swansont

You might be better served learning the established physics rather than postulating new ideas. The "twist" of the magnetic field follows certain rules, which you can write down as integrals or differential equations. You need to be familiar with these (Maxwell's equations) in order to apply them.

Didn't mean to imply that, sorry. The point though is that you can argue it's one or the other, but they are both impeachable behaviors, so in that sense it doesn't matter which one it was. I think the implication is that the summary that was put on the classified system was more complete, and the ellipses in the released summary represent omissions from the original document. Implying that there is even more damning evidence in the original document. Wait. Phone providers record all conversations? I surely hope not. But there were probably a crap-ton of government spooks from many countries listening in. I don't know that any of them would want to own up to that fact and provide a transcript, though. It's also possible that Ukraine has a transcript of the call. There were calls made on unsecured phones (the followup call brought up in this week's testimony, for example), but I'm not sure this was one of them. You are trying to apply normal logic, and that's not gonna work. If Trump were truly innocent, one might expect an attitude of "bring it on!" and release of all relevant material. But what we have here is mob mentality: "You ain't go nuthin'!" shouted above the din of industrial shredders.

John is correct. And they only way to trash an idea is to test it, which requires a model, or some set of specific predictions. I'm wondering how you get a pressure gradient from un-reactive entities. Or is the medium something else, that has whipped up out of thin air? Are we moving with respect to this medium, or at rest? How would one be able to tell?

It's not like one is OK and the other not. The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 requires that the president inform congress if they are going to defer payment of appropriated funds. AFAIK, nobody has produced a copy of this message The ICA requires that the President send a special message to Congress identifying the amount of the proposed deferral; the reasons for it; and the period of the proposed deferral. Upon transmission of such special message, the funds may be deferred without further action by Congress; however, the deferral cannot extend beyond the end of the fiscal year in which the special message is sent. The ICA language on deferrals is long-standing budget law that allows the Executive branch to delay the obligation or expenditure of funding only for the specified reasons rather than policy reasons. https://budget.house.gov/publications/report/impoundment-control-act-1974-what-it-why-does-it-matter

That's an excellent point.

It doesn't have to be a crime to be impeachable. A sentiment I heard/read recently was that it's not reasonable to take the time and effort to come up with a code of laws that specifically apply to the president*; the president is (potentially) able to do things that nobody else can do — such as try to extort another head of state in the way the Trump has apparently done. There are lots of rules the president has to follow, but they aren't necessarily criminal laws that could be broken, and may have no punishment attached to them — because impeachment exists. *and the danger of trying is that you forget something or leave a loophole, and that's probably not a road you want to go down.

No, I disagree. If you do this, you have to invent a new notion of time, and you need new physics to go along with it. What is the reference for this happening? I don't. I think if you expect different answers you need a different model. What I am not getting is why you think there is a different interpretation to be had here. Yeah, actually it does say it's a curved four-dimensional spacetime, and not a physical distortion of a device (see the equivalence principle). And if you think it's a physical effect you would need to explain kinematic dilation. The burden of proof here is yours.

You misspelled "GR is a well-tested (and the only workable) theory about what clocks and rulers measure. And no, it's not a matter of interpretation — that's what the theory says. If you have some other hypothesis, you are free to make a model and gather experimental evidence in support of it.

As Strange notes, it's the "US New England driving directions" problem of "you can't get there from here" because of all the steps that prevent collapse. You could, in principle, have a primordial black hole that grows in size to have the mass of the sun

! Moderator Note I've moved this to speculations. You need to post some science — a model to be tested, predictions, or evidence in support of a conjecture. Of course, there would need to be a conjecture, too. This is a discussion board. "I've discovered X" along with a few pictures is something that can go on your blog.

It follows from knowing what those laws are, i.e. there is experimental data which requires it. But it does not follow from just that basic requirement. We had theories with an aether and potentially a variable speed of light, but the physics equations didn't necessarily have to be different in different frames. These are experimental results that tell us the rules in our universe. The postulate for relativity has to be applied before you know the form of any of the laws, or values of any constants. edit: We don't, for example, have any requirement that the speed of sound be an invariant. One might wonder why that is, if the laws of physics having to be the same in all frames has some implications on wave propagation speed.

No, power does not take that into account. It's a rate. Total energy takes both power and time into account. Efficiency is usually a ratio of useful outcome compared to the total effort, e.g. useful energy/total energy, but that assumes the same job is being done, and that's not true here. I might have a laser that's 50% efficient, in that half of the power used is emitted as light, but if the power output is 1 mW and I need 100 mW (and you can't combine systems), then the efficiency number is meaningless. As of now that looks doubtful in the foreseeable future. The main objection is that they aren't scalable. You can't put together an arbitrarily large number of qbits.

Constant means the same in one reference frame. Invariant means the same in all reference frames. Energy, for example, is conserved — pick a frame and the value will not change. But it is not invariant — it can have a different value in another frame. (KE being an obvious example of this) The rule that energy is conserved is the same, even though the value doesn't have to be. Constancy/conservation does not imply invariance.

How is that an alternative? What problems does it actually fix? And also explain how problems it introduces would be minor, such that it represents an improvement.

It's not expanding into anything. The universe is all there is. edit: https://www.universetoday.com/1455/podcast-what-is-the-universe-expanding-into/

R = 2GM/c2

c could be be a constant but not invariant and that would fit within "the laws of physics work the same in any inertial frame." It would just have to be different laws. Those laws may have to have a dependence on your absolute speed.

If relativity effects are small, you can ignore them. The theory breaks down when you can’t.

How are you defining efficiency? Power or energy? If quantum computing is developed and applied to the problems it’s designed for, it’s sort of an apples vs oranges comparison. The quantum computer can solve problems a traditional computer can’t (in a reasonable time) so it must be more efficient. IOW, if your traditional computer will take ~3 years to solve a problem a quantum computer can solve in a few hours, the QC can draw 1000x more power and still be more efficient, since it still takes ~1/10 the energy (1/10 of a day vs ~1000 days). If the TC simply can’t solve the problem, then an infinite supply of energy can be wasted.

As Sensei points out, terminal velocity means that the height doesn’t matter once you’re high enough to reach it. IIRC an airman survived a fall from many thousand feet in WWII. No parachute, plane on fire. Hit tall pine trees and deep snow. (pause to search) #3 on this list https://www.oddee.com/item_96967.aspx

It’s the basis for time dilation and length contraction. It does need to be separately applied to solve the problems, true, but that’s true of lots of models. What if no field is involved? But it’s not a function of field strength. It’s there for weak fields, and for particles that aren’t unstable. And they aren’t “just so” as they can be derived from the basic principles.

What is the point of doing the integral over only part of the spatial extent?

It was not clear to me that this is what you meant by uniform. As you note, it’s not physical. In that case, yes, the melt would happen all at once. But there would be no situation where you had a water-ice mixture, so it doesn’t seem relevant

That's a misapplication of the theory. Your link seems to assume a little bit of background, but even so it refers to "the mixture" which implies a system which is fairly homogeneous (the contents as well as the heat source or sink). A situation like a single chunk of ice in a swimming pool doesn't qualify. One of the more dangerous things in science is applying a model while ignoring the assumptions that went into deriving it. It's how we get nonsense like "according to physics, bumblebees can't fly" or the confusion you have shown here. Localized application of heat would violate the notion of a homogeneous system. The interior of the ice could remain colder. Melting only happens at the surface.

And how do you know I mean it in another way? The object acted in a way that was unusual. In particular, the way it was lit (this was before dawn), and to some extent how it moved (I couldn't tell how far away it was, because I didn't know how big it was). But, it being the Washington DC area and it was along a commuting route, I knew I wouldn't be the only one seeing it. The local news tracked it down; I imagine they had gotten calls. OK, so you want to use the word in a way that's unlike anyone else. Kinda defeats the purpose of language, though.