claim before I called you out on providing support for it. (An application of causality here - the cause must precede the result) “My” claim is that of mainstream physics, and you appear to be familiar with the existence of time dilation. I pointed you to the derivation, because that’s the evidence that supports my claim. So yes, as far as the existing evidence goes, I did answer your question. Your position here is in stark contrast to your other posts where you imply that you know what you’re talking about. But it’s not, because you can arrive at the result without assuming an ether.