swansont

! Moderator Note Split, as this was off-topic. What is it you wish to discuss? Just linking to a site is insufficent, and not in keeping with our rules.

Show me the math. (if you can't do the math you can't make this claim) You should know, for example, that gravitational wave interaction strength drops off as 1/r, not 1/r^2 Acceleration is a vector. The only thing different about a deceleration is you know the sign (i.e. all decelerations are accelerations)

Yes, an accelerated object emits gravitational waves (unless the acceleration involves certain symmetries), but the issue is one of scale. The earth orbiting the sun radiates about 200 Watts, for example. Mundane masses will radiate much, much less.

Why 9? Any evidence for this?

That's the whole point of "defund the police" - they are not trained for many of the jobs they are being asked to do, and money would be better spent on people trained to do those jobs. And we run into problems when people trained in the use of guns are asked to do jobs where guns are way down on the list of solutions to the problem. (When all you have is a hammer, and all that). You use the money to hire people trained for these other tasks. That way, fewer police are needed. Your bit about specialization points to this. I was reading recently how this has already happened. Once upon a time police were summoned for medical emergencies, and transported people to the hospital. But police are not trained to deal with medical emergencies. When we replaced police and police cars with EMTs and ambulances, we got a better result. https://twitter.com/JamieFord/status/1272273637173637120 "Defund the police" is applying that same rationale to other aspects of what is now police work. Don't send untrained people with guns into situations where guns won't help, and might make it worse. Send people trained in that particular situation. (BTW, I do more than 5 hours of training per year as a federal employee. If police aren't doing more than 5 hours then that's a broken system)

Surviving the acceleration is one of the problems, regardless of method. Limiting yourself to ~1g or so puts a limit on how quickly you can make a trip.

You don’t have to stop counting until you bring them back together. No timing required, though that’s not a big issue (if you do a measurement that lasts a day, who cares if you have a few nanoseconds of dilation. It has a negligible effect on the answer, if you do the experiment properly). You start and stop with the two systems next to each other. Yes, this has been done with clocks. Tom van Baak’s version was to bring some clocks up on Mt Rainier for few days while the family went camping, and compare to the clocks left at home. http://www.diyphysics.com/2012/03/15/tom-van-baaks-family-friendly-relativistic-time-dilation-experiment/ (I think someone linked to this recently, but I don’t recall which thread)

Yes; they would have to carry the reaction mass on the satellite, rather than use the Biefeld-Brown effect.

There are ion thrusters that only work in atmosphere, and would not work in a vacuum. It’s called the Biefeld-Brown effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biefeld–Brown_effect

! Moderator Note Locked at OP’s request

You’d have to find papers that analyze this. Please stop doing this. You haven’t shown this to be true. Stop stating it as if you have.

How does the rate of radioactive decay depend on Planck’s constant? Why not address the experiment I described, instead of trying to come up with a more complicated experiment?

We’ve done the equivalent experiment with clocks, several times.

That’s not how clocks work. That’s not even how these measurements work - we don’t care about this “rectangular pulse” We just count the decays. Discrete values. We have a radioactive sample. We measure 1000 dps at the reference system. Now we move the clock up such that the frequency changes, according to your theory, to 998 dps. GR predicts 1001 dps. Let the system sit there for an hour. Then we compare to the reference. From what you’ve said, your prediction is 120 decays fewer, what GR predicts is 60 more.

The proton is not a point particle The original treatment of the deuteron’s quadrupole moment happened a few decades before quarks were proposed. Nobody believed in quarks at that time. Go ahead and do it then. Show a different result for the two cases.

I’m talking about an atomic clock. What are you talking about? What relevance do those drawings have? If I have a clock running at a frequency F, and I count the number of “ticks”, I measure time. Now we take a clock, running at F, to some new height, H, above the reference clock. According to your earlier post, the frequency will be lower by a relative value 2gH/c^2. I can count the number of ticks at this new height, return it to the original height and compare it to a reference clock. GR predicts a higher frequency at H, and you predict a lower one. This is easily checked and trivially falsified.

Or you flip the deuteron around. Why does it matter? The solution to the electron orbitals is 3D, so it already accounts for this. The electron does not follow a trajectory. You seem to be thinking about this in terms of classical physics, which won’t work. Are you allergic to applying quantum mechanics to the problem?

You are claiming they are not degenerate and are distinguishable. I am asking for justification for your claims. This treatment makes no such distinction http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~dasgupta/557/chap2/

Some true statements can’t be proven, but AFAIK the incompleteness theorem doesn’t say which statements.

I chose it myself, under a previous version of the software, in response to an accusation from a crank. Which was coupled with my choice of avatar Not the first time staff had done that kind of trolling. I kinda miss having those customization options.

Why are they different? What splits the degeneracy?

The controversy would be assigning classical behavior to a quantum system, which is not confined to this problem. The solution that puts it in the l=2 state ~5% of the time is a conclusion driven by experiment. “Tendency” is not an absolute. The l=0 ground state of hydrogen has a probability distribution that has the electron overlapping the proton some fraction of the time. Static, if applied to position, is not allowable in QM. There is no such thing.

The earth isn't a perfect sphere and there are other perturbations, such as the moon. LEO satellites have atmospheric drag (more than higher orbits). Even sunlight affects satellites, making them spin But the first pass here should be a search, because this is explained in some detail on multiple sites. e.g. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9781483227160500232

How about addressing the clock experiment I have brought up twice.

So this implies that you think these other terms are constant, but hbar and c are variable. Why is this? Why aren’t you saying charge is variable, too? Why not? The effect is on rates, so one clock evolving at a faster rate will accumulate more phase. (i.e. time) This can be directly compared to a reference clock.