swansont

Your claims don’t appear to be consistent with Newton’s law of gravitation. If they are, you need to demonstrate that this is the case.

You need a way for the various elements to move toward the center of the body and displace others. Being hot enough to be pliable, if not actually molten, on the interior. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_differentiation

Repeating this does not make it true. Or anybody that has studied Newtonian physics No, it was in response to “We conclude gravity(a product of time) as a force is an illusion” and the way you could tell is that in the very next sentence, I made it clear that this was what I was asking about. I’d document this, but frankly you’re just not worth the effort More than a little. And you got a lot wrong. (you admit to not knowing physics, so one might wonder where the confidence that you know what you’re talking about comes from) Timekeeping hasn’t been based on earth rotation for 50 years, and the notion that there is some universal time went out the window more than 100 years ago. Forward, not backward.If you don’t think so, post a response to this yesterday I chose SI units. The length of a meter is arbitrary, as is the number of charges that make up a coulomb of charge, and also the length of the second. Units are a convention, used for convenience. The length of a solar day isn’t constant, which is why it was discarded and replaced by the mean solar day. But that’s not constant, either. The length of an hour was also variable in some timekeeping systems, where there were always 12 hours of sunlight and 12 of darkness. It’s interesting stuff.

Depends on what model you’re using. “Time is a measure of motion through space” suggests no motion = no time

If they were found along with other parts of a skeleton, possibly with multiple skeletons, it would be pretty obvious. Neanderthal skulls had a distinctive shape with prominent brow ridges, along with other features that differentiated them from H. sapiens.

The GOP will have put legislation in place, and people in key positions loyal to the party rather than the country, such that violence need not be part of the plan.

The total energy or power incident on the device does not increase. If the collector is 4m^2 and the intensity is 250 W/m^2, you have 1 kW. You can “concentrate” this to make a spot that’s 1 m^2, and the intensity jumps to 1 kW/m^2, but the power is still 1 kW There might be applications where using this energy is more efficient at higher intensity, but you will never exceed the 1 kW value in whatever mechanical conversion you do. (You will always be lower than that, since y]that conversion can’t be 100% efficient) True, but “photon energy” ≠ “a photon’s energy” Sensei’s point is correct.

A) the transit of Venus is not about “understanding society” B) Making predictions about society/behavior is very much possible; it would be more like gas laws, where you describe behavior of the ensemble, and not so much like mechanics, where you describe single objects. It is very much not. Why were you claiming otherwise? No, it’s not a medium Who are these other people claiming gravity is an illusion? WTF does that have to do with anything? Another reversal of your previous claim. In Newtonian physics, gravity is a force. The moon is weightless (to the extent that it is) because it’s in freefall, which happens in an orbit. In any non-circular orbit, the object speeds up and slows down. “velocity greater than earth” points to a profound misunderstanding of the physics involved in such motion, and orbits. You should learn about the history of timekeeping. And your point is? They’re all still chosen. Notice how you referred to one second - a unit of time.

! Moderator Note Evidence didn't suddenly take on a new definition. If there is actual evidence, you (and everyone else making similar claims) will kindly comply with rule 2.12 and point to it

To a very good approximation it's given by GM/r^2 where M is the mass of Jupiter. For the field of the solar system, you'd get a good approximation using the mass of the sun, and the corresponding distance. The mass of Saturn is less than 0.0003 solar masses, so outside the solar system, the difference would be small. But you are free to calculate how small the effect is.

! Moderator Note This isn't about your opinion. If you have relevant information to share, do so, but in threads like this we're here to discuss science.

That's a good point; I know there have been past discussions that show a voltaic panel solar-powered vehicle is impractical for operating with real-time propulsion, and some new method that doubled or tripled the efficiency still doesn't get you there edit to add: power output of 100 kW here for an EV https://www.renaultgroup.com/en/news-on-air/news/understanding-the-power-output-of-an-electric-motor/ 250 W/m^2 insolation and 2 m^2 area of a car is just 500 Watts. Quite a gap.

A significant strength of science is that it allows one to make predictions, often with astonishing precision and accuracy. You have yet to convey what the real problem is with this. No, I asked you to provide evidence that your description of time exists - that's it's something that requires a medium. The underlying concept you used to deny the existence of time. I want to know how time would require a medium, were it to exist. Because otherwise this is just the straw-man fallacy. Who is "we"? Mainstream physics has a perfectly good explanation for why someone would begin to orbit if they traveled fast enough, and it doesn't involve concluding that gravity is an illusion. Years are just part of a reference system. All measurements are made in reference to some standard. they are all human concepts, so this isn't a mark against time. There is a standard meter, there is a standard kilogram, a standard ampere, a standard Kelvin...

! Moderator Note Soliciting funding and people without actually delving into discussion of the science violates rule 2.11. “We are here to discuss science, in the open”

Age is typically determined by the rocks in/around which it was found. Typically younger rock is deposited on older rock (exceptions are typically fairly obvious). There are a couple of different methods, depending on the geology. One method: volcanic deposits will contain materials that crystallize as it cools. It can contain Potassium-40, which decays to Argon-40, which is trapped in the crystal. The ratio of the two tells you when the deposit cooled. There are other isotope combinations that can be used, as well. If the material is geologically young there are some other methods - if it's under ~40-50,000 years and contains terrestrial matter that was once alive, you can do carbon dating (amount of C-14 as compared to the rest of the sample, since the C-14 stops being taken in when the being dies). Some samples found in lake beds can be dated by counting the annual layers of sediment deposited (varves), and you can also count tree rings (dendrochronology)

It's fairly easy to find the absorption and transmission curves for various glasses You can see here that the transmission drops to basically zero between 250 nm and 300 nm. So these let UVA through but blocks some of UVB (depending on the glass), and it looks like they block all of UVC https://www.ssi.shimadzu.com/industries/automotive-materials-testing/ceramics-glasses/measurement-of-solar-transmittance-through-plate-glass/index.html

This is just replacing one fabrication with another, without getting us closer to a solution. This is clearly BS, including the fact that it's not particularly rigorous, as there is no equation presented to tell us how the weight would change with velocity, so specific predictions can't be made. If the description were less vague this would be trivial to refute. One traveling in a car or a plane does not see their weight change, much less see it increase if they travel west and less if they travel east. Our orbital speed is ~30 km/s, and during the daytime we're moving slower and in the nighttime faster (by up to 1 km/s) owing to our rotation, so it's not even clear what "moving faster than the earth" even means, since the surface does not have a fixed velocity. An object in orbit travels both with and against the motion of the earth's orbit, and yet its weight does not fluctuate. Objects orbit in directions that are not parallel to the equator and once again, their weight is not dependent on the velocity. Since this is your claim to evidence that velocity is a medium, then I consider that refuted. But by all means, come up with a better test, and we can go through how that can also be refuted. And yet we have experiments that show exactly this. If you reject time, what other motion is there? Motion through/in space corresponds to a velocity. What is this new mystical category of motion that slows down?

! Moderator Note And that’s irrelevant to the discussion. Split to the trash

Please don’t play games. If you have relevant information, post it.

Yes, I get that. But you stated the reason for this is that there is no medium for it. I’m not aware that anyone thinks that time requires a medium, and so this seems like you’re making up a reason to not believe in time, which isn’t a particularly solid foundation for an argument Yes, linear and angular velocity are different things, but this isn’t the same as what you claimed. So you have asserted. How do we detect this medium? So you agree it’s velocity-dependent Slowing of motion that increases with velocity? What?

What are the values of the magnetic and electric field?

I’m not a lawyer, but I imagine such a suit would be immediately tossed

I don't think asteroids are differentiated to the point that they have crusts and cores, so I think differences from collisions of them forming meteoroids wouldn't be caused by this. The ones that form from collisions with planets would likely be made of the crust of the planet https://www.space.com/51-asteroids-formation-discovery-and-exploration.html https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/meteoroid

What right is allegedly being violated? The one that SCOTUS just said doesn't exist?

But it's how the example worked that you gave. When you solve a problem, you use the appropriate physics for the problem, so if the speed is constant, you can use an equation for constant speed. And there are lots of problems where speed is constant, or that's a reasonable approximation of a situation. And yet you use average speed, which makes assumptions as well. Indeed. Nothing theoretical about it. It's the value of the speed at a particular time. So this is based on a mistrust of math, and as a result you use math that's less appropriate. If you can show that math is inconsistent that's a purely mathematical issue and has nothing to do with physics. In the example given they were the same, because speed was constant. Changing the parameters of someone else's example and then complaining about a problem that arises is not an argument made in good faith. They can be, but the point was that if they aren't your equation quite obviously fails. It's wrong. But you're ignoring that. Nobody else is fooled by the distraction. Really? You only mentioned collisions in passing until now. No, really, that's not how it's pronounced. They are pronounced "Kinetic Energy" and "Potential Energy" and they are sometimes equal to each other. Those who study and understand physics know the limitations; KE is not a conserved quantity in collisions except in a special case (elastic collision) because there are other possible forms of energy (e.g. thermal, sound, deformation)