swansont

I assume you are defining efficiency for this in terms of force or work. So take the ratio of the weight and the force you need to exert

! Moderator Note AFAIK Journal of Cosmology does not really do peer review, as the mainstream scientific community understands it, and Mr. Forrington has already posted a thread on this (in which he did not post the material and discuss it on this site, as required) https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/119690-is-this-correct-about-gravity-the-hubble-shift-galactic-rotation-velocities-and-the-origins-of-spacetime/

You have a balanced chemical equation, telling you how many moles of each reactant relates to moles of product. And you can convert from moles to volume.

In the absence of any citation to this vague claim, not to mention that Einstein made no claim about "co-dependence" (he was only interested in the momentum being the same, and your nebulous reference says nothing about them not having the same momentum. As I said, this was before the notion of photons, or QM, existed) this "rebuttal" is based on...nothing. There's no physics here, that's for sure. Well, tough. There is no such thing as a preferred frame, and speeds are relative. This is a fact of life in the world of relativity. If you can't cope with it, see above. One of the myriad problems with this is that an atom in this circumstance would not be in an inertial frame (there is acceleration), so all bets are off anyway. Another is that we are not viewing this from an atom's perspective — it has to be a perspective of any inertial frame, which would exclude the perspective of any atom in the object. The problem is quite the opposite – it's because they aren't isolated that you run into trouble. Nothing is being ignored — conservation of energy requires you account for all of it. But your argument is like saying that temperature should be incorporated into gravitational potential energy in classical physics. It makes no sense to anyone who has a clue as to what's going on.

That was the ad-hoc explanation from Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction. This was unsatisfying, as ad-hoc explanations tend to be, and was tossed when relativity was found to be a viable alternative and no undetectable aether was required.

OK, so can you figure out the # of moles of CO2 that were formed?

Yes, freedom of religion exists is the US, embodied in the US constitution. However, that has somehow not eradicated religious persecution and bigotry. It hasn't even guaranteed freedom of religion. As we see in other areas of life, when the system is skewed one way, people get used to thinking of that as the equal system, and a leveling of the playing field seems like persecution to those who had previously been advantaged. This "explosion" of atheism is roughly correlated with an advancement of minority rights and progress toward equal treatment for women. A certain amount of empowerment for people who have historically been subject to varying levels of oppression in society. Perhaps it's just part of a larger enlightenment.

! Moderator Note Is there any substance to discuss here?

For an exact solution, yes. But you are asking for a maximum value. There are an infinite number of values that satisfy the conditions, and you're picking the biggest one. You said the day 1 income was twice as big as day 2, so (A1 + B1 +C1) = 2(A2 + B2 + C2) You will get a range of values for solutions, rather than a single value.

A1 + A2 = 25 B1 + B2 + B3 = 45 C1 + C2 + C3 +C4 +C5 = 100 (A1 + B1 +C1) = 2(A2 + B2 + C2) = 4(A3 + B3 + C3) B1 + C1 <= 26 A2 + C2 >= 14 You could rewrite the third equation as C1 + C2 + C3 <= 100, in case that helps, since you don't need the C4 and C5 variables

Also, does it radiate, e.g. give off blackbody radiation?

Some of the relationships do not lend themselves to simple algebra, since they are conditional statements, and deal with inequalities. But some do. You can assign a variable to the amount of money each company earns on which day and set that equal to given amounts (e.g. A1 is the amount earned by company A on day 1, B2 is the amount of money B earns on day 2, etc.) There are relationships between some of these variables. Whether there is a single solution at the end of that, I'm not yet sure. In some problems you can make a graph and exclude certain answers, as they violate inequalities.

Does the volume of a gas depend on the number of moles?

It worked with a coil gun on atoms. The atoms were cooled, not the gun. As the link explains, (emphasis added) " the coilgun involves, well, coils. A whole series of them, in fact, arranged one after another on the path the beam of atoms to be slowed will follow" It's magnetic slowing of an atom beam. But it also gives a velocity compression of the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution, so it cools them as well. But it only works because the beam is a gas, and you interact with the atoms individually.

! Moderator Note And also comprehension of phrases like “we’re done” Since that was apparently too complicated for you: DO NOT BRING THE TOPIC UP AGAIN. You had your chance.

They get locked because you’re breaking the rules, and what’s more, you have been told this. If someone is going to resent “the truth” they need to do a much better job of making their case than you have. Maybe - and this may be a radical thought - stop hijacking threads? If you’re having trouble understanding the rules you can always ask questions.

The question you quoted says "the formation of 36 mL of dioxide of carbon"

You know how much CO2 was formed. What does that tell you about the rest?

The paper I'm referring to is Einstein's 1905 work "Does The Inertia Of A Body Depend Upon Its Energy-Content?" In it he derives what happens if two photons are simultaneously emitted or absorbed in/from opposite directions (of course, he doesn't say "photons" because that terminology did not yet exist) and he concludes "The mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content" Since internal motion is part of the energy content of a body, it's included with the mass. KE is not, as it is quite explicitly dependent on the frame of reference. IOW, you can pick a frame where the body is at rest and thus KE = 0. You cannot pick a frame where a body has no vibrational KE (even in classical physics; in QM the notion disappears entirely since the ground state a an harmonic oscillator has nonzero energy) It's part of the energy content of a body, and thus contributes to the mass.

With that you are providing a description of physics. Not actually doing physics. You don’t justify your position with anything. Not seeing why is different from making a claim that something is the case. It’s because of how it is derived, which Einstein did in 1905, and having the physics be consistent with how things had already been defined. As I mentioned earlier, if you make a change, it will affect a lot more than one equation. If the CoM isn’t changing, there is no translation. Much like in relativity, there are some things everyone must agree on. And disagreement requires more than a handwave - you need math. You can’t just present a new equation without deriving it. Relativistic mass is just a proxy for the total energy. E/c^2

I don’t understand why you think this matters. Does it change the fact that each velocity exist for only a single value of time?

In that context, the green light is wasted, and you would be recovering that wasted energy. In that scenario, doing so makes theoretical sense. Whether it ends up being practical requires more thought and study.

Represent the 4th dimension on a graph? Yes. But one usually only graphs a single spatial variable against it. Graph x vs t, for example. You could also animate a graph, and show the spatial variation literally as a function of time. But AFAIK nobody has figured out how to display a 4-D graph using 3 spatial axes.

Velocity is a vector, so you should have stopped after saying it has each velocity for precisely 0 seconds. edit: and now I see Strange has made this same point.

! Moderator Note Discussion is supposed to take place here, and it needs to be far more substantial than what you've posted.