swansont

Chemical differentiation plays a role, so one would not expect a great match between planets where the contributing factors are different. Some of the sources of metals came from impact events after planet formation (e.g. the iridium layer from the K-T impact event) And if the processes are the same (as they should be), one could have many similarities even if they are quite distant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_differentiation One can identify e.g. meteorites that came from Mars, based on composition differences with what we find on earth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martian_meteorite These meteorites are interpreted as Martian because they have elemental and isotopic compositions that are similar to rocks and atmospheric gases on Mars, which have been measured by orbiting spacecraft, surface landers and rovers.

Do you have a link for where the photo came from?

The velocity describes the motion. In standard physics these are not separate things. What are the equations that would let us test this? And show how velocity is a "medium" And yet we have length contraction, which tells us that length is relative to the observer, which means it depends on velocity.

I will ask again what model requires this. What is the evidence that this is the case?

Radium does not glow. In those watches and other similar uses, radium decays and the emitted alpha particle strikes a phosphor, which is what emits the light. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_paint#radioluminescent_paint

The velocity addition formula is not the reason that relativity says light speed is invariant, it's a result of it. And you haven't actually derived the formula here.

If the speed is constant, then why all the commotion about average speed? It's constant! There's no reason to worry about initial and final speed, since it doesn't change. Speed is always relative to the frame of reference to which it is measured. As is kinetic energy. What's your point?

So then my request still stands for you to offer up some kind of citation for these alleged issues the Standard Model has with relativity.

I guess I was confused by the fact that you said this "The Standard Model includes "force carriers" travelling at c velocity of light. Isn't this a condition imposed to match with Relativity?" Don't call your model the Standard Model; that name is taken.

What if there is no acceleration?

Your assertion of Watt's equation is questionable, and this last equation is not quite correct There's a difference between instantaneous power and average power Instantaneous power is given by P = dW/dt, which can be rewritten as F.ds/dt = F.v Force dot product with velocity is the instantaneous power. It's not a velocity difference. It's the velocity at the moment you are calculating the power. Because they are saying the speed is constant. Your equation says the KE is zero, which is wrong. As I said before, your equation is for the change in KE, not for KE

"Dark matter is wrong" does not equate to "MOND is correct" as is suggested by the article. If DM is wrong, then it's wrong. That's as far as it goes. And also, as Markus points out, the author is simply ignoring issues with MOND. Such argument is trash, from a scientific standpoint. The objection that "The theory of dark matter makes no predictions as to what the particles ought to be and what to look for" reminds me of the search for the neutrino/antineutrino. A particle that was proposed because the behavior shown in experiments didn't match up with theory - energy was missing, you had a continuous spectrum of electron energy, and angular momentum wasn't being conserved. There was no theory that said a neutrino should exist but the observation said something had to be there, and also said that any such particle wouldn't be interacting electromagnetically. (it was "dark" even though this is not what we call dark matter). Lo and behold, it was eventually detected, more than a decade after being proposed. The theory to explain it also came after, and the original proposal had to be refined over the course of time. It took decades to work all of this out.

No, I know that relativity limits information to lightspeed. I am interested in your claim that there is some issue with the standard model owing to relativity.

They are virtual particles. They don’t violate causality or relativity. https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/virtual_particles.html No, I was referring to Maxwell’s equations. You need to provide citations for your claims.

You have a reference for this? I was under the impression that it was a relativistic quantum field theory. And electrodynamics - even classical electrodynamics- is inherently relativistic

And its great success is a problem? What problems does it have with relativity? The standard model doesn’t incorporate gravity.

! Moderator Note Link deleted. No advertising, please.

Not being able to handle a concept isn’t very persuasive; it’s argument from incredulity. And you aren’t going to get any traction if you don’t address all of the evidence that’s out there, and only look at one bit of it. People have looked at classical solutions and they don’t fit the evidence. This includes scattering experiments which put a pretty stringent limit on the electron size.

! Moderator Note You can discuss it here. (you can discuss it elsewhere, too, but driving traffic there is advertising and that’s a no-no)

It was apparently corroborated by Cippolone’s testimony. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/cipollone-corroborated-virtually-everything-hutchinson-jan-6-panel-mem-rcna37742 The alleged destruction of phone records (there are conflicting reports as to whether the records still exist) sounds like obstruction, and you generally don’t do that unless there’s something to hide

He knew they were armed, wanted the magnetometers taken down so the crowd would be bigger, and said he wasn’t in danger. “I don’t f---ing care that they have weapons,” Trump fumed in urging aides to take down magnetometers near the White House before he addressed a “Stop the Steal” rally, Hutchinson testified. “They’re not here to hurt me. Take the f---ing mags away.” https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/jan-6-panel-looks-trump-white-house-cassidy-hutchinson-testimony-rcna35550

And yet there’s a fair amount of murder, some of which uses proxies. So the evidence is that it happens. One might consider if narcissists and/or sociopaths (descriptions that have been attached to TFG) are more prone to that.

Pence, as VP, was president of the senate and certified the election. In his absence, Chuck Grassley would have presided. In fact there were reports that Pence would not be present on Jan 6. Grassley said “we don't expect him to be there.” https://www.stormlake.com/articles/editorial-what-did-grassley-mean/ The calls to hang the VP came after he showed up to certify the election, betraying the coup conspirators. Do you have any compelling argument that Trump didn’t want him dead? He knew Pence was in danger. Was there any overt act to stop the mob?

Is there a model out there that says that time propagates, so that it might require a medium? How does length propagate? What medium does it travel through?

Democrats are not as close to being monolithic in policy views as republicans are, and not as susceptible to pressure to align with a platform