swansont

IOW, the speed in an elliptical orbit isn’t constant. But the energy is. So you can find the speed at any point in the orbit if you know r, since v^2/2 - GM/r is constant. From that, you can deduce the radial and azimuthal components, as I stated earlier.

It’s going to be a problem for both proposals because mirrors do not have 100% reflectivity, not because of any aether. Why does the redshift magically appear at 60 seconds? Are there equations that govern the behavior? If light disappears after 60 light-seconds, why can we see stars more than 60 light-seconds away?

The earth would not fall into orbit under these conditions. You have KE + PE > 0, which means you can’t form a bound system. “acceleration is manifesting as part of the overall velocity” makes no sense Round it to two significant digits, and what answer do you get?

Yes. There was a sentence that followed the quoted one that was pertinent to the concept, as each sentence separately referred to orthogonal velocity components. It should. If you know (or can calculate) orbital speed, breaking it down into the radial and azimuthal components should be straightforward. It should be child’s play for a cosmologist, since cosmologists should know basic physics and math. And if by “sideways velocity” you mean the azimuthal component (it’s not 100% clear - is “sideways velocity” the standard jargon?) then that’s trivially found from the centripetal acceleration equation.

Actually yes it is.

This suggests that generators are ~0.001% efficient, which is ridiculous.

I'm not overly impressed by those answers (and others I checked for a different question) These look to be answers to non-science students, where they avoid using any actual physics. That would be true if the orbit were a perfect circle, but it's not. So there is a radial velocity component. In a circular orbit the velocity toward the sun is zero; that will give you the azimuthal component from a = v^2/r For the overall speed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_speed You can get the radial value from the fact that the orbital energy is constant. Maybe that's because of people publishing in vanity press who say they are published (Journal of Cosmology, for instance) as if their work has been scrutinized like people who do it for a living.

! Moderator Note You misunderstand the nature of this exchange. I'm telling you to follow the rules. This is not a negotiation. You don't get to say "no" if you wish to remain.

Instead of telling us what it isn't, how about a model of what it is? So we have some semblance of science. M-M did not assume it was the flow of the aether. They assumed the aether was at rest, and we moved through it. What evidence supports tired light? Your link explains how the hypothesis is contradicted by the evidence.

If the aether affects light, you should be able to measure an effect. If you can’t measure it, the effect has to be small. So why is this hard to detect? If light doesn’t persist for a long time, that sounds like a very strong effect. As MigL points out, it has to be a stiff medium to have a large propagation speed. So we’re moving through it. Why didn’t the Michelson-Morley experiment detect this motion?

These two properties are in direct conflict with each other. Contradictory. Why won’t you answer my question about whether we are moving or at rest with respect to the aether?

A link would be appropriate and possibly helpful. Since the tangential speed is 30 km/s, it could just be a typo

I don’t see how it can, since it’s flawed. Units matter. I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what’s going on here. You have proposed some alternative physics, and need to defend it by providing evidence. You say your equation agrees with experiment but you waste effort by complaining about abuse and making insults. Where is this evidence? Equations with inconsistent units is enough to be scientifically wrong. The rest of this is distraction from discussion.

That the claim is patently absurd is an issue I was content to leave to others. I was addressing a procedural issue - that the original claim wan't sourced, the claim implied in the thread is very different from the one in the link, and now that the later claim is very different from the original. With each response, the bad faith nature looks even worse.

Yes, I know. I quoted it. It's an argument that implies quarantining is bad, and the immediate quarantine in the US is why there are more deaths in the US. It's a crappy argument. No wonder you had to change it. STOP DIGGING

That's not the argument you made. "quarantining promotes viral contagion" and "The US quarantine consists of tiny enclosures of fewer people, which propagates contagion." are two very different arguments. Also, speaking of China's quarantine and also saying "China, who at first let the virus run its course" are at odds with each other. My advice is to stop digging. It's only accentuating the bad faith nature of the discussion.

! Moderator Note "the administration has ordered that, beginning at 5 p.m. Sunday, all passengers on flights to the United States who were in China's Hubei province—which is the epicenter of the new coronavirus outbreak—at any point in the past two weeks will be subject to a 14-day mandatory quarantine." So China's quarantine and the US quarantine are not even remotely equivalent. To say that the US began quarantining in February is incredibly misleading in this context, since it applied to relatively few people (and the wrong ones, considering that most of the early cases came from Europe). Rule 12 says (emphasis added): We expect arguments to be made in good faith. Honest discussions, backed up by evidence when necessary. Example of tactics that are not in good faith include misrepresentation, arguments based on distraction, attempts to omit or ignore information, advancing an ideology or agenda at the expense of the science being discussed, general appeals to science being flawed or dogmatic, conspiracies, and trolling.

Yes.

That assumes an aether, but you must have evidence of an aether to base your conclusion on it. Otherwise this is just a fallacious circular argument. The fact that we can communicate with distant spacecraft and get light from the sun tell us that the photon lifetime is not small. How do we see planets (much less distant stars and galaxies) if the photons don't live long enough to get to us? It's unacknowledged because there is no experimental evidence to support its existence. What is your evidence that an EM wave is a vibration of a physical medium? As I asked before, are we at rest with respect to it or moving with respect to it?

! Moderator Note Why is a thread about logic posted in applied math? It does not follow. Moved.

Are we moving with respect to this medium or are we stationary? You need to support your conjecture with a model and/or evidence, rather than bald assertion.

! Moderator Note "whereas the U.S. who immediately began quarantining" (emphasis added) is not supported by that citation.

Are you sure this isn’t a manifestation of survivor bias? Just because one population didn’t suffer significant damage doesn’t mean they weren’t at risk.

No, he noted that you have not provided a derivation. I am very much not. You seem to be reading a lot into what I said, which was that you could use an exact expression rather than merely retaining the first term for KE. You identified this as a problem. Kindly stop projecting this on me. This is your thread. Perhaps you could address the issues I raised: providing the derivation of your equation, and explaining how the units are consistent.

Does such a map tell you the population density? If no, then the maps don’t actually tell you that the majority of people living in sparsely-populated counties almost always vote Republican. The amount of red >> the amount of blue, which can be misleading. As I said. Now, tell me why the majority of people living in sparsely-populated counties almost always voting Republican matters, in terms of who gets more votes.