swansont

What is the context, and why is this speculation?

The time differences for such observers has no material effect on their play. Much, much, much smaller than biological response/reflex times. You need a better example, and you need to quantify the effects.

Your own link disagrees with this claim ! Moderator Note We require evidence and/or a model. Not unsupported conjecture. This falls far, far short of the required level of rigor needed.

I don't know if he, specifically, has made that suggestion, but others in his administration have strongly suggested it was engineered by China, and Eric T. made the statement that it will magically disappear (echoing his dad) in November, after the election, because it's a conspiracy to keep his dad from holding rallies. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/coronavirus-will-magically-disappear-by-november-eric-trump-says-2020-05-17?siteid=yhoof2&yptr=yahoo

Two clocks in relative motion will have symmetric time dilation values, based only on their relative speed. One clock has a different mass than the other, so they do not have the same momentum. It has to be a separate effect.

That's not enough. This is physics; we quantify things. Is the amount of dilation from the momentum equal to the amount you'd get from gravitation? (AFAICT the answer is trivially no, BTW)

Link?

Any developments on that in the subsequent 5+ years?

You can see that the naive calculation and the approximation I used give answers differing by only about a part in 50. Further refinements should yield difference of that order, or smaller (unless there's something that has been missed entirely)

Why does that matter? Most of them are very short-lived, so we could not use them anyway. But I think we do well with the neutrons, protons and electrons that persist. Because it's not a mechanical effect, i.e. it's not a force or interaction. However, it is an easily-derived consequence of c being invariant. It's not like relativity was fabricated from nothing. Models work if they match experimental results, and allow us to predict results before we do the experiment. Models describe behavior, not truth/reality. e.g. a phonon does not need to physically exist for it to be useful in describing nature. Don't make the mistake or reifying what is used in models as an argument against the model. The ultimate question is whether or not your (or anybody's) model matches what nature does. For the ones you have described that comprise mainstream physics, the answer is "yes, the model matches experiment"

The atmosphere ends at 400m? I don't think so. I think they can still breathe in Mexico city, altitude 2240m (or the reason they can't is pollution, rather than lack of atmosphere) "The mean height of land above sea level is about 797 m" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth So you could take the pressure at 800m, weight it by 1/3 and use the pressure for that area, and use the sea level pressure for the other 2/3. _____ Sea level pressure 101325 Pa (at 15ºC) Pressure at 800 m 92100 Pa https://www.mide.com/air-pressure-at-altitude-calculator Earth surface area 5.1 x 10^14 m^2 https://www.universetoday.com/25756/surface-area-of-the-earth/ Naive calculation (sea level P * area) is 5.2 x 10^19 N (divide by 9.8 to get 5.3 x 10^18 kg) Weighted calc 1.566 x 10^19 N + 3.445 x 10^19 N = 5.0 x 10^19 N (1.1 x 10^19 lbs or 5.6 x 10^15 US tons) Divide by 9.8 and you get 5.1 x 10^18 kg

I had not thought the number given was exact, and they don't show a calculation, so it's hard to say where a discrepancy would come in. I imagine the non-spherical nature of the earth (elevations, as you point out, and deformations) would play a role if one were to try to model this with sufficient precision.

You need to consult a medical expert.

They’re only different by ~10%

So the comparison is moot. That’s why we were discussing mass.

That’s for you to show.

McCorvey’s autobiography, I Am Roe, was released in 1994.

How is that heavier than the earth? Can you explain your reasoning?

Everything is actually a wave, with certain discrete behaviors when we observe them.

! Moderator Note This is just variations on a theme that you have been warned is nonsense. Stop spamming us with it.

At the end of the day, you have to conserve energy and define your system. Focusing on whether the work is positive or negative without that context is, IMO, a problem, because you are memorizing a convention without learning the context to properly apply it. IOW, there is a reason why one would define it as positive or negative, in the context of writing down an energy balance. For example, if you have a constant net force acting on an object through some distance x (along a straight line) the work is W = Fx and we also know that W = ∆KE But we could rearrange that second equation so that ∆KE - W = 0 And if for some reason we defined the work to be negative then ∆KE + W = 0. That would require that we define the work to be W = -Fx, because we have to be consistent. You could ask why you'd define it to be negative, and the answer would be in some other equation that you want to write a certain way. And the reason for that might be arbitrary.

But, as I pointed out, that answer is unreasonable, which should tell you that you are using the antiquated/wrong value.

If the electron is in an atom, then there are transitions that can be interrogated, and owing to this energy difference, might be quite distinct from each other. In Hydrogen, for example, the ground states are 1.4 GHz apart. If you know the atom is in one of the ground states, and interrogate one transition (representing one spin state) and it's not there, you know it's in the other state.

Because they're chemists. Whaddaya gonna do?

In a magnetic field, the two spin states have different energy (this is the case in most atoms). A null result from one state means it must be in the other.