swansont

Citations needed.

Highly elliptical paths will radiate more strongly when the acceleration and speeds are larger. A close pass by a large mass (black hole) will radiate a much larger fraction of an objects energy than something in e.g. an earth-like orbit.

There is a mechanism of gravitational radiation, which will arise from certain accelerations, so over a very long time you can dissipate some energy. Because that should be proportional to the acceleration experienced, I think that might tend to circularize orbits, which would lend itself to halo-like formations.

Even more generally, any dissipative process. Wind resistance being another example. Inelastic scattering, too.

The blackbody process does not depend on electrons being excited; that will give a discrete spectrum, and studiot has already pointed out that excitations are responsible for the absorption lines.

That latest one embeds automatically for me. Try a different browser, perhaps? Different computer, if possible?

There are plenty of smart people who can't science their way out of a paper bag. A briefing is a veneer. It does not convey they depth of the information required to understand it, and you aren't going to learn the subtleties of topics in physics in an hour. (We have many, many examples of this here on this very site) At the end of it you are trying to repeat something you perhaps could memorize, but that approach fails if you are trying to paraphrase since the understanding of the concepts just isn't there. And all of that assumes it isn't someone who just makes stuff up out of the convenience of having a good narrative.

And it would probably be satellite, so at least triple that distance (for a geostationary comms satellite), or fiber optics for most of the path, in which case the transmission speed is more like 200,000 km/s.

It takes 13 minutes for the photons from the light you turned on to arrive on earth. That light isn’t “already there” What you see in the telescope is indeed the view of the craft from 13 minutes ago.

What else is there? No, you have constrained its motion to the x-axis. If it were freely rotating then the system would simply rotate at some angular speed, end of story.

! Moderator Note No, it is a violation of our rules on advertising. You don't have to be selling a product for it to be a violation.

This one embeds just fine for me, if you use the direct youtube link (click on the "watch on youtube" icon and use that address. Not the embedded link — that gives me a "no video at that link" error) If you still have trouble, you may have browser settings that are in conflict with embedding it

These don't all seem to be on the same topic. That makes it difficult to discuss. The Rev Mod Sci article claiming macroscopic-scale superposition of position states hasn't been observed is wrong (it has), and I don't see anything supernatural about the abstract. Anything combining consciousness and QM is likely crackpot material, and probably not published in a reputable physics journal.

If dark matter has difficulty in shedding angular momentum, there won't be much around to be near the BH. Highly elliptical orbits have minimal angular momentum (L = r x p); maximum angular momentum is a circular orbit (for a given energy).

The torque is internal to the system, exerted by the rod. Since it's internal, you can treat angular momentum as constant. You don't need to know the details of the torque the rod exerts, since it will exert an equal and opposite torque on the other mass. (similar to not needing to know the force of impact in a collision in order to apply conservation of linear momentum)

Don't post discussion of the video here. Start a new thread in the appropriate subforum.

If there is another mass internal to the system, it can gain the angular momentum the other mass has lost. m1 and m2 will have energy. The sum must be constant, not the individual values. No external torque is necessary.

Good point. I copy-pasted the link directly from youtube, and it embedded automatically.

Why is a torque necessary? It will come from m1, whose speed will change.

It should embed automatically, as with the above video (assuming the linked site allows embedding). You should see a dialog box that says you can make it display as a link. Clicking in the wrong place will make it default to the link. Try pasting the linking and waiting a few seconds to see if that happens

It's not "extra" motion. Under the conditions you described, that may not be possible, and it's a difficulty if you have a set-up that isn't physically possible. There is no way for the mass to have a y component of velocity when the rod is aligned with the y axis. The only way to acquire one is if the pivot is in motion at the beginning, but that's not physically realizable, since any force on it will result in infinite acceleration. You have to get away from a description of forces causing the initial motion. IOW, there are constraints on your setup, and you can be proposing something physically impossible when you make statements about the motion that are not the result of analysis.

If there's no vent the area above will decrease in pressure and will end up at vacuum (or close, as there will be some trace water vapor), assuming air can't come in the nozzle

Uncharged composite fermions such as neutrons and atoms will interact electromagnetically.

Something falling into a black hole will have the time "stop" as far as a distant observer is concerned, but that's only according to the distant observer. What does "nothing changes dimensionally" mean?

Via what interaction? Pretty sure it is, for fermions that can interact that way. A common method in fermi gas experiments is tuning the scattering length (a measure of the interaction strength) via an external magnetic field.