swansont

But it must be a deviation from 1/r^2 since it's a modification of Newton's law. So how do we have closed orbits? But if the earth's gravity exerted on the sun depends on its size, then how does the earth exert the same force on the sun, as the sin does on the earth? (this is required by Newton's third law)

What peer-reviewed science journal was that published in?

Yes, this is what physics tells us. But you have claimed the moon is not subject to gravity. If the moon were subject to gravity (was not weightless) it would collide with earth. As I pointed out earlier, the moon's velocity is less than that of a satellite in geostationary orbit (by about a factor of 3) and yet these objects are in orbit. Low-earth orbits are even faster. It's almost as if there was a force being exerted that drops off with the distance. And that circular orbits require specific velocities that depend on the radius of the orbit.

Citation(s) needed

I've had this problem with ground beef that's been in the fridge for a few days. Not so much with freshly-ground.

"The leaf is green" means that the light that reflects off of a leaf (from a white-ish source) is predominantly green, as in it's centered around 500 nm, and is lacking in light at the far ends of the visible spectrum. So the photons are actually green photons, i.e. it is a property of the photons that bounced off the leaf. There are other color perceptions that depend on how the eye processes the light, as well. To some people the leaf might not be green, because of problems in the eyes or in the optic nerve, or the brain. Color perception is a little more complicated at times. But it's safe to say it's not just in the leaf.

You just told me that having various velocities on the earth's surface does not. You said "this is insufficient to make the slightest bit of difference" So what is sufficient? A geostationary orbit is about 7,000 mph. Which is a lot smaller than 1.3 million. An X-15 traveled almost 5,000 mph, but was not in orbit. The moon's speed is under 2,500 mph, but it is in orbit. Seems to me this isn't the criterion you think it is, and the stumbling block is something I'm pointing out. It's your own creation. Oh, please.

In Galilean relativity, velocity addition is linear. Only? There are, quite notably, the Lorentz transforms.

It's 1.3 million, and you need to explain why this is the number that matters. It's both. In GR it's not a force, but you really haven't elevated the discussion to the point where GR is pertinent. You don't seem to understand the basics of Newtonian gravity. I can't ignore something that hasn't been presented. Actually you do have such an obligation, if it's relevant to the discussion. Sticking with what you've said is part of the problem. Repetition is not the same as clarification. Repetition is not "answering" in any meaningful sense. I thought you were advocating a position that says time doesn't actually exist. Which you say doesn't exist. So you're visualizing...nothing?

Yes, if you’re talking about a gravitationally bound system. You can calculate the work one needs to do to remove some mass from the system. That would be its gravitational binding energy. The quark binding MigL discussed is of a different nature; you can’t remove quarks from a nucleon. Because of the mass and smaller radius. What’s the evidence that the down quarks result in even more gravity than an identical mass and radius with fewer down quarks?

That would make this a science fiction discussion.

The image of a solar flare going back to the sun show matter traveling that path, not light. The matter emits or scatters light into your eye (or the camera’s lens) But yes, gravity would be involved, along with the sun’s magnetic field.

You can state anything you want. The issue is demonstrating it in an unambiguous fashion. How do you propose doing that?

Both sides? No, I don’t think so. There aren’t valid points for the conspiracy, only misinformed ones. They have been debunked countless times, including the “flag waving” nonsense https://www.rmg.co.uk/stories/topics/moon-landing-conspiracy-theories-debunked What is your evidence that the flag was waving back and forth, anyway? What reasoning leads you to think things don’t move because you have a vacuum, and also, are you looking at a still image or a video? The only video I’ve seen is while they are setting it up, and shaking the whole apparatus. The special kind of idiocy of thinking only wind would cause the flag to wave when people are shaking it is why moon landing conspiracies aren’t taken seriously. (you can do an experiment in a windless environment to see this, but that’s apparently too high of a hurdle for conspiracy fetishists) Your post is the worst aspect of this kind of argument - not only are you invoking a conspiracy, you haven’t even presented any evidence, and somehow expect the pro and con points to be treated on equal footing. We discuss science here, and demand some level of rigor in doing so.

What's your evidence that the gravity is greater?

I found this, which has our galaxy moving at 1.3 million mph wrt the cosmic microwave background. https://www.businessinsider.in/science/news/earth-is-screaming-through-space-at-1-3-million-mph-a-simple-animation-by-a-former-nasa-scientist-shows-what-that-looks-like-/articleshow/71542580.cms Earth orbits the sun at 66,600 mph, and the sun orbits the Milky Way at 514,500 mph, our solar system's speed relative to the CMB is about 827,000 mph. Zoom out further, and our entire galaxy is zipping through the CMB at about 1.3 million mph. Of course, the earth orbiting the sun means sometimes the speed adds to the speed of the solar system's morion, and sometimes it's subtracted from it. Similarly, the speed of the solar system in the galactic rotation would sometimes add to or be subtracted from the speed of the galaxy WRT the CMB. Note that our speed WRT the CMB is not the same as the galaxy's speed. It also doesn't let you check to see if you are wrong. And yet when people who have studied these matters tell you that you are, you continue to insist that you are right. Without giving details such a discussion is pretty much worthless, and it also would have to do with how society works rather than the nature of time. Your refusal to share the prediction is why it's irrelevant. That decision is under your control, not anyone else's involved in this discussion. It's clear that you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to physics, so how you come to this conclusion might fall under the Dunning-Kruger effect. I dismiss what you have to say because it is trivially wrong, and I've given feedback on how this is so. All you've done is tap-dance around and try to move the goalposts. The only question here is whether you really believe what you're peddling, or if you're just trolling. Every attempt to deflect inquiry rather than clarify points to the latter.

As a force between objects with mass, if we're looking at things through a Newtonian lens. As a curvature of spacetime owing to energy-momentum (recall that mass is a form of energy) if we are considering general relativity If it has energy it does. But generally speaking the energy of an electric field is small and gravity is a very weak interaction, so it can be safely ignored in most cases. But it needs to be correct to be helpful, and you have to demonstrate that it is correct. Your model appears to imply there is a deviation from the 1/r^2 force of Newtonian gravity (you've thus far declined the opportunity to show details of this). But if so, this causes problems. Newton's third law, for one - you have an action force that's not the same magnitude as the reaction force. Also Bertrand's theorem says that bound orbits are only closed if you have a 1/r or 1/r^2 force. So how do we have what appear to be closed orbits? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand's_theorem

If you have a solid material, how do the atoms move to result in differentiation? It's possible if the material is molten, and perhaps if it's able to undergo plastic deformation. Otherwise they just don't move all that much. Heat isn't converted to cold. Heat is energy transfer due to a temperature difference. Cold is a concept of not having a high temperature, but it's not a thermodynamic parameter.

Velocity with respect to what? Where did you get 13 million mph? You haven't explained why this would be insufficient. All you've said is that we move the same rate as the earth, and that's not a meaningful statement I am considering what you've said, and am pointing out how imprecise the statements are. Perhaps you should check your intellectual arrogance and consider that your explanations are not clear, consistent and detailed enough to stand up to scrutiny by scientists. And since you won't tell us what the prediction is, it's irrelevant to the discussion. You can dispense with the melodrama.

Precision test implies that this is very small. How small? What kind of test? You haven't provided an equation that depends on relative speed or velocity

It's trivial to show that an object moving in a circle can only do so if there is a force pulling it towards the center. It's done in first semester physics. They are not scientific facts. They run contrary to what we know about physics. Because we chose a system where that's the case. You don't have to use metric. There are imperial units, which is a mess of a system because they were not chosen with any of these relationships in mind. We do not. As I pointed out before, if we use our orbit as a reference, at noon someone at the equator is moving faster than the this reference, and at midnight they are moving slower, because the earth rotates. There is no one value for "the rate the earth moves through space" if you are looking at the surface. Someone at the equator at noon is moving faster than someone at 45 degrees of latitude. Have you ever moved east or west, ever? Because if you did I guarantee you moved either faster or slower than the point where you started, and yet you still remained tethered to the earth. You were not left behind, nor were you in orbit.

There are a number of experiments that confirm that our understanding of gravity is correct, to the level of precision it can be tested. If this is contrary to general relativity, then why does the theory work so well? If it's not, then what does your idea bring to the table?

And yet you seem quite comfortable telling people who do know more than a little about physics that they are wrong, and continue to make some outlandish claims without supporting them. This is contrary to the rules - speculations must be supported by a model and/or evidence. But you could increase the length of the meter and adjust other units, and everything would still work. The length of the meter's tie into the other units is a fairly recent development. Like the kilogram, it used to be based on a physical artifact (in this case a platinum-iridium bar) and it's only with advances in technology that we've been able to make these connections with other standards. The meter was later defined in terms of the wavelength of a transition in Kr-86, and then was defined in terms of the speed of light and the second (which is defined in terms of a transition in Cs-133) You're the one making the claims, which means you own the burden of proof. You have to show that time depends on motion. And I've already shown your claim about "traveling at the same rate as earth" to be false. That you ignored it doesn't mean that it's not there.

If it's a situation with friction, like an object sliding across a floor, the more massive object will have a larger frictional force; this is because the normal force would be equal to the weight, and the frictional force depends on the normal force. This will require a larger force to counteract friction to maintain constant speed.

So it’s not a “dynamical force which appears only between moving particles” as you stated in the first sentence of this thread? What’s the equation for this force? And why does an electric field levitate a charge, like in the Millikan oil drop experiment, if the interaction is gravitational? I can’t parse this word salad. Give me an equation for this additional force on moving bodies.