swansont

The part to the right of the decimal is what matters. You have to focus on that. Invert it and that’s your denominator. Call it y. Multiply by y/y 1.05 1/ 0.05 = 20 multiply the number by 20/20, and you get 21/20

What does this have to do with gravity, which does not have equal strength? It experiences an interaction, whose strength is dependent on distance

! Moderator Note You are free to rebut iNow’s post. You are not free to make baseless assertions. If it’s “nature” then you must support the claim.

At the end of the rod you will get the integrated value of M/r^2 Any scenario with the symmetry I described will give you zero. No, you will get zero at the center, and a nonzero value away from center. I expect it will be a maximum at the end of the rod, since that situation would have the most, and closest, mass contributing to the net result.

E=mc^2 is a relativistic equation, so in that sense, GR has a lot to do with particle physics. The gravitational interactions, though, are probably not. Much smaller than the other interactions present, so likely much smaller than whatever nth order Feynman diagrams you are already ignoring because the math is too gnarly.

! Moderator Note iNow raised some valid points, so yes. You seem to have acknowledged this. I don't see why you would subsequently object to the observation. ! Moderator Note Perhaps I missed it, but I don't see where the OP assumed this was widespread. The OP in fact states that it is not universal. "Why do humans do X" is not the same as "why do all/most humans do X" but it seems like the latter was assumed in some responses. In any event, please proceed without assuming this needs to be widespread.

That's part of it. A lot of invention is built on previous invention, and if some crucial part is missing, the invention won't be realized. Another is that you need to have people with time to think about such things, and a society that values it. I have no doubt they did. Maybe they even planted a few things, hoping for more next time, and returned to known food sources repeatedly. But until you can sustain a population on that food, you can't settle down. Not that short. Wild version of many foodstuffs aren't as nutritious or as easy to harvest as modern versions. Our ancestors had to recognize that they could change the traits of the foods by selecting desired traits. And then take the time to do that.

Yes. Apply Newton's law to it. Symmetry indicates that it's zero. (any dV I pick has a partner equidistant from the center and in the exact opposite direction) What's your point?

Photons are named thus to differentiate them from EM waves, and showing the particle nature of light — discrete energy bundle, localized interaction.

Thermal benefits from scaling (bigger is better) — you need a certain number of mirrors to efficiently heat your material, and then you need a way to produce electricity, which also benefits from scaling. This is why it's done at the utility scale, not the home scale. Having direct heat is only useful when it's cold. So only a few months of the year in some places.

! Moderator Note A question has been asked, based on a behavior that has been observed. And nobody has answered it. Why does the described behavior occur? Does anyone have any insight into the source/cause of such behavior? We've established that it might very well be learned behavior rather than genetic/instinct. But that's about it. Please focus on answering the question.

! Moderator Note OK, then. Ignore moderators at your own risk. Closed

That scenario implies there isn’t time to stop, so iNow’s point is important. There’s no assurance a human makes the proper split-second decision about which direction to swerve.

Also: if the earth were rotating, clock rates would vary with latitude on the surface, at the same elevation. It’s because of the deformation that they don’t

! Moderator Note Moved to other sciences, as this is science related (not appropriate fir the Lounge)

And what would be the point of doing that? Cybernetics "is the scientific study of how humans, animals and machines control and communicate with each other." and people normalizing to different units is the opposite of good communication. ! Moderator Note Attitude and consciousness are not math. When I said "get to it already" I meant for you to lay out your idea. Not in bits and pieces, bringing in new topics as you go. If it's that big, give us an abstract/summary/outline.

If all celestial bodies were perfectly spherical, then relativity would be wrong. They deform because of their rotation, which is Newtonian physics. They would have to be perfectly rigid to remain spheres, but relativity forbids perfectly rigid materials We would have no need of an incorrect theory.

! Moderator Note Just in case, a reminder that the sandbox is for testing posts, and responses are not expected here.

! Moderator Note Get to it already.

Seconded. people in this thread have provided references and physical justifications. All you have given us is "Nuh uh"

It flat-out tells you it's carried off as an EM wave.

If those equations aren’t right, a lot of spectroscopy falls apart.

Electrons placed in a very low-energy cyclotron (often a Penning trap), and measuring the energy (frequency) it takes to excite transitions (spin flips or cyclotron states) Look for papers by Gerald Gabrielse on the subject, for electrons. edit: here's a paper on the proton measurement https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/14/6/063011/meta

We don't know. It doesn't interact electromagnetically, hence the name "dark" but we have no way of directly measuring it, so we don't know details. We know something is there because of the gravitational effect it has, and hypothesizing matter is the only way we've found to explain what we observe — efforts to explain this by modifying how gravity behaves fail to work when applied to all observations. So dark matter is a placeholder name for something we haven't fully figured out yet.

If you are unwilling to calculate the effect, you aren’t doing science. There’s no conversation to be had without quantifying this.