swansont

Fluid behavior is probably an apt description; there would be little or no viscosity, or surface tension, for the same reasons.

1. I didn’t use the term first; I used the same terminology as was used in the question I answered 2. I don’t think there’s any suggestion that this isn’t amazing 3. This is semantics and “clumps together” is perfectly cromulent. Perhaps you have a suggestion of a better word? 4. Is there any objection to the veracity of the science being discussed?

! Moderator Note I see no quotes from or links to any sources. ! Moderator Note It’s fiction. It’s not making predictions. You would need to establish otherwise first, before proceeding. As this does not have the rigor we require, it is closed.

Leopold has been banned as a sockpuppet Delberty, Drakes, Brahms and Tunnel alfa015222 is banned as a sockpuppet of alfa015

! Moderator Note This topic has nothing to do with quantum theory

Intensity is not a vector quantity.

! Moderator Note The twins paradox does not include this topic

Your failure to understand physics is not evidence of a problem with physics. ! Moderator Note We have tried, but you resist the help. People point out errors, and you insist they aren’t errors. But you never seem to be able to show how your physics actually applies to any problem, despite requests that you show this. It’s happened again in this thread. You shirk the responsibility of the burden of proof, and that’s not acceptable. Your approach of repeatedly asserting things without valid justification is against our rules (both in general and specifically for Speculations) I’m not going to let any more time and effort be wasted, as we’ve been down this path before.

You can only access one universe in the MWI interpretation. That an even happens in one of them doesn’t actually effect you, unless it happens in yours. So the probability of something happening in all of the universes is not a useful calculation. And, as an interpretation, you don’t have to use it if it doesn’t help you understand things.

Physics doesn’t care. It has to work under a wide range of conditions Then you aren’t doing physics, or anything particularly useful Anyone who can do calculus should be able to figure out, from the definition of acceleration, that x = 1/2 at^2 for something starting from rest. Momentum isn’t a necessary element of this analysis I don’t care what you prefer, if it has no basis in physics. I’ve pointed them out Assume it starts from rest. How did you solve for t? If v<<c, It works just fine It matches experiments Photons require relativity I never said this Oh, FFS. I’m begging you to do math, which you’ve refused to do. I’m not making the idiotic claims. The burden of proof is on you. Because relativity works. Because relativity works

It's harder to tunnel through a thicker barrier. The probability drops off exponentially. What you haven't shown is the wave function after the barrier ends.

I doubt the gravitational waves given off by Jupiter would be anywhere close to being big enough to have such an impact.

When you quote from another site you should give the link. https://www.space.com/25179-hubble-constant.html Passing off other peoples' work as your own is plagiarism, and improperly using other work without attribution is a copyright violation. But the snippet you quoted makes a distinction based on distance, not direction. Where is the evidence that this is based on an "uneven distribution of gravitational pull"?

You noted va is "relative to earth's speed" and that's nonsense. I can find the KE in any frame. It is, as you note, relative. The earth is not inherent to the equation. dW = Fdx for a constant force Integrate that and you get 1/2 mv^2 The work done is the change in kinetic energy. energy is conserved. Why "should" it be that? What valid physics principle is this based on? A frame of reference is just coordinate systems. If you are applying Newton's laws you need to be in an inertial frame. No valid physics, either. We already have a solution. It's special relativity. Then your answers are wrong. Non-accelerating. One in which Newton's laws would work. No, that's the mass equivalent of the energy. Photons are massless. Then it should not appear in a general equation. Does your formulation give correct answers? If I drop a mass from some height, how fast will it be moving when it hits the floor? You can solve this with energy, or with kinematics. You can also compare to experiment. The factor of 1/2 will matter.

That's not a scenario for tunneling. That's a particle in a box. Tunneling has a barrier of length L, with V = V0, and V=0 elsewhere. A commonality here is that the wave function extends into the barrier in both of these cases, but V=V0 everywhere but the box leaves no opportunity to tunnel I don't understand what you mean here. A particle that crosses the barrier does go to infinity. Why is that a problem? The probability of crossing the barrier is small.

Infinite probability makes no sense. Probability is between 0 and 1. So the probability of non-impossible things approaches or is 1, i.e. it happens in at least one of the worlds. (That echoes a saying in particle physics: that which is not forbidden is mandatory.)

Yes, we know that KE is relative, since it depends on v, which is relative. The term in KE is v^2, which is v*v. It is not two different speeds multiplied together. "wrt light's speed" is nonsensical. Speed is relative to some frame of reference, and light does not have an inertial frame of reference. It is also not inherently tied into the earth's speed. KE is relativistic if you (need to) use the relativistic form of the equation No, it's not (further nonsense deleted; there's no point)

There is some indication that some conspiracy believers think the voting machines are compromised, so they are urging people to boycott the election, since the democrats have fixed it. I don't know how prevalent this is, but if it has traction, that would depress turnout. Trump isn't on the ballot, which may also depress turnout among some groups of people not driven by civic duty.

Many-worlds is an interpretation of QM. The probabilities are the probabilities you calculate in QM.

How do you find the energy of a system?

Your original statement simply said "with distance" - nothing about redshifting Weakened is not "terminated" Absorption requires a medium, which was not part of your claim. "become undetectable" is not "terminated" Your claim said nothing about detection. It implied the photons will cease to be after some distance. Maybe you could just fix (or abandon) your claim instead of trying to contort it to sorta be true if you add in a bunch of caveats that weren't originally there..

What is your evidence that it is? But those distant galaxies need even further distant galaxies to accelerate them, and they need more of them to make that happen. And those need galaxies beyond them, and so on, and so on. Dissatisfaction with the current model does not constitute evidence of your proposal. Let's focus on the current nonsense before getting to this nonsense.

How would you explain such an acceleration? How is it consistent with the mass distribution we observe, which is basically isotropic?

You can think of it as reflection or transmission. The particle will bounce off or tunnel. Tunneling particles don’t return, they continue on their path. The probability flux isn’t zero.

The redshift is from the expansion of the universe, and doesn’t stop the light. But you didn’t include expansion in your explanation. You said “All electromagnetic energy terminates with distance” and this just isn’t the case. The fraction being visible drops because intensity drops as 1/r^2, not some inherent property of light. More dim because light spreads out ≠ light terminating