swansont

I don’t think this is an issue. I doubt ascending to the presidency is why he wanted the job, but if he was set to take over the presidency, he would no longer be the speaker, and if there was a need for him to take over, it would happen immediately - before the house could oust him as speaker.

I’d think that all afflictions were identified before being officially recognized and listed in a manual. Not recognized ≠ not real

Speed of sound wasn’t one of the given variables. Pressure was. Inflammatory? You’re the one who said “these questions cannot be quantified with authority,” not me.

So your estimation of 8 degrees was not based on any well-established science? Was your statement based on any science or measurement, or did you just make it up?

Speculations need to be backed up by evidence. I’ve been trying to get you to show that there is some solid foundation for the idea. You claimed that “The peak of the pressure wave is hotter and the trough cooler due to compression/expansion and this does affect sonic velocity.” but this seems to not be much of an effect for normal sound levels. There’s nothing speculative about establishing this. The pressure amplitude of the sound generated is not directly from blowing, but from vibration, be it a reed or one’s lips, and trying to equate the two is erroneous. If you want to analyze the temperature effects from really loud sounds, that’s fine, but you need to acknowledge when the analysis applies and when it doesn’t. Constant speed of sound looks to be a really good approximation for most cases.

So at some other point the value is different. If you measure it at the bell, it’s a smaller area, and thus a larger pressure value Your analysis and conversion seems ad-hoc. It wouldn’t work for a point source. An actual bell, for example. Citation, please So the temperature effect at “standard distance” will be much smaller.

How did you get from 2.5W to 2.5W/m^2? Being able to generate 10kPa of pressure for airflow does not mean that’s the sound amplitude

But if it’s 174 dB for your 8 degrees, and the actual sound level is 124 dB, then the pressure amplitude is below 100 Pa, with a corresponding drop in temperature. < 0.08K doesn’t seem like it’s a big deal, which is likely why it’s ignored.

I’m getting just under 174 dB. (not sure why it depends on the frequency) with 20 microPa as the reference pressure https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/db https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_pressure

How many dB does that represent?

! Moderator Note No. I don’t think the evidence supports this allegation, but the more important issue is that this is off-topic and irrelevant. If one thinks a proposition is poorly framed, one may ask for clarification. This is not uncommon.

There isn’t all that much energy in sound waves. How much of a temperature variation are you claiming?

Cell phones existed by 1990. GPS was fully operational in 1993 (though selective availability wasn’t turned off until 2000)

Please stop moving the goalposts. You cited the speed of the moon in comparison to airplanes. Nothing about gravity wells in that claim. Speed and gravitation are separate effects. And you still haven’t explained why being in the moon’s vicinity would make a difference. As I noted before, we have done GR tests using variations in the sun’s gravity well in addition to the earth’s.

But you can blithely rule out higher energy DM? No, that’s not how this works. Formulate a model where you form an atmosphere with DM, rather than declaring by fiat

It’s not a new kind of test, and you haven’t given any reason why some novel result would be expected. GPS satellites travel even faster than that, so you aren’t covering any new ground in that regard. And the comment was specifically about the rotation of the moon (the angular momentum), which is quite slow.

If DM particles are much lighter than neutrinos then it would be fairly easy for them to be relativistic. ”relic” neutrinos from about a second after the big bang have very low energy - less than a milli-eV https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_neutrino_background

Rumor has it that they’re going to nominate Mike Lindell to be Myspeaker.

Why would it flatten? Rotation requires angular momentum. What is the origin of that?

Our ability to sample data outside of our senses in a significant way, is less than 150 years old. (A little more for visual perception). We really haven’t been at this very long.

Add to this that primates can only directly sense the tiniest sliver of the spectrum corresponding to each of our senses

! Moderator Note It’s your thread. What do you mean by the matrix?

The amount of DM that would be near a planet is well outside the precision of planetary mass measurements. (see the comments by Janus on this matter) If there were a really large amount of DM in the atmosphere (but not elsewhere nearby) we would probably notice a discrepancy in the gravitational acceleration we have at the surface vs in orbit. … Another way to look at things is that we do know of particles that interact via the weak force and gravity, but not via EM or strong. Neutrinos. We do not have an “atmosphere” of neutrinos.

“how big” is an invitation to quantify the prediction. I see that there is a proposal to send clocks to an orbit near the sun in a search for dark matter. If that gets approved, it will be because there is a model that predicts an effect (I know Andrei Derevianko proposed one years ago; I discussed it with him at a conference) and they will have quantified the prediction, so they would know if the effect can be measured with the clocks they sent. You, OTOH, offer nothing beyond “send clocks to the moon” and there’s no reason to entertain such a vague proposal.

Because there is no way to dissipate the energy, except via gravitational radiation. Which would be elastic collisions. Similar in some ways, perhaps, but not atmospheres. We can only go by the physics we know. We know the mass distribution that must exist for the rotation curves we observe.