swansont

No. That’s not what anybody has said, and Newton’s laws say the chassis must move If the internal mass moves, the rest of the system has to move as well, according to Newton’s 3rd law.

It will vibrate along both axes. A conceptual simplification would be to assume everything is massless except this one mass. The chassis moves in a circle around the stationary mass.

The CoM doesn’t move if it starts at rest and there are no external forces.

Not the way it works. Hypotheses are not assumed to be true, and falsifiability is a requirement. You use the best model available. IOW, you use the wave model to explain wave behavior. There is no inconsistency since the models explain different things.

The phrasing of the abstract is that these sources can’t be ruled out, which is quite different from claiming positive evidence that they are anti-stars

How would you test this?

Ah, of course. (I took that as square mile, not mile squared. Stupid brain)

No, there’s no reason to think this is possible with known physics.

Can you show a calculation showing how much energy would be a available?

! Moderator Note Split; please don’t hijack discussions to bring up your own theory

! Moderator Note If you have a scientific model, go ahead

Said to be? Nonsense. What if the area I take is 0.01 miles wide by 100 miles long - does it still have 8 inches of curvature? Rules say you post the info for discussion, as nobody is required to watch a video in order to participate

IDNeon has been banned because, good grief, they wouldn’t leave it alone. Repeated personal attacks, thread hijacking and soapboxing. Over and over again, without much science to dilute the crap.

! Moderator Note Reposting a trashed thread? No I don’t think so.

! Moderator Note Since you can’t or won’t support your claims, you can’t challenge this. In any event, refusal to support claims isn’t how we do things here.

It would mean something if you explained why, instead of just repeating it.

I think Alcoa probably used proper units. Her’s another source. https://agmetalminer.com/2015/11/24/power-costs-the-production-primary-aluminum/ 15 kwh per kg, or 15,000 kwh per ton That gets you to 25.5 TWh for 1.7 million tons

You could only determine this by interacting with the photon, which you don’t, as the scenario is described.

If you mean TW-year, then it’s 223380 TWh (8760 hours per year) What’s your source? They probably got the units correct. I think this refers to 2000 https://www.aceee.org/files/proceedings/2003/data/papers/SS03_Panel1_Paper02.pdf 57.6 TWh Your number is a tad high.

TW and GW are units of power, not energy. TW per year is not a meaningful unit. Do you have a citation for your number?

I agree with MigL. It’s not something that has an opposite, as such. You’re either in one eigenstate, or in a superposition of them. (or in a situation where the concept doesn’t apply)

! Moderator Note Which is irrelevant to the discussion, so there can be no follow-up in this thread

An observer will see the beams separate at 2c. You can’t analyze this from the perspective of either light beam, since that does not represent a valid inertial frame if reference If these were objects traveling at an attainable speed (i.e. less than c), then you can do this with the velocity addition formula. Let’s say they move at u and v relative to the central frame (of the person tossing the objects). They will see the total distance between them increase at (u+v) (using scalar speeds) Each object will see the other recede at (u+v)/(1+uv/c^2) http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/einvel2.html#c2

! Moderator Note From Rule 2.5: Stay on topic. Posts should be relevant to the discussion at hand.

! Moderator Note What we discuss here in posts like this are facts (and "I saw on youtube" is, at best, a dubious source) and not your beliefs. This is something where you could go research and gather facts and see if this is true, and not have to rely on belief. Your discussion should have been framed the same way. If you can do that, you can re-introduce the topic