swansont

GR reduces to Newtonian gravity in the weak field limit, and that’s attractive, so...yes.

If you have a lot if experience you know what we want: a model, predictions, evidence. Not tap-dancing. Not games.

Gravity would change the energy of the photon. That would show up as a difference in phase. If you rotated from vertical to horizontal you would expect a fringe shift.

The force depends on the mass and cross-section of the drop. It’s not uniform. If it’s barely overcoming gravity, it will move very slowly at first. Not at air speed. A claim you have not demonstrated

Why is this speculation?

You agree we can’t believe the numbers, and then base your argument on believing the numbers.

Are the numbers reliable? From your first link

Equilibrium is irrelevant. All equilibrium (something at rest in its own frame) tells you is that there isn’t a net force on an object, or pair of objects, which says nothing about action-reaction. All it tells you, as J. C. has implied, is that the number of forces acting on an object is not one.

Which is not something that should be tolerated with police. 1. The view that they are "scum" should not be tolerated. Everyone is supposed to be equal under the law, and innocent until proven guilty. Everyone has rights. 2. It is not the job of the police to mete out punishment. They are not the judge and jury. 3. He was handcuffed, which should severely limit the use of physical force against him. Some of the destruction has been initiated by people hijacking the protests and inciting violence. A person was just arrested for setting for to the Nashville courthouse. He's white. Others have been caught on film. Most of those arrested in Minneapolis were from out of town. Law enforcement has seen messages on white supremacist sites encouraging members to go and stir up trouble at the protests. On top of all that, the police are inciting violence, too, instead of de-escalating. If people got as riled up about violence by the police as they do about property destruction, this would be far less of an issue.

If I pull out a ping-pong ball and drop it it’s going to fall. There is some size object where the airflow will be enough to support a small sphere of some mass. But without an analysis, you don’t know if a droplet with a virus goes up, goes down, or - possibly the worst possible outcome - is merely suspended because the force of the airflow is balanced by that of gravity. It seems apparent that you can’t do it. You should be asking questions rather than making assertions if you aren’t basing your assertions on anything. Take care you don’t leave yourself open to false advertising lawsuits.

In addition to your lack of air flow analysis, you haven’t shown how quickly the virus, much more massive than air molecules, would get up to speed.

Not a good start. Solar and wind are cheaper. That article doesn’t say that energy consumption is being slashed. (you have a bad link, BTW) https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190712151926.htm It won’t rise if they install green energy. And that last part is easier, now that wind and solar are cheaper sources of electricity. One problem here is that you are basing your “argument” on old data. What was true in the 1980s is not necessarily true today

Present evidence that this is happening, or it’s a reasonable expectation. You claimed they were “completely ignoring possible benefits” and I debunked that. If they feel that the negatives outweigh the positives, how can you be sure this isn’t a conclusion? How about presenting evidence, instead of moving the goalposts. Disparagement and assertion. No science. A pity you won’t apply your education here. How much warmer is it up in those mountains?

The last straw? For some, perhaps. But I am reminded of the tweet from Dan Hodges regarding Sandy Hook “In retrospect,” wrote Hodges, “Sandy Hook marked the end of the U.S. gun-control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over.” (from https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article33250299.html) I think the same sentiment applies here. Previous incidents, almost too numerous to mention, should have been the last straw — and weren't. Too many have decided this is tolerable, or ignorable. IOW, I wouldn't hold my breath hoping that this one incident swings the pendulum very far. People who have tolerated this kind of violence over time aren't going to be swayed. They are more incensed by Colin Kaepernick taking a knee. Pointing out the racial injustice hurts them more than the injustice. What I think is more likely is that reform comes if we vote the people who have supported or tolerated this kind of behavior out of office, but they will be voted out for other reasons as well. If that happens, this will be part of it, but nowhere close to the whole of it. edit to add: one difference here is Trump stepping in, owing to the protests. His anti-Midas touch might amplify things.

And you also used the term effective mass. I was issuing a caution that, for example, if one says "mass" it usually means rest mass, unless one is being sloppy. IOW there are plenty of posts here and web pages elsewhere, where people insist that photons have mass, because they aren't making a very necessary distinction.

https://neutrinos.fnal.gov/mysteries/handedness/

The short answer is: Theory says this, and experiment confirms the theory is correct. Either/both aspects of this can be discussed, but it's best if you already have familiarity with the subject. But can fermions have a left- or right-handed nature. In the standard model, neutrinos are left-handed. One must be careful. Mass generally refers to rest mass or invariant mass. To say that photons have mass requires one to use a different definition of mass (e.g. effective mass, or relativistic mass). When one does not pay close attention to the details, it can cause confusion.

This isn't an analysis, it's a hand-wave. You're making an assertion that isn't backed up by any analysis, and yet, this is a science site. It's not unreasonable to expect that this be backed up by some science and/or engineering. It also assumes you have a room where you can put that amount of vent area in the ceiling. You want a certain result, but have done little to show if such a result is feasible. You haven 't even done something simple, like showing that a 10' x 10' room with air moving at 2 mph / 3' per second in the middle means the air must be moving up to 12 mph at the vent (since it has to be moving ~6x faster if there's no change in pressure) and that this is moving 18,000 cfm through a single room. What kind of system handles that? What kind of pressure do you need in the ducts to get that kind of airflow? IOW, you can't just say "lets move the air in the room at 2 mph" and ignore all of the ramifications and system requirements, like you have a magic wand to make these other problems go away.

If you mean any given human can survive, then the statement is trivially false, as we have already observed that humans die when it gets hotter, and areas of the globe would be uninhabitable. If you mean humans as a species, and that's all that matters, then this is an argument not in good faith, since nobody is arguing extinction of the species will be the result, or that the impact is limited to humans. If they conclude that the temperature will go up by XºC over some span of time, under some set of conditions, that is neither an affirmative nor pessimistic bias. And, as scientists have discussed positive impacts, your argument to the contrary is moot. e.g. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/are-there-positive-benefits-global-warming Why would you expect anyone to take this "argument" seriously? Because land is evenly distributed on the globe? And arable land is all that matters?

Can/will you answer my question? And make no mistake, if you are proposing this mechanism, you are replacing GR.

Gravity isn’t the only effect of GR. How does an “index” give rise to e.g. frame dragging? Or other effects of GR?

Yes. The atoms in an atomic clock, for example, explicitly experience the effect. It’s not specifically the gravitational force that results in time dilation, it’s the potential - the position in the gravitational field. So a constant g would still result in time dilation for different vertical positions. If your slits were spaced vertically, there would be an effect. Or if you tossed atoms in a superposition, where the two states would go to different heights. Mark Kasevich has done such experiments with his 10m tower.

Waves are localized? I never claimed it was “opposite” It’s a wave test, to be sure. Classical particles do not interfere. Photons undergo interactions with only one atom, even though its wavelength is much larger than the atom, and other atoms are around. That’s not how waves behave.

Send a particle through a double slit, and it will interfere. Through a single slit it will diffract.

Many have mass, sure, but quantized energy and localized interaction do not require mass. Photons exhibit these behaviors as well.