swansont

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.

What would be the oscillation frequency? Why don’t you get radiation emission at that frequency? There is no trajectory here. Why should this be treated as an oscillation? When we look at electron states, we say the electron is at all points in its orbital until measured. Not oscillating between them. Why should the proton be different?

A shift in the frequency emitted by a photon means the transition in question has shifted by that amount, and you're saying the shift is in the opposite direction predicted by GR (you say the lower system has a higher frequency). Is that correct? 2 problems with this: 1. If the frequency shift is predicted to be two times as large, then what happens if you just don't send a signal, so there is no photon. You move a clock to a certain height and let it accumulate a difference in time, and then move it back to the reference point, and check. No photon to worry about, and there's a factor of 2 difference in the predicted effect. Easy to observe. (Yes, the experiment has been done.) Therefore, easy to disprove the conjecture. 2. I don't think this having asymmetric shifts is consistent with the Pound-Rebka effect. You have the photon shift of one value, but the resonance of the atom has shifted by a different value.

There is the equivalent, in the part you seem to be worried about. In fact, all scientific endeavors proceed with the notion that the same basic natural rules apply, and the idea that we are not being "tricked" For archaeology, we find can dig things up that tell us about past civilizations, because they interacted with each other in the same basic ways we do now. And yet, there was a stone age, a bronze age, an industrial age, a computer age, etc. — things have changed over time. Also that information can be lost. There may be some groups that lived whose entire existence has been wiped out and we will never know about them.

You must have a problem with archaeology and paleontology then, too. Some natural event wipes out evidence, and now we have no clue about some bit of history.

No, they will not infer different physics, if you mean that the physics will be contradictory. They may not have enough data to construct some physics (should knowledge be lost), but the physics they have will be the same.