swansont

You have to reports a post if you want to bring it to the attention of the moderators. Attacking what someone writes is not against the rules. Attacking them personally is. 1/2 mc^2 is not a limit from any valid physics Where is the link to an experiment that I had asked for?

You know that I have not read the paper, so it is an ill-advised leap to say I agree to anything about it. It would vary with position, because the gravitational potential varies with position. No, there is no disagreement. You can’t physically realize an actually constant g. My position is that this doesn’t matter, at all, because physics solutions to idealized conditions are legion. Working with models doesn’t require physical realization, just no out-and-out violation of the relevant laws of physics.

Freezing point depression is real (as is boiling point elevation) but I, too, would like to know how this would keep water from expanding on freezing. Not sure why "physics" is in quotes, but physics indeed says density is mass/volume. No substitution necessary, since weight is not part of the definition. And, of course, you need to specify the ambient conditions because volume can change with temperature. Which is why you will often see a remark that the density of a solid is measured at STP, or a liquid's is given at the melting point, or some other temperature. Density doesn't have any direct connection with inertia; mass is defined in those terms, but that doesn't come into play in just determining the value of mass. You're tilting at windmills of your own making.

! Moderator Note You are directed to back this claim up with citations and/or links. Absent that this is soapboxing in addition to hijacking. ! Moderator Note Quite agree. It has been split

GPS satellites are not in stationary orbit. Their altitude is ~ 20,000km and they make two orbits a day. That would blow up the transmitter doing the spoofing, but I doubt that it's particularly close to Vladimir.

I can find the mass of something using a balance, and volume doesn't enter into the process. If it's more dense than water, I can find the volume by how much water it displaces, which doesn't directly depend on the mass. The ratio of those two values gives me the density, because density is define as that ratio. If by this you mean you need to have a volume as a standard, yes, that's true. It's true of all measurement; it's not like volume is unique in this way.

I think pretty much everything is wrong in what you said in that post.

No, but that's not necessary. Physics says so, and that is sufficient. It's supposed to be taken as understood, at least by people who understand the physics involved.

! Moderator Note It seems to be too much to ask that you stay on-topic (in this case, there is no discussion of space in the OP, simply a matter of a bicycle). So: trashcan it is!

It's not anywhere close to the same thing. One makes sense mathematically, and the other does not.

It stays stretched. To change would violate conservation of energy.

So are frictionless surfaces and scenarios that lack air resistance, and Newton spheres, which you have invoked more than once, but that doesn't stop us from doing a gedanken experiment. The physics still works. Ah, be careful. Time dilation may be defined this way under a particular set of assumptions such as having a spherical body of mass m, but one can't apply that in a situation where the assumptions don't apply. A. YOU provided the GR equation to me, in the Relativistic Gravitational Potential and its Relation to Mass-Energy link. Don't get pissy because you don't like the answer. If you think my math is bad, you go ahead and integrate the equation for constant acceleration. Do you get a different answer? (if so, then we can discuss bad math) B. You have no idea what my motivations are. It is a mistake to think that you do.

! Moderator Note From our “guidelines for posting in speculations” You must also know the terminology. You can't effectively communicate if you are using different definitions than everyone else IOW, this will not fly

If a = d(phi)/dr, we can integrate for a constant a and see that the change in potential is simply ar, or, as I wrote earlier, gh. So it seems my equation is a GR equation after all. That would seem to remove your objection to the fact that time dilation will happen in a region of constant g

! Moderator Note Threads merged; one per topic please. Also note that this is a discussion site and not your blog It’s not a physical process. It’s an issue of which model you use, quantum mechanics or classical electrodynamics. One should use the one best-suited to the situation being investigated

Long in this context is anything bigger than ~1 micron, i.e. non-ionizing.

! Moderator Note Moved

No, we can’t create an infinite energy source

An article that describes entanglement as “a change to one particle always affects its partner in a particular way” is not to be trusted to get anything right.

Other than a modifier for nuts, I don’t know what “Deez” refers to.

! Moderator Note You've brought this up before, as I recall. It's off-topic for this discussion, and any information relevant to the OP should be supported.

The US, apparently. Several states have recently passed or proposed laws to make it harder to protest. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/04/20/florida-anti-riot-bill-desantis/

PSA: Links to details are a good thing to include https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-s-perseverance-mars-rover-extracts-first-oxygen-from-red-planet Interesting that breathing isn't the primary demand regarding oxygen production, it's to burn the rocket fuel. "Getting four astronauts off the Martian surface on a future mission would require approximately 15,000 pounds (7 metric tons) of rocket fuel and 55,000 pounds (25 metric tons) of oxygen. In contrast, astronauts living and working on Mars would require far less oxygen to breathe. “The astronauts who spend a year on the surface will maybe use one metric ton between them,” Hecht said."

! Moderator Note We are not going to entertain nonsense about how these incidents were fake, especially given that you've admitted that there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. This is not a conspiracy discussion board; the topic was censorship in the context of conspiracy theories infringed on anybody's rights. And I am well within my authority as a mod to tell you this. (i.e. your rights have not even come close to being violated)

"Whistle-blower" has an official designation (in the US, at least) "On the simplest level, a whistleblower is someone who reports waste, fraud, abuse, corruption, or dangers to public health and safety to someone who is in the position to rectify the wrongdoing." (emphasis added) https://www.whistleblowers.org/what-is-a-whistleblower/ i.e. they report incidents and infractions to someone within the system. Leaking to the press and outside world is not whistleblowing. In the US, they are supposed to be afforded legal protection from retaliation from reporting on the organization for whom they work. Neither Snowden nor Assange are whistle-blowers. Assange wasn't even inside of the system, and only received information from leakers, so he's not even a whistle-blower by any relaxed, lay definition of the term. If you want to discuss leaking private/classified information, then call it what it is.