swansont

It was exchemist, in a different thread.

Yes. We had a physics lab when I was a TA that detected the earth’s field this way; the students measured the voltage in different orientations. (An interesting anecdote is that students in one corner of the room got a different answer because there was an NMR lab in the building, and the field in that corner was measurably different.) edit: there are a few schools that list a similar lab online, such as https://www2.oberlin.edu/physics/catalog/demonstrations/em/earthinductor.html

H-K does not show a preferred inertial frame Now it’s my turn to say you didn’t read/understand what I wrote. Air not being inside atoms only eliminates one possible effect, because atmospheric pressure does, in fact, affect some atomic clocks. But it does not correlate with gravitational time dilation. My point still stands: you need to be able to quantify the effect, rather than give a hand-wave. How does it slow light if there is no E-M interaction?

You can devise experiments that don’t rely on the value of c to determine c, so I’m not sure why this matters. Any clock able to discern gravitational time dilation has the atoms in a vacuum chamber, so this isn’t an issue. Further, you have multiple designs of clocks that would not have the same response to environmental perturbations, so they would not give a consistent shift if the result was from such a cause. And “maybe it’s air density” is not a rigorous objection without a model of how it should depend on air density.

Except there is, since evaporation would exert a force. The v is the velocity of the ejected mass relative to the bulk mass. It doesn’t change in the other frame If that was your point, it was not at all clear to me.

It’s my understanding the ones on continuous patrol had nukes aboard for retaliation efforts. Part of the deterrence triad, which would survive a first strike. They could have done this for Cuba with conventional payloads, but I’ve not seen anything that confirms this.

Yes. But there is a bucket. The molecules leaving in one direction (on average) is an important part of the scenario. Much like an explosion in freefall vs a rocket

Yes, there will be. A molecule of mass M that leaves at speed v has a momentum of Mv. The residual mass will have a momentum of Mv in the opposite direction, because momentum is conserved. Since m>>M the momentum will be small. Since force is the time rate of change of momentum, the force will be v dm/dt An extreme case of this would be water boiling and steam channeled through a nozzle.

If this had happened in 1962, probably zero. It would have been considered an attack by the Soviet Union. As toucana has pointed out, the missiles were under Soviet control. They would have been launched from Cuba, but not by Cuba. Slightly longer, unless Key West had an airbase that could handle the planes (plus time to get to the desired altitude). Orlando airport used to be McCoy AFB, which had B-52 bombers stationed there. It was also where many of the U-2 recon flights originated for the crisis.

But you can have a similar situation with free will. If you disbelieve it, you are rewarded with a clear conscience, even if it exists. One might make the same observation about not believing in free will.

They would have some explaining to do

As someone who worked on an atom interferometer (in grad school), I’m in that minority.

No. Pascal’s wager is about asymmetric outcomes from a choice to believe in something, or not. In the case of free will, you must also account for the fact that society acts like it exists. “free will exists and controls everything you do” seems to be contradictory.

Fair enough - missiles would be launched from Cuba, rather than Cuba launching missiles. It’s moot, though; Kennedy announced that any missiles launched from Cuba would be considered an attack by the Soviets.

And different speeds (since this is for massive particles), so the two elements of it will separate, which is not what we observe happening.

“If dark energy is constant, the universe will continue to expand, forever getting colder and emptier. If it’s growing in strength, the universe will expand so speedily that it’ll destroy itself in what astronomers call the Big Rip.” If they’ve considered it might grow in strength, the notion that it was assumed to be constant is overstated.

But an invasion was rejected for the fear that the Cubans would launch missiles. And that’s the scenario being offered - that they launched missiles.

Matter-wave interference confirms the deBroglie equation.

President Kennedy doesn’t agree “The characteristics of these new missile sites indicate two distinct types of installations. Several of them include medium range ballistic missiles, capable of carrying a nuclear warhead for a distance of more than 1,000 nautical miles. … This urgent transformation of Cuba into an important strategic base -- by the presence of these large, long-range, and clearly offensive weapons of sudden mass destruction -- constitutes an explicit threat to the peace and security of all Americas“ http://wp.stu.ca/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/08/Kennedy-Speech-Cuban-Missile-Crisis.pdf The Soviets agreed to remove the missiles. Can’t remove something that isn’t there. Recon photos showing the missiles and also them being loaded onto ships for removal in November https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/photos.htm November 5, 1962: Low-level photography documents loading of Soviet missiles at the main Mariel port facility for return to the USSR. On the dock are vehicles later identified by NPIC as nuclear warhead vans.

Do you understand what an analogy is?

“if Cuba launched Russian missiles” Launched is past tense. There was only one Cuban missile crisis. It happened in 1962. People screw up grammar all the time. It usually doesn’t cause such issues. Cuban missile crisis. Right there in the title.

Because you made a statement about non-nukes.

It depends on whether you could take out the launch sites with conventional weapons. And also on how many missiles had been launched. But they did when the crisis happened.

Or, you know, you could just make an effort to explain what you mean, so people don’t have to read between the lines. And not put the blame on others when they don’t get what you mean No, but that’s not the point. It’s analogous to Pascal’s wager, with free will taking the place of the existence of a supreme being

In the Cuban missile crisis they were nukes. That’s why it was a crisis. How about answering the question that was asked, instead of trying to divine some other question.