swansont

Why is this relevant? It doesn’t need to be a crime. Then it’s attempted murder, along with other possible crimes Because it’s not a legal issue. It’s a constitutional one. Does that standard apply to investigating Trump? Because the administration is sure complaining a lot about that investigation.

It's rather more than that. Gravitational waves are not emitted under all circumstances where you have a gravitational source. It's a stretching and contraction of spacetime, as Strange has already noted.

Evidence that the earth was round precedes Columbus by quite a margin. He didn't have to speculate.

You did not provide enough information for an answer, and this is not my area of physics. If you had asked about the effect of 3 GHz EM radiation on food I would be able to do a lot better, but it's still going to require that you tell me the duration and power of your microwave oven (i.e. amplitude), because running it at 1 W for 1 sec is not going to noticeably heat up your pizza

At the quantum level you don't have trajectories, and I don't think you can say that t = 1/g No idea, though I strongly suspect it also depends on the amplitude. I will say that a 30 GHz wave will have a wavelength of 1 cm, so this would be a more localized effect than what we've been observing.

It's the behavior under particle exchange. Particles with symmetric wave functions behave differently than those with antisymmetric wave functions. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pauli.html

iNow is one of the people who regularly cites the bit about using reason. One of the things we've learned is that it's often not a knowledge deficit. In those cases it's not that people don't have access to information, it's that they don't care about it. It's one reason why attacking the messenger is effective — who cares if Al Gore says the world is warming? He's fat and flies in a plane, so you don't have to listen to him. Or just lie: besides, he wants to take your car away. It appeals to emotion, not rational thought. It's an effort to ensure that the facts don't matter. They are using marketing, and it's quite effective with their target audience.

I think there are certain parallels between people believing in conspiracy and religious belief (religion being, from a certain point of view, the ultimate conspiracy) As folks have pointed out from time to time, when people do not use reason to arrive at a position, you will not be able to use reason to talk them out if it. Studies have shown that presenting such people with contrary evidence only tends to harden their resolve.

A light wave can be any size, so this doesn't really mean anything. But if you're going to tackle physics problems, you should be able to answer what the orbital period/frequency is for a system of a given size

Not sure why you say “no such thing” Gravity would oscillate in a region of space near any pair of bodies that are orbiting each other. 50 GHz would be unreasonable, however.

This being science, and not a government entity, your rights pertaining to speech or religion aren’t relevant. I prefer actual QM to supposition

Let me give an analogy: This is like saying you need a constant dollar from someone. It doesn't mean anything. Is that a dollar every day? Every hour? Does it mean that you need this on multiple occasions, and the important thing is that you get a dollar every time? (Your subsequent posts imply that this might be the case) That's not how microwave ovens heat things.

An exothermic reaction releases energy, so how can the products' energy be lower than the reactants'? (or is this a terminology issue and that's how things are defined, for reasons which escape me)

It might help to think about it as this: consider that terms in Newtonian gravity to be gravitational "charge" much like we have electric charge — it's the relevant property to the force. Fg = GAa/r^2 where A and a are the gravitational "charges" of the two objects — the quantity of whatever property that makes them attract each other There is no a priori reason that this charge has to be mass, and we could have a situation as we do with a proton and a positron in a uniform electric field. Both feel the same force, but they accelerate at different rates because F = ma and they have a different mass. But what we observe is that gravitational "charge" is the inertial mass. Further, we see that it doesn't depend on the composition of that mass. A mass of iron and a mass of hydrogen will behave the same, gravitationally. Basically mass is mass — brand name and generic are the same thing. ! Moderator Note (Several posts, including this one, have been moved from the "mass without object" discussion as it's really this gravitational mass discussion)

! Moderator Note Forum rules require that the discussion take place here (not via links) and that you need a model and/or evidence/predictions to support your position. You were told this last time you brought this up. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/88572-new-theory-of-gravity-dynamic-gravity/ You were told to not re-introduce the topic. And you still have no math.

Yes, good example. And that was according to protocol — you have a successful theory, and the first option when you have a piece that doesn't fit is to see if there is something at work which fits within the theory. Which is why we are searching for dark matter. I'm not sure how seriously a suggestion that energy conservation was violated was taken, but as we see today with alternative theories for dark matter, like MOND, you will find a wide spectrum of (sometimes fanciful) alternatives show up. We say it with the "superluminal" neutron issue from Gran Sasso a few years back. A lot of tachyon talk popped up. The big picture, though, is that people invariably look at multiple solutions, even if some are somewhat outlandish and get debunked pretty strenuously. (Thinking of the "science is dogma" nonsense that popped up recently)

You could go with something involving polarized light, and the protagonist is wearing sunglasses (that typically have polarization filters in them) but others are not. Probably works better in daylight, though.

The trouble with trying to simplify the statement like this is that without the context, it's just not correct. Mordred is quite correct in saying that they are two distinct definitions, as they are separate properties. When you say 'energy has mass' it suggests that energy is a 'thing' and not a property. You are implying something that is not true, and that usually leads to invalid conclusions.

It is sufficient to demonstrate that the theory fails, but as iNow points out, it may be that the theory only fails under certain circumstances, in which case it would still be useful where valid. Ohm's law, for example, does not apply to all devices, but we still use it where it applies. Phlogiston, on the other hand, was completely discarded, as were many early models of the atom, even though there were no valid replacements until QM came along.

You need to explain what you mean by "a constant 12 MeV" because that makes no sense. Over what interval do you need this? Is it 12 MeV per second?

Yes, a higher energy content means more mass. And it has been experimentally confirmed; an excited nuclear state of an iron isotope was measured to have a greater mass than the ground state.

If the criterion is only seen at night, the switch (a tile that you push, for example) can light up because of an optical sensor that senses it's dark out. Much like how streetlights turn on. If you insist on being UV sensitive, as StringJinky says, there are UV paints, and there are other materials that fluoresce. There are a number of minerals that fluoresce under UV but some look quite ordinary under visible light https://geology.com/articles/fluorescent-minerals/

I disagree with the characterization of "entrenchment" when we're talking about objectivity.

We're talking about gravitational fields. Other kinds of fields would not contribute.

Who said that, and where? I see only two responses to that post (quoting the link), and neither discounts the source the way you claim. One notes that none of the objections that are cited are valid. i.e. it attacks the (lack of) content in the piece. No, it's not all subjective. Most of it is not. Underlying it all are facts, and one can expect that any purported factual claims can be supported. I think you have some work to do, learning the difference between opinion and fact. One of the other big problems in these discussion is people having this confusion, and asserting opinion as fact.