swansont

Yes, the use of the phrase there is bogus. It’s not a very good video, in many ways.

Where in the video, or alternatively, provide a transcript. From the first ten seconds, though, I was not impressed, so it may be that there’s just no real credibility here.

That does not follow. Planck units are not a QM prediction.

Way to miss the point. If they are not an action-reaction pair, Newton’s 3rd law does not apply. They don’t have to be equal in magnitude, opposite in direction, or the same type of force. In that example, they happen to be equal and opposite, because the point of such an example is to make you apply your knowledge. The ball hits the bat, the bat hits the ball. The forces are not on the same object. They are an action-reaction pair. The contact force and gravity, the two forces acting on the ball, are not an action-reaction pair. Still no. The force an be unknown or not accounted for. You can be in a rotating frame of reference. Those circumstances will not change the action-reaction relationship of other forces that are present. CAN be. Not MUST be, or CAN ONLY be. And perhaps consider that a BBC website might be a less trustworthy source than someone with a PhD in physics. Again, it can’t. And again, what Newton’s laws tell you is that if you are in an accelerated frame, then whatever pseudoforce you identify will not have an action reaction pair.

One thing that comes to mind is hostility toward the celebration of Columbus day. State adoption of MLK day was not unanimous, at the outset (edit to add: a push to remove Andrew Jackson from the $20 bill) Relevance?

There is no physical significance that I’m aware of. You have mass/length*time^2 What is that supposed to represent? What physics equation does that come from?

I’m not. But not having units does not detach a term from a particular phenomenon. Gamma (1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is unitless. It’s still intimately tied to relativity As a general rule, if G shows up in an equation, that equation has something to do with gravity. If h-bar shows up, it’s related to quantum mechanics. G and h-bar are not “just data” Since you say it doesn’t exist, I’d guess the answer is that it’s not.

They potentially do far more than that. Did Twain write his books to celebrate slavery? Portray slavery defenders as heroes? Do his books have the semi-exclusive endorsement of the government, regarding slavery?

Are you going to support your argument that it’s a reasonable analogy?

I don’t see why this matters. No physical significance, as in, it’s not an interaction. Not a kind of energy. It’s a scale where quantum effects of gravity would be important Then why is there a question about a physical significance? Sometimes you express equations in a way that makes them easier to use. You can take the Newtonian expressions and write KE = p^2/2m There’s no physical significance to p^2. It’s just how the algebra works out when you substitute some variables. In the case of the energy equation it may be to avoid using the square root

I would guess that was Mordred commenting, or perhaps Markus. Newtonian gravity obeys superposition; the failure to do so is thus small for weak fields, and only noticeable for strong fields. How you approach the problem depends on the details of the problem. If you don’t specify, you’re going to get the full GR treatment, but you don’t need to solve the GR equations if Newtonian gravity will suffice.

Yes, it’s part of systemic racism, because whites have the bulk if the power to make the rules that give them an advantage. It doesn’t matter that they are leveraging power against poor folks; that just hides the racism under a veneer. The US has laws that would prevent overtly racist rules. The imbalance of power is one problem, and the disproportionate way it is exerted, or the disproportionate impact, is another.

And there’s G, in equation 2. It’s related to gravity. Equation 1 has no physical significance, AFAIK Show an equation that has F^2 in it, and include the derivation. Where did the equation come from? You have to be careful assigning physical relevance when all you’re doing is rewriting constants. If you replace all terms of c with the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow (times some unitless number, of course), it does not mean your equation suddenly has a connection to bird flight.

It doesn’t matter in any example. It doesn’t apply to such situations. The question asked which example was not an action/reaction pair. Equilibrium implies a static case. Something that does not change unless external conditions change. It’s not a dilemma. It’s a matter of properly applying the third law And yet that’s an action-reaction force. Equilibrium is not a requirement. “wrong”? What was claimed that could be right or wrong? No action-reaction force pairs are given. All of the forces act on the object. The net force and action-reaction forces are separate concepts. Yes, in that example the objects happen to be in equilibrium. In other examples, the objects are not. It’s irrelevant because you don’t have to have equilibrium to apply the third law. You know this, because you’ve given an example where this was the case. Equilibrium is a red herring.

That’s a poor analogy. This is not book removal or rewriting. This is saying maybe we stop amplifying certain works on a government equivalent of Oprah’s book club

Yes, but you made a new thread for it. Which defines the new discussion.We aren’t going to have multiple open threads on one topic.

If this is in reference to Fp, you need to realize the planck units are those of scale. The Planck force is not an actual force. It simply a value of force under certain assumptions. It’s no different than saying 1 Newton is the force exerted on 1 kg that makes it accelerate at 1 m/s^2. It’s not a new category of force.

! Moderator Note The thread’s topic is not the cosmological constant. I have moved posts into that thread

! Moderator Note You need to post the information here, not via links and documents. People have to be able to participate without requiring clicking on anything.

The fine structure constant is a scalar as well, and yet it depends on other terms.

If you were to determine the cosmological constant from experiment, what formula(s) would you use?

To paraphrase an argument from elsewhere: I don’t have to explain who Hitler was, despite the dearth of Hitler statues. These symbols can exist in museums and books. They don’t have to be front-and-center in a town/city display Because too many people only read the headline and not the article

Both positions can’t be true. Either equilibrium matters, or it doesn’t. You basically did a proof by contradiction here, and showed that equilibrium doesn’t matter. Because it doesn’t really say that. “Newton's third law can be applied to examples where bodies are in equilibrium.“ is a true statement. It can be applied in that case. Note, however, that it does not say it can only be applied to equilibrium. No, that’s not what matters. “equilibrium for an instant” is not equilibrium One of the reasons. And it was because both forces act on the book, and 3rd law pairs act on different objects. It won’t “counter” anything. Reaction forces do not “counter” or “cancel” anything, in this context. The moon exerts a gravitation force on the earth, and vice-versa. This is an action-reaction force pair. Equal and opposite, same kind of force, source and target switched. There is no equilibrium, because equilibrium is not required. Such a simple example does not show up in textbook quizzes because it’s too easy of a question. Quizzes use multiple forces to make you think about the concepts, and apply your learning.

I am unaware of any connection to the cosmological constant. There are no gravitational terms in the simplified formulas

Recasting things in terms of Planck units is just a circular argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units Look at table 2. If you multiply lp and mp you get ħ/c If you look at the formula for Planck charge, you see from the formula for qp (and you square it) that 4πε0* ħ c = e^2/alpha https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permittivity Does that help? Like I said, it looks like you have roundoff error, and you've shown that 1 = 1