swansont

Because there are two different situations: rotations (angular frequency) and not (linear frequency) Angular frequency measures how much the angle changes (radians/sec) and linear frequency has no angle (cycles/sec). They differ by 2*pi Yes, ands this is an ongoing problem. You are not aware of standard physics. People that do physics professionally see an advantage, or are at least used to using it. I think you would be wrong and are vastly underestimating what people learn in math and physics classes Your formatting and use of nonstandard terminology are a barrier to digesting your ideas. It's not a matter of being new (though it isn't, really); it's that it's unnecessary. We have it covered already, and AFAICT you offer nothing that's better than what we have.

Kepler’s 3rd law is a proportionality, not an equality If your equation for period doesn’t have the form T^2/R^3 = constant, you’ve done it wrong. (g should not be in your equation. Put it in terms of M, R and G)

Sounds like it could be an interesting new thread

For a circle, v=wr (w is angular speed), and this will be a good approximation for a low-eccentricity ellipse. There is no way to have v be a minimum but w be a maximum for an orbit. If you think Kepler’s laws are wrong, you must provide the evidence. Nobody has to justify it. Conservation of energy tells you it must be so. As r decreases, the PE becomes more negative. KE must increase. The sum must remain constant, since no work is being done on the system.

It’s angular speed and typically expressed in radians/sec. The symbol is a lower-case omega. f implies a linear frequency Using non-standard nomenclature does indeed cause confusion

As Genady notes, we’ve already reached the conclusion that ChatGPT is not a credible source. It’s not peer-reviewed and no way to trace any expertise. It’s true that there’s no reliable way to directly detect it, but I think most of us are not shy about asking for citations or justification for any dubious claims. Plagiarism may go undetected, but BS will still be challenged.

Those are not “kinds” of KE. KEi and KEf are the kinetic energy at two points in time. What about it? There are several equations one might use to determine the KE, depending on the details of the problem. But there will still be a KE at the beginning if the problem, and one at the end. No, I didn’t mean that, nor did I say that. Every object can have a value for KE. If the object is at rest, it has zero KE. v=0, and KE = 1/2 mv^2

Yes, but with limited deployment, and under further developmant https://www.iea.org/reports/direct-air-capture https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_air_capture

…possibly because you have an inferiority complex.

! Moderator Note email deleted, because discussion takes place here. Also, url shortener replaced.

Note that the UKUSA agreement in Phi’s link is an agreement to share intelligence. Not listed is membership in NATO. Sounds to me like we’re allies already. The UK didn’t need to have a trade agreement with the US while they were a member of the EU; it wouldn’t be surprising if they finalized one. Negotiations are ongoing, as CharonY has noted.

Have you tried using a search engine?

Spend a lot of time in New York, have you?

! Moderator Note OK, that’s enough. BS limit has been exceeded.

Not sure who georgie is, but that’s not a very good definition. Science describes how nature behaves, not the why. Any part of why that you can figure out is a bonus. e.g. F = GmM/r^2 describes the force between two massive objects; a behavior. It says nothing about why masses attract, just that it happens. We don’t understand why we have so much matter compared to antimatter. We don’t know what dark matter is. We don’t know how to reconcile QM and GR at small scales. We don’t understand why neutrinos have nonzero mass. There are a lot more things on the list of things we don’t understand.

True. Science advancing doesn’t require that all areas advance at the same rate. Sometimes theory leads experiment, sometimes experiment shows the need for more/better theory. Sometimes we have to wait for technology to advance before theory can be tested (see e.g. Bose-Einstein condensation, gravitational waves) There are more areas of inquiry than there were 50 years ago, and more then than 100 years ago.

I have a recollection of similar quotes from ca. 120 years ago. Michelson saying of physics that “most of the grand underlying principles have been firmly established” in 1894 https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_A._Michelson (ironic, since the M-M experiment pointed to a huge paradigm shift) Thomson, Lord Kelvin declaring that “No balloon and no aeroplane will ever be practically successful” in 1902 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Thomson,_1st_Baron_Kelvin (he also said “X-rays will prove to be a hoax." in 1883) More here: https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Incorrect_predictions

Foundations is only a tiny part of physics

Really? Nothing new since 1973?

! Moderator Note The moderation history shows only that the title was edited; nothing about it being moved. And it has nothing to do with climate science.

! Moderator Note You’re missing the point. This isn’t your blog, and there isn’t a “share your stories” section. There should not be a “next time”

! Moderator Note No, it isn’t. If you want to do a blog, you need to do it elsewhere. This is a science discussion board. That’s not how capacitors or gravity works

You forgot the disclaimer: All characters and other entities appearing here are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, dead or alive, or other real-life entities, past or present, is purely coincidental.

Just a general observation that saying that something absorbs in the IR isn’t specific enough to know how it ties in to the greenhouse effect The condensation from particulates that TheVat mentions is what I recall as being an important effect. (I recall a colloquium where it was shown you could track ships from satellites from the condensation caused by their smokestack emissions on an otherwise cloudless area of the ocean)

Shade of visible radiation. And the IR behavior wouldn’t necessarily be the same. The solar IR spectrum is weighted toward near-IR (1-2 microns), while the earth emissions are mid-IR (out near 10 microns) so strong absorption near 1-2 microns would shield us from solar but not trap earth emission.