swansont

New tool? Such as? The burden of proof is with you. Being tight-lipped with details is the opposite of helpful. You need to provide evidence and/or some way of testing your conjecture. If you don’t, it will be assumed it’s because you can’t.

! Moderator Note I asked for a specific example. As you have not supplied one despite ample opportunity, this topic is closed. Do not re-introduce it.

FYI drumbo is gone. There was no point in engaging, now even less.

What evidence do you have for this? I assume you mean inverse photons. What are they?

Nobody is claiming the clock traveled 1LH in 45 minutes. You said “When you combine 1LH of distance and 45 min of travel, it is wrong.” and I agree: a wrong claim that nobody has made, is wrong. The only person who brought this up is you, with the implication that this argument exists somewhere. It’s fine that you say this. It’s true. It’s what everybody has explained. What’s not fine is the implication that anyone has suggested that it’s not the case. What’s the point of deny something that nobody is claiming?

Then treat them as a single object. You then can’t treat the mass as a separate object. Pick one or the other.

And yet you’re the only on pairing those two values.

We know that recession velocities can exceed c, which is not a problem because one is not referring to a single frame of reference. Locally, i.e. in flat spacetime, the speed limit is c

Only pop-sci says it’s a special bond, since it’s not actually an interaction Spin states are quantized. a spin 1/2 system is either spin up or spin down (1/2 h-bar of the z-component of angular momentum, pointing along the + or - direction) ”any state possible” is one of those two options, for that situation. There are no other states. There are experiments where being in a determined state gives different answers than being in an undetermined state. So we know the particles are not secretly in a specific state. This thread and video might help

Expansion is GR. That’s not going to stop being the case for inflation, which is still expansion. It’s not going to revert to being Newtonian, that’s for sure.

Anything having to do with GR is decidedly non-Newtonian. You can’t mix them together.

Yes, because you have numbers from two different frames of reference in that last bit. IOW, there is no frame of reference where the distance is 1 LH and the described trip takes 45 min. Mixing frames of reference leads to invalid and incorrect conclusions Yes, they will. But in the example being discussed this is moot. The clock itself is contracted, but this has no impact on anything we’re calculating or measuring, which are the length of the trip and how long it takes. But that’s not saying it otherwise. It’s a different situation. The traveling clock observed the trip’s length to be contracted. Your habit of not making explicit references is a problem.

You agreed there is a torque, which is not shown. The belt exerts a force on the mass. It is quite real. You don’t have to analyze this from an accelerating frame, and there’s no indication you have done so. Each of your two options would have different treatments, neither of which are present. Not doing proper physics analysis is indeed a problem Except it is, as the belt must exert a force on the mass if there is acceleration The mass exerts a reaction force on the belt.

Well, you shouldn’t have hidden things (drawings are assumed to be faithful depictions), but why is there a question here? You have a torque. What’s the issue?

You’re right. (I think the page did not render properly) There must be a real force causing this

Then there is no fictitious force. No force at all is required for what you’ve shown, if the mass moves at constant velocity.

A fictitious force is one that makes an accelerating frame seem like an inertial one. So why not just analyze in an inertial frame? A non-zero angular speed does not imply the presence of a force, fictitious or real.

My “syndrome” was misreading the circumstance of the example (the “length” was, indeed moving) The physics was not wrong The distance to planet X is not contracted. There is no motion between earth and X; they exist independent of a rocket and its motion. The earth sees 1 LY. There is no motion between earth and X, thus there is no length contraction of this distance.

Bad luck for you, then.

The only way to apply Newtons 2nd and 3rd law in a rotating frame is if you include fictitious forces. You don't seem to have included any. So any answer you get from such analysis is wrong. A net force that exists in a rotating frame in this kind of scenario should disappear when analyzed in an inertial frame. A reactionless drive has to work in an inertial frame to be classified as reactionless.

It may very well be that it is because you are not seeing the whole picture. As I noted earlier, your drawings are missing notations. You also have not responded to some of my requests for clarification.

There have been no rules violations that would suggest that closure is the right course of action. Plus I'm involved, so I am far less inclined to take any such action (there would be no inclination if this weren't in speculations. I would defer to my fellow moderators to make the call) But perhaps we could return to discussing the physics, rather than this sideshow?

If they can be 66 for their second term, why couldn't they be 66 for their first, and not seek a second term? Why is that the standard for respectful/good manners, but interruption and talking over the other isn't?

You're the one who hasn't studied physics, by your own admission. You aren't in a position to tell someone they're 50% right and they need to think on their feet.

No. You're standing outside the device. Your coordinate system is inertial. A rotating object in an inertial frame follows Newton's laws. If you are analyzing something from a rotating frame, you have to analyze everything from that rotating frame. (i.e. you need to add in all of the fictitious forces if you want to apply Newton's laws). If you mix frames, your conclusions are invalid.