swansont

Yes, the kinetic energy is relative, as is a photon’s energy. What quantity is infinite? No, it depends on the speed of the frame in which you do the measurement, relative to the source of the photon. No. Photons are indistinguishable from antiphotons. They aren’t. Different spin, and neutrinos have mass. You may be better off limiting your scope, since much of it is wrong, and you need to provide evidence of your claims.

No, it was a good choice. No, since the units don’t work, I have no worry whatsoever. Why should Markus have to derive in equation? It’s not his thread. It’s yours, and you refuse to provide the derivation of your equation. You shouldn’t waste it posturing, then.

That’s not related to a model of the universe

Some are even smaller. Cubesat is one type, falling under the informal “picosatellite ” category of small satellites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CubeSat (edit: xpost with Ghideon) More info on the groups: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_satellite#Classification_groups

It’s not a model for the size of the universe, either. It’s an unanswered question (in your mind, at least) about some phenomenon. And not having an answer does not support a particular hypothesis. Then, at best, it calls into question one particular model (which happens to have loads of evidence supporting it). But being unanswered does not support some other model. Which you don’t seem to have presented. Has the notion that you might just not understand some aspect of science occurred to you? That your lack of understanding does not invalidate that aspect of science?

Yes, that means they will float. But the downflow of water exerts a force as it strikes the beads, so initially the buoyancy can’t overcome this. But the flow rate near the beads decreases after the top fills up, so this force decreases, and then the beads can float upwards.

Yeah, stop doing that. This is not a model of the nature of light. This is known as dodging the question, and if you continue you will find the discussions closed.

There are people that study things like this. One bottleneck is political, in that the science needs to be funded, and that means the people who control the funding have to consider the science to be important. ”This will help us communicate with aliens” is probably a good pitch to a few who would otherwise be prone to rejecting such funding.

Bartholomew Jones has declared he doesn’t need us, and the mods have decided to take him at his word.

But you’re a published cosmologist. Surely you can be more precise in your language, rather than relying on how non-scientists describe things. Does fall mean the change in y as x changes, in a Cartesian system, or does fall mean a change in r, in a spherical coordinate system. Absolutely none of what’s been discussed is related to QM.

You haven’t made any connection between these items and an aether.

Define “fall” It’s an imprecise term, which can be interpreted differently depending on your coordinate system.

The Oort cloud is much further than 60 light seconds. The only body of non-trivial size inside that radius is the moon.

What other aspect? There are only two velocity components. Your thread title asks for one of them, which is the azimuthal component.

One objection (of many) to this model is what happens to this photon energy is unexplained. Energy is conserved, so the aether has to absorb that energy, and you need to explain what happens when the aether heats up.

IOW, the speed in an elliptical orbit isn’t constant. But the energy is. So you can find the speed at any point in the orbit if you know r, since v^2/2 - GM/r is constant. From that, you can deduce the radial and azimuthal components, as I stated earlier.

It’s going to be a problem for both proposals because mirrors do not have 100% reflectivity, not because of any aether. Why does the redshift magically appear at 60 seconds? Are there equations that govern the behavior? If light disappears after 60 light-seconds, why can we see stars more than 60 light-seconds away?

The earth would not fall into orbit under these conditions. You have KE + PE > 0, which means you can’t form a bound system. “acceleration is manifesting as part of the overall velocity” makes no sense Round it to two significant digits, and what answer do you get?

Yes. There was a sentence that followed the quoted one that was pertinent to the concept, as each sentence separately referred to orthogonal velocity components. It should. If you know (or can calculate) orbital speed, breaking it down into the radial and azimuthal components should be straightforward. It should be child’s play for a cosmologist, since cosmologists should know basic physics and math. And if by “sideways velocity” you mean the azimuthal component (it’s not 100% clear - is “sideways velocity” the standard jargon?) then that’s trivially found from the centripetal acceleration equation.

Actually yes it is.

This suggests that generators are ~0.001% efficient, which is ridiculous.

I'm not overly impressed by those answers (and others I checked for a different question) These look to be answers to non-science students, where they avoid using any actual physics. That would be true if the orbit were a perfect circle, but it's not. So there is a radial velocity component. In a circular orbit the velocity toward the sun is zero; that will give you the azimuthal component from a = v^2/r For the overall speed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_speed You can get the radial value from the fact that the orbital energy is constant. Maybe that's because of people publishing in vanity press who say they are published (Journal of Cosmology, for instance) as if their work has been scrutinized like people who do it for a living.

! Moderator Note You misunderstand the nature of this exchange. I'm telling you to follow the rules. This is not a negotiation. You don't get to say "no" if you wish to remain.

Instead of telling us what it isn't, how about a model of what it is? So we have some semblance of science. M-M did not assume it was the flow of the aether. They assumed the aether was at rest, and we moved through it. What evidence supports tired light? Your link explains how the hypothesis is contradicted by the evidence.

If the aether affects light, you should be able to measure an effect. If you can’t measure it, the effect has to be small. So why is this hard to detect? If light doesn’t persist for a long time, that sounds like a very strong effect. As MigL points out, it has to be a stiff medium to have a large propagation speed. So we’re moving through it. Why didn’t the Michelson-Morley experiment detect this motion?