swansont

Rights are an issue between people and government. Youtube is not an agent of the government (and neither is this site) so a choice to not permit conspiracy discussions has nothing to do with rights. One of the problems with this is the notion that opinions matter when these are questions of fact. Opinions are personal. Facts are not; establishing facts require evidence, which is usually the first thing left behind when promoting conspiracy.

So what? Physics idealizes all the time. Or have you never taken a physics class? There are no frictionless surfaces and there is always air resistance, in reality. But they don't show up in many problems. Constant g is a given in the problem. That’s all that matters. Earlier you said it wouldn’t (“time dilation would be constant in a field of "constant gravitational acceleration" and therefore would not refract light. If gravitational forces still existed in such a field then equivalence would be broken”). Which is the correct claim? Let’s try this: What is the GR expression for gravitational potential in a uniform gravitational field? No, you’re hung up on it being an approximation, as if it matters. I pointed out you use non-relativistic equations. Your problem is set near a black hole, which suggests you need to use relativistic equations. Nothing after that is valid (these are your rules). That’s my refutation.

What’s the longest astronauts have been in space without resupply? 300 days + 400-500 days or more of travel time. Launch cost of Perseverance was about $200k per kg of payload. What’s the launch cost of a crewed mission going to be? You need to get them back off the planet and home, which is not a cost associated with a robotic mission.

The moon landings cost us $260 billion in todays dollars. The Perseverance mission is projected to cost slightly more than 1% of that ($2.7 billion) https://www.planetary.org/space-policy/cost-of-apollo https://www.planetary.org/space-policy/cost-of-perseverance Mars would be more expensive, of course. So it’s likely your claim of 50x more accomplishments leaves you on the short end. Ignoring the part about “we haven’t shown how to do it yet” (no actual rocket, no demonstration of keeping people alive for that long under those conditions, etc)

Fun fact: I have never used a p-value. It’s not really physics terminology; I don’t think I’ve run across it in any physics papers. (seems to be a life sciences thing) We tend to use use standard deviations, and cite them as such. The number of them considered significant depends on the area of physics. Sometime we break it down is a straight percentage; for some experiments 10% agreement is OK, 1% is better. A lot of this depends on your statistics and how noisy your data are, and how well you can determine the contributions of that noise. Bottom line: there is no “one size fits all” approach.

Not specious, IMO. We haven't sent crewed craft places because we either can't or won't. Robotic craft can survive a much wider range of environments as opposed to humans. Even if you aren't counting on the humans to return to earth, they still need to survive to their destination to do the mission. Missions with crewed craft are much more expensive, owing to the need to protect the fragile crew. How do you justify the added cost and complexity, while accounting for the reality of finite budgets?

I would add that the OP is an example of the violation of scientific methods, which decry anecdotal data. There is an example of one method given, but proper science calls for a comprehensive look at methods, lest we have biased results. I'm sure there are numerous examples of someone coming up with an hypothesis and then (possibly someone else) devising an experiment to test it; for that narrow example one might use Einstein's theory of relativity. If you only look for examples that support this notion you won't get accurate results. Because there are also a number of examples of someone puttering away in a lab, or gazing out into space, and noticing something. They gather the data and look for the pattern and only then do they formulate an hypothesis. Pretty much all of classical astronomy has followed that playbook. Early E&M was like this - the equations came later. A lot of early chemistry was just finding a new substance (e.g. coal tar) and sciencing the heck out of it to see what happened. And then you have the method of using established science models and going to look for phenomena that it predicts (or perhaps the combination of models), even if the originator of the model had no thought on that particular detail. The bottom line is that there is more than one path (method) to doing science.

And yet we orbit the sun. Your article is from 1945, so the use of the present tense is not well-founded. And “government-owned scientists” is quite a phrase. I see where the article mentions Dalton, but not Du Fay.

! Moderator Note Please don’t hijack other discussions to talk about your own ideas.

Then show the GR calculation and point out the disagreement. Einstein’s elevator is an example of the equivalence principle, part of GR. It says light bends in an elevator accelerating at 1g, whether due to an external force or due to gravity. You deny this will occur. Incorrect. You are assuming the field is due to a body where the field varies. That’s an additional constraint the you have added. The gradient isn’t zero for constant g. Why do you think that it would be? Work it the other way. If the field is constant (g), then integrate over a distance (h) to find the potential. It will be gh. The potential energy will be mgh. These equations should look familiar.

This is from the recent book by Bill Gates. It suggests where the tall tent-poles can be found.

! Moderator Note You have at least one thread on this topic.

There is no single scientific method. Sometimes the observation/experiment comes before the hypothesis. Sometimes it’s after. Sometimes you can do an independent experiment. Sometimes you can’t. That would be a topic for discussion in speculations

Yes, it is. Do the math. Of course it does. But you previously said that it required a change in g. You probably shouldn’t tell me what I agree to. I see you used Newtonian physics. Why is that permitted in your treatment? You’re complaining that it gives inexact results. At what level of precision is Pound-Rebka inexact? Yes, I already pointed this out. “quickly” is quantifiable. The point is, the result obtained is the same as if you did a full GR treatment. It gives the same answer, because if you expand the GR equation in powers of r, they used the first term, as the others are small and can be ignored. (Just like 1/2 mv^2 can be extracted from the relativistic KE equation) I pointed to one already. I don’t see the point, other than as a distraction from the example I gave. g=0, so there is no gravitational acceleration, as I mentioned. So, no comment on Einstein’s elevator?

Parents bought a Time-Life book series on science, which had a lot of neat stuff in it, and we went to the natural history museum (the State Museum) in Albany NY and the science museum in Schenectady. Also nature programs; I remember a program on Louis and Mary Leakey and Olduvai Gorge that was fascinating to me. Started my interest in paleontology. The push toward physics was mostly my next door neighbors; the father was an electrical engineer, and his son (~5 years older than me) loved to tinker and experiment, and would include me.

So list what, exactly, they got wrong. And explain why knowing the specifics of how the virus got out would have made an impact on how the world responded to it; please stop dodging this question.

Things (in this case, laws of physics) don't change over time. They look the same at time T, and time T+t A closed system is a thermodynamic term, and unless you're doing cosmology you're probably tacitly assuming an inertial frame. An accelerating frame is not inertial. (and gravitational waves are emitted only under some accelerations)

No, it's a claim from GR. Take the GR equation and expand it. The first term is the contribution from constant g. Regardless, the problem with Newton was with light, not gravity. GR reduces to Newtonian gravity when gravity is weak, which is the case here, so the results have to agree. The time dilation varies with the gravitational potential, and is going to be gh/c^2 whether g is constant of varies with r. GM/r is the gravitational potential (it's what shows up in the Schwarzchild radius equation, which is relativistic) and the time dilation is the potential divided by c^2 g = GM/r^2 so GM/r = gr But over the height of a few tens of meters g is only going to vary by less than a part in 10^10, so this difference in g can safely be ignored in a result that's only good to 10% (as was Pound-Rebka) or 1%, as in the case of the later Pound-Snider experiment. You're only going to have to worry about the variation of g when you go to higher altitudes, such as in Vessot's gravity probe A experiment. You can see that Pound and Rebka assume constant g If there was no time dilation in constant g, then the frequency of light would not change with height, and this would violate conservation of energy, which is very much in conflict with mainstream physics Also, the “no light deflection in constant g” is in direct opposition to the Einstein elevator example of the equivalence principle

! Moderator Note Posting to advertise your site is against the rules.

No, you’re misreading them. And the exact result and the approximation are equal at the level of precision of the experiment. They would differ if you carried the calculation out to a higher precision. You’re the one saying that if g were constant there would be no time dilation, and you’re quoting a source that confirms you are incorrect. A constant g does predict time dilation varying with h.

What? You have this backwards. A low-precision doesn’t force you to use an approximation. It allows you to, because any difference in their results requires more precision than you can measure. Meaning that the difference between the two calculations lies somewhere out past the ~10^-16 precision that was measured. Trivially confirmable, too, if you’d bother to investigate (i.e. work through the algebra) IOW, the effect is because of h, not because of the change in g. Because the potential varies as r, but g varies as r^2

Conservation of energy stems from the time translation symmetry of the laws of physics. But one has to remember that conservation only applies to a single inertial frame of reference.

Lots of them You can punch numbers into a calculator. What’s your point? (also you should show your work in more detail. you only have one significant digit with .009; where did that come from and why isn’t there more precision?)

The difference between the equations is well below the precision of the measurement, but the more important issue is you’re claiming a different result.

The claim that there is no time dilation with constant g is inconsistent with GR. Thus, your claims are inconsistent with GR and can’t be based on it. GR claims a frequency shift of gh/c^2, i.e. it varies with h, and you claim it’s constant. There is no gravity inside of the shell. g=0; it’s trivially constant, but it’s not the general case.