swansont

How big of a facility will you need? In the US in FY2017, more than 300,000 international travelers passed through customs each day https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/typical-day-fy2017

What is “derivative” here? What is “take the instantaneous vibration of the right area location”? A boat bobbing up and down is not stationary.

Such analyses happen routinely. Compliance with and adherence to Newton’s laws is not a wrong conclusion

If you are on a carousel, and you ignore the fact that it’s rotating, that’s a rotating frame. If roll a ball from the center to the rim, to you it looks like the ball follows a curved path, even though there’s no force on it. Newton’s first law tells you that Newton’s laws aren’t going to work. You need to add in a fake force (a Coriolis force) to explain the curved trajectory of the ball. An observer on the ground sees the ball travel in a straight line, and does not need to appeal to a fake force. They see the carousel rotating, and can use Newton’s laws to analyze whatever motion is observed. No, you can analyze it from an inertial frame. In many cases, it’s probably easier to do it that way.

If you aren’t on the object, such that you assume it’s not rotating (but the rest of the room is), then it’s not a rotating frame of reference. IOW, if you can see the object is rotating, you aren’t in the rotating frame A rotating device obeys Newton’s laws. No, I mean there are no fictitious forces whatsoever in an analysis in an inertial frame.

Newton’s first law tells you. If an object with no real forces on it doesn’t move in a straight line, or it spontaneously starts moving, it’s not an inertial frame. Inertial frames do not have fictitious forces. A rotating object does not create fictitious forces.

Let’s see an analysis, then. Quantify the “tiny deviations in the energy content of an atmosphere” and also the effect of pressure on the measurements. Is this a measurement of the atmosphere or the surface (i.e. land and water)? climate.gov suggests it’s the latter https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature (they also disagree the with “tiny” characterization of the energy deviations)

You mean other than the wikipedia link? (which lists reference 9 as its source). It’s mentioned in a number of articles, but I never looked for earlier sources.

When you operate on the hydrogen wave function with the Hamiltonian you get the energy levels. The wave function exists in all space. You don’t need to average; you just need to include the equation of the potential The system can only radiate if it has a lower energy state available (i.e. consistent with the selection rules). It won’t radiate continuously.

It was pointed put that your car analogy is poor, so you go ahead and use it again. As Area54 observed, all you are doing is attacking a strawman. Average temperature is simply a proxy for total energy content that is perhaps easier to grasp than if one used energy units. That energy is either from a source that has changed or it’s being trapped from existing sources. Science tells us it’s the latter.

The points stand, though. In the rotating frame the centrifugal force is always present, and doesn’t just show up when you change the radius. And it’s not a real force, because you can’t push a rope.

Not a proper unit in the context of its use in the discussion. I apologize for the imprecision.

IIRC it was burning/oxidation in metals, not the burning of wood, where mass increase was observed. Right concept, wrong target. Specifically I think it was a detailed analysis of magnesium. (pause) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory “Eventually, quantitative experiments revealed problems, including the fact that some metals gained mass when they burned, even though they were supposed to have lost phlogiston. Some[who?] phlogiston proponents explained this by concluding that phlogiston had negative weight; others, such as Louis-Bernard Guyton de Morveau, gave the more conventional argument that it was lighter than air. However, a more detailed analysis based on Archimedes' principle, the densities of magnesium and its combustion product showed that just being lighter than air could not account for the increase in mass”

The analyses I’ve seen look at energy, not electric field. The force isn’t what goes into Schrödinger’s equation

Energy and momentum are different things. One cannot convert one to the other. OK, you want r to increase. How does a non-rigid rope push the mass? Not in the frame of the observer, as you had described. Only in the rotating frame is there a centrifugal force. But it’s not a real force, which is confirmed by the fact that a non-rigid body doesn’t push.

gigawatts a year is not a proper unit. gigawatt-years would be a unit of energy. It’s not so much having a feel for any particular source, but a comparison to see if one is bigger. For example, the rotational kinetic energy of the earth is about 2 ×10^29 J while our energy use is about 5.67×10^20 J per year. Somehow tapping into rotation, for example, will not cause a rapid depletion of that energy You can do the same for the sources you are worried about, to see if they would run out.

Dropping to a lower energy doesn’t require energy. Energy is released. You need an example that’s physically allowed To get a larger angular velocity with no change in tangential velocity, you have to decrease r. ac = r*w^2 i.e. pull in. That means you need to increase the centripetal force. Why do you think there is a centrifugal force?

The nucleus is not a point, and this fact is responsible for some of the energy structure of the atom Neutral atoms do not have a net charge or an electric dipole moment. So you run into a problem if your model has the electron at a specific point, which gives you an EDM.

It's not clear that the OP isn't talking about detergent.

The problem with appealing to magic is that you it's a decent bet that some physical law has been violated. And if that happens, all bets are off. Charge conservation is a physical law, and atoms don't behave the way you describe. The Bohr model has a limited usefulness in explaining some things about atomic structure. What QM says about this, to the extent it can, is that you would have a new energy level structure, and the electron would make a transition to a lower energy state and give off a photon. The atom is neutral, so there's no net force on it. You do get an induced electric dipole moment in the atom, though.

The only place for a centrifugal force could come from would be the nucleus. How would you do that? An external field would exert a force on the electron opposite the direction of the field. It would similarly exert a force on the proton in the direction of the field. There is nothing centrifugal about that.

Observation, sure. That's a better description than "experience" However, observation/experiment is not all of science. There is the modeling. You have to be able to quantitatively predict as well as explain. And Newton's laws are mathematical and used to make models, so we can solve for the motions of objects. There is still no proof, because it is inductive. You can disprove, by finding that a prediction is wrong, but can never prove.

What do you mean by "based solely on experience"? That's not particularly descriptive. What experience? Whose experience? What kind of experience? ? Obtained inductively, with verification, is not proof. You seem to be insisting on contradictory definitions.

Centrifugal (outward-seeking) force? The electron is attracted to the nucleus. It is a centripetal (inward-seeking) force. The force that attracts the two to each other is the electrostatic force. They attract each other. Action. Reaction. There is no other force present.

! Moderator Note The default position on this site is that science and the scientific method is valid, and that has to underlie all scientific discussions. If you have an argument with the basis of science, that can be discussed in Speculations, and only if you have an actual argument that is backed up with evidence. Not hand-waving. edit: off-topic posts have been split https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/123374-science-and-the-scientific-method-split-from-is-there-the-proof-of-heliocentrism/