swansont

The issue is the distance. Another solar system means light years of distance, which means years of delay in communication and several decades of travel time for cargo. You decide to mine something (“floof”) on planet X and send it to earth, but you run the risk that floof will still be worth it in 100 years — that a huge deposit won’t be discovered on earth or a planet/asteroid in our solar system, driving the price down. Exporting a finished product to X assumes it’s not cheaper to just build a facility on X to make it, and that it won’t be obsolete in 100 years. Is there any 100 year-old product you’d buy today?

Except that it isn’t. A free electron never absorbs a photon.

As the speculations guidelines say, we want a model of some sort. Some way that the idea makes specific predictions and makes it testable.

The coordinate mass is just a proxy for total energy (rest mass energy and kinetic energy), so it’s redundant. The mass that shows up in most of the equations is the rest mass. Coordinate mass has nothing to do with center of mass calculations. “coordinate” and “proper” are used to refer to issues involving frames of reference

Interstellar commerce might be an interesting topic to investigate, but any assumption that it would be a simple extrapolation from what we know and have is naive.

The neutron doesn’t decay because it has a different entropy. Protons can decay, after all (beta plus). Just not free protons.

Not directly, but relativity is based on it and it’s also found in electrodynamics so there’s a whole lot of physics that wouldn’t work without it.

The problem with relying on pop-sci writing. The m in E=mc^2 is at rest (it’s a condition in Einstein’s derivation). The full equation is E^2 = p^2c^2 + m^2c^4 The energy of translational motion is include in the p^2c^2 term Mass can increase from motion, but not translational motion of the center of mass. Vibrational or rotational energy will increase the mass of the system. An atom or nucleus in an excited state is more massive than in the ground state.

! Moderator Note There’s not much science here; this falls well short of what we require for a discussion in speculations. You should be asking questions, not guessing solutions

Why would they differ? You said you wanted to keep this simple.

I didn’t say it was random. You have not connected it with anything. It’s not like it’s the volume of the proton that keeps it from decaying. Free neutrons decay.

The simplest is an observer is fixed with respect to the sun, since the sun is stationary. Less time to cover what?

You say that but then quote “The horizontal axis here is some x, e.g., ellipse's major axis” My summary refined it somewhat; since the major axis of an ellipse is just some number it doesn’t vary in time, so the only way for the graph and description to make sense is that it’s a projection. But Genady has clarified that it’s supposed to be the asteroid’s x-position. No, since that observer would be in motion relative to both. A velocity discerned from the graph would be of the asteroid relative to the sun.

Per Genady’s description, it’s a graph showing how the x-projection of the major axis varies in time. The major axis is a constant value for an ellipse, so if it varies, it’s because the ellipse is precessing.

What you’ve described is convenience, not something based on either experiment or theory. There’s nothing wrong with picking a convenient reference up until you assert there’s something physically meaningful about it.

It’s not something that the graph definitively shows. The graph depicts the precession of an orbit.

In the beginning of the thread I asked about the path to experimental confirmation. If you’re going to appeal to this, let’s see the evidence of these SU(3) atoms or the superconducting nature of dark energy.

Musk’s secret talks with Putin that just came to light are a likely violation of his security clearance. I’m wondering if he gets his clearance yanked on Nov 6. (Before then might seem politically motivated)

And there are people in this thread that disagree. Acting as a cheerleader does not bring any rigor to the discussion.

Bezos also owns the Washington Post, and ensured the paper made no presidential endorsement

How is that implied? I see some assertions in the paper, but nothing that backs them up. No math.

Another common trick is focusing on distractions such as this. OK. Derive this SU(3) confinement scale number, with these solid physical principles, rather than giving hand-wavy arguments for it. i.e. give a rigorous calculation, rather than “implies” or “suggests” (later on you can provide the evidence that dark energy acts like a superconductor, rather than relying on hints or suggestions)

A wavy line extending from the mass would not illustrate the path of the orbit. It might illustrate something else.

As I recall what I was taught was in terms of the number line. Positive to the right. Negative meant “opposite” so it was to the left. Addition/subtraction was “jumps” and multiplication was like an expansion or magnification, but the negative meant in the opposite direction.

Or it just didn’t go through the translation algorithm. Accusing someone of misquoting but also saying you’re giving them the benefit of doubt aren’t consistent. It’s also off-topic.