swansont

But curvature means that your location has a time dilation effect, which aren't described by SR. SR assumes a locally flat spacetime, which you don't seem to have here.

Here's a quick writeup of the performance of the Mars helicopter https://www.wired.com/story/the-physics-of-nasas-new-mars-helicopter/ and a more general treatment of helicopter (in the context of a human-powered device) https://www.wired.com/2012/06/how-hard-is-the-human-powered-helicopter/ You can see the thrust depends on Av^2, where A is the rotor area and v is the speed of the air you push down. So you can get more thrust by increasing the area of your blades or having them move faster, but the first adds to the weight and the second requires more power - so you either need bigger batteries, which adds weight, or you reduce the flight time.

We were expecting this, too. So far you've spouted mostly nonsense, and unsupported nonsense at that. If that doesn't change soon (i.e. you need to provide support for claims) then you will find that you don't have a platform for any discussion at all here. For example: you claimed "In 1973 by law, no school receiving Federal Tax Breaks or grant money could teach the scientific method that demanded you demonstrate your hypothesis." and I asked for a pointer to the actual law. Where is it? What is the federal statute that says this? Or are you making it up?

Gammas emitted inside a black hole would not escape. They would have to be emitted from outside.

I asked you first, and you're the one making a non-mainstream claim, so it's up to you to support it. My position, and the one that aligns with mainstream physics, is that it's OK to use approximations when it doesn't affect the answer*. However, by asking this, you are tacitly asserting that the approximation of g is somehow responsible here, even though gravitational potential depends explicitly on r. And yet somehow it would no longer depend on r if the gravitational acceleration were constant. * and which you are doing in equations (2) and (3) even though the motion is relativistic and these approximations fail

! Moderator Note Threads merged

But if you do have a car, it's likely to be gasoline, rather than electric, because it has a lower up-front cost. Also likely to be older and pollute more, because you can't afford to buy a new one very often or maintain the one you have very well. As I and others have said, money gives you options. It may be that green solutions will be cheaper and widely available some day, but we aren't there yet. Right now they are typically either more expensive, or (if cheaper) have limited availability.

It's ironic that you are championing the scientific method, and yet you are asserting claims without backing it up with evidence. (and no, electricity is not "exactly, no difference" like pressure) As I said earlier about neutrons, this is a discussion for speculations and is off-topic here. Post it there, and people will happily dismantle it as nonsense. And, as I said, the direction of the force is simply a matter of circular motion. No fantastic details of "alternative" science is necessary. It's vector math, nothing more. For an object to move in a circle at constant speed it must experience a force towards the center. Thus the force the sun exerts on the earth is directed toward the sun. That's defined as attraction, not repulsion.

You were talking about open debate, where everybody should be using reason and logic, and presenting evidence. The conspiracy theorist will not have anything to say that complies. But I was talking about actually convincing them they are wrong. Facts will not sway them, because they deny the validity of the facts; it's all part of the conspiracy. And have they found such pathways? The title and OP suggested either politics or support, rather than the lounge, where it was improperly posted. I chose support because we are part of the group that "censors" conspiracy discussion (by locking threads when evidence is absent) and these discussions often go in that direction. This one hasn't, mostly.

I wasn’t arguing against this, so your disagreement is misplaced. I said that the people advocating conspiracy didn’t get there with reason and logic. It made it a lot harder for him to spread lies. If it changed nothing, why did he (and other people) complain?

No, I want the GR equation, so you can’t complain it’s an approximation Yes. And if the terms you ignore are smaller than your precision, it doesn’t affect the answer. So ignoring them doesn’t change your answer. Meaning the Pound-Rebka result is 2.5 x 10^-15 if you use a full-blown GR calculation or just the leading term of the expansion, because the omitted terms are smaller than 10^-16. The bottom line is that time dilation happens at different heights for constant g.

Having two opposite conventions for the direction of current flow is a problem. Standardization seems to be what you are describing. Are you going to address the other points/questions?

Logic and critical thinking didn't get them to their position. Logic and critical thinking won't get them out of it.

Well, we get them, but since they are subject to the rules about providing evidence, it tends to weed them out. But it also means we are not censoring the content, per se, it's that we are enforcing the rules about evidence. Conspiracy theories (as described here) pretty much always lack evidence. And if you fail to follow the rules, you eventually get tossed out.

Another thought: Let's say your risk of getting in an accident is X. Are people going to be willing to accept a risk of X with an autonomous car? I suspect not, because most people think they are above average drivers (Dunning-Kruger or because they're from Lake Wobegone) and also horrible at assessing risk, so they will want something much smaller than X.

There is a large component that is dependent on the law rather than technology. People sue each other for damages. Who is the target of the lawsuit when an autonomous vehicle kills someone? Who is legally going to be at fault? Currently it's the driver (or one of the drivers), AFAIK, unless you can find fault with the vehicle itself. If the entity at fault is going to be the manufacturer, they are going to have to be satisfied that their liability is limited. This puts them more at risk than they currently are, for the ~6 million accidents per year is the US (and a corresponding number in other countries) It's not just the ~35,000 deaths (again, a US statistic) that put them at risk, though deaths would likely be be the larger financial risk per incident. I suspect this will eventually put onto the vehicle owner's insurance, but people and insurance companies will have to be comfortable with this.

But it's not all you stated. This is a sin of omission.

Open debate has to happen with both sides complying with the rules of debate. i.e. evidence is required, not just assertion. Logical fallacies and arguments of distraction cannot be permitted. The large overlap with the rules of this forum is not accidental. And again, unless the government is involved, this isn't an issue of free speech. You are free to stand shout your conspiracy theories. But no other person or entity is obligated to provide you with a soapbox, or megaphone, or a place to stand, which is what happens with this alleged "censorship"

Yes. The point is that there are a number of ways to do this, and a number of paths to arrive at an hypothesis. You describe only one path. Your list has "form hypothesis" at step 1, and "do experiment" at step 5. The implication is we do these steps in order. If you don't have to, then describing it as a single method is erroneous. Citaton needed. Or, in context of this discussion: provide evidence to back up your assertion. Yes, and you have done nothing to explain how we can move in a circle about the sun without an attractive centripetal force. This isn't an issue of a model of an atom or nucleus, it's simple Newtonian physics. You may substitute a heavy object on a rope, swung in a circle, if you wish. The circular motion is the focus here.

Rights are an issue between people and government. Youtube is not an agent of the government (and neither is this site) so a choice to not permit conspiracy discussions has nothing to do with rights. One of the problems with this is the notion that opinions matter when these are questions of fact. Opinions are personal. Facts are not; establishing facts require evidence, which is usually the first thing left behind when promoting conspiracy.

So what? Physics idealizes all the time. Or have you never taken a physics class? There are no frictionless surfaces and there is always air resistance, in reality. But they don't show up in many problems. Constant g is a given in the problem. That’s all that matters. Earlier you said it wouldn’t (“time dilation would be constant in a field of "constant gravitational acceleration" and therefore would not refract light. If gravitational forces still existed in such a field then equivalence would be broken”). Which is the correct claim? Let’s try this: What is the GR expression for gravitational potential in a uniform gravitational field? No, you’re hung up on it being an approximation, as if it matters. I pointed out you use non-relativistic equations. Your problem is set near a black hole, which suggests you need to use relativistic equations. Nothing after that is valid (these are your rules). That’s my refutation.

What’s the longest astronauts have been in space without resupply? 300 days + 400-500 days or more of travel time. Launch cost of Perseverance was about $200k per kg of payload. What’s the launch cost of a crewed mission going to be? You need to get them back off the planet and home, which is not a cost associated with a robotic mission.

The moon landings cost us $260 billion in todays dollars. The Perseverance mission is projected to cost slightly more than 1% of that ($2.7 billion) https://www.planetary.org/space-policy/cost-of-apollo https://www.planetary.org/space-policy/cost-of-perseverance Mars would be more expensive, of course. So it’s likely your claim of 50x more accomplishments leaves you on the short end. Ignoring the part about “we haven’t shown how to do it yet” (no actual rocket, no demonstration of keeping people alive for that long under those conditions, etc)

Fun fact: I have never used a p-value. It’s not really physics terminology; I don’t think I’ve run across it in any physics papers. (seems to be a life sciences thing) We tend to use use standard deviations, and cite them as such. The number of them considered significant depends on the area of physics. Sometime we break it down is a straight percentage; for some experiments 10% agreement is OK, 1% is better. A lot of this depends on your statistics and how noisy your data are, and how well you can determine the contributions of that noise. Bottom line: there is no “one size fits all” approach.

Not specious, IMO. We haven't sent crewed craft places because we either can't or won't. Robotic craft can survive a much wider range of environments as opposed to humans. Even if you aren't counting on the humans to return to earth, they still need to survive to their destination to do the mission. Missions with crewed craft are much more expensive, owing to the need to protect the fragile crew. How do you justify the added cost and complexity, while accounting for the reality of finite budgets?