swansont

Acceleration is a behavior and mass is a property, so the former statement is saying there is a behavior which is not dependent on the property. Charge is another property, so the latter claim is that these two properties have some relation, but that relation does not actually exist, and the statements are not similar. The statement isn't even true. I can pick a bunch of different particles with different masses and with different charge. (e.g. a neutron, a proton and an electron)

Is gravity really "negative energy"? No. Gravity is a somewhat nebulous term here. It's an interaction. It's spacetime curvature. Is gravitational potential energy negative? Yes, by convention. But not AFAIK by anything dictated by nature. The gravitational PE is given by -GMm/r which goes to zero when r becomes infinitely large. So it's very convenient to use this convention. But there is an additive constant, which is assumed to be zero. And everything still works if it has some other value, but that makes the math harder to do. Since it doesn't matter, we use zero.

! Moderator Note Your short story format is not consistent with our requirements for rigor. We need math, i.e. a model, and a discussion of how that model can be tested and/or how it fits with existing evidence. If you can do that, you may start a new thread in speculations.

The geometry of the ISS, and the need to keep all of the solar panels facing the sun.

The ISS has solar panels which preclude that alignment.

Speaking of the hydrogen 21 cm line: I suspect that if there was an absolute velocity then a hydrogen maser would undergo a frequency shift if the maser was in motion relative to the absolute frame. And Cs beam clocks would see a frequency shift for different orientations of their beam (and Rb fountain clocks as well)

It's different by the factor of 3/5, but more importantly, the equation you cite is for a spherical mass, not two already-assembled masses. So that difference is irrelevant. But the OP is also ignoring kinetic energy, i.e. the masses are not orbiting, and further, are somehow shedding their KE as r decreases. But those are minor differences The OP is simply taking Newton's equation for potential energy and dividing by c^2. The Schwarzschild radius is 2 GM/c^2. The OP's critical radius for two objects of equal mass is half of that. Thus, any item will collapse to a black hole — and require we apply GR rather than Newtonian gravity — before the scenario would arise.

But there isn't always a transient. It reaches steady-state. Everyone else in the thread who has mentioned this have been clear that these are two different scenarios, and I have pointed out I have been discussing the static field implied in your OP. The non-static field propagates. No surprise, as it's the EMP, which is photons. It's not the magnetic field one calculates when one refers to a current-carrying wire with a constant current. No. The field does not move. In the region d around the wire, the field will be unchanging after a time T = d/c. That's the propagation time of the transient (the EMP) By talking about the field of a current-carrying wire, you have implicitly chosen the time AFTER T You can't discuss both the transient and the static case. They must be treated separately. Pick one. It doesn't. The EMP is not the magnetic field. They are not the same thing. This has been pointed out only about twenty times so far.

But the thread is about the ISS, so we are discussing the ISS geometry.

Why is this not 50 MHz? If I send a signal down an optical fiber, would I see similar results? (Optical fiber is a much more common method of sending a signal) And instead of just sending pulses, what if I sent an analog signal at, say, 5 MHz? Its frequency would change, right? See above. (Though I don't see how GPS would work if there is an absolute speed.) You might want to get in the habit of providing links for experiments you cite. It will save everyone the trouble of having to ask for them. And, of course, an explanation of how they support your hypothesis. But the key is finding an experiment that would be able to show your idea is wrong, if it is indeed wrong.

If you can import nuclear, you can import anything else. The electricity doesn’t know. How often is that an actual problem? Thanks. The number I was using was from 2016 or perhaps earlier, so I’m not surprised it’s gone up.

The ISS is not shaped like that

Doesn’t that question answer itself? i.e. it’s spinning?

And I didn’t mention it either. In the UK, they get 5x as much energy from other renewables as from hydro, and get a quarter of their electricity from renewables. They also can import electricity, because that’s fairly easy to do (technology-wise) This does not rebut the point I made.

Thank you for admitting your earlier claim was wrong. I asked for numbers. Is it consistent with all phenomena? You have to come up with an experiment that would show you to be wrong, if you are indeed wrong. Not just ones where you could accidentally be right. So, no theoretical framework to present? His work has been discredited already. Why? Shouldn’t a timing difference occur for any orientation, as long as the angle to the direction of absolute motion isn’t the same? Some orientations would yield maximal differences, to be sure. I asked for numbers. Let’s see your predictions.

You can't. Self-consistent theories are only invalidated by comparison with experiment. No, the argument is that classical (i.e. Newtonian) physics fails to match experiment, and relativity succeeds. Is this consistent with experiment? Such as absorption and emission of resonant light when there is relative motion between and atom and the light source? What experiment will show that one is at absolute rest, or determine one's absolute velocity? So your idea contradicts actual experimental evidence? Then why do they behave otherwise? How do you get a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution and basically uniform intensity from this? No. Especially without a theoretical framework to back this up. Massive amounts of evidence is required, too. Over the course of a day, this alignment will change. We should see diurnal effects. And we do a similar experiment (with clock measurements), and don't see this effect. (If we had data that showed relativity to be in error, people would jump at the chance to publish it) How big should it be if you sent signals, say, 100m? What fractional frequency shift or timing shift would you expect between orthogonal directions of light travel?

This is an anti-renewable talking point, but not based on facts. It's contradicted by the existence of countries that rely on renewables to generate a considerable fraction of their power. It ignores the fact that we consume more power during the daylight hours than at night, so solar actually fits the profile of the extra generation required, and electricity demand is higher in summer, when we have ample sunlight, than spring or fall. Distributed solar (i.e. rooftop) means power generation without requiring additional capacity from the power grid. So even if solar is simply addressing peak demand, it's hardly pointless.

It has always been thus. What does this add to the body of knowledge? We already knew that momentum depended on v, so rearranging equations in this way doesn't reveal anything new or novel. In fact I'd argue it's less useful, because Er is speed-dependent as well and you have to calculate that before this equation can be applied.

No, that’s not the question if we are discussing a static field. What you are describing is the transient, after the current is started.

What does one have to with the other?

Why would you even try for a clearance in such a circumstance? Unless you have misrepresented your ability to pass the background investigation. Then it might be avoiding lying on your SF-86, which is a felony.

t is improper in this derivation. v = dx/dt, not dx/t

! Moderator Note This nonsense has gone on long enough

That wasn’t there a week ago. Next you’re going to tell me Kennedy was’t shot by Arthur Lyle Freeman. You would be wrong.

It would be, but those values have been the same for a long while. But it’s not changing. You have a faulty memory. That’s the explanation here. To get units of time and length. If you can’t check this for yourself you have no business criticizing physics in any way. No. I refer you to my previous remark. Who the hell is Galileo? Stop making up things.