swansont

They are the same: c. Gravity only gets modified if the source is accelerated, and gravitational waves can come from certain accelerations. Mass doesn’t just appear or disappear, so there is no creation of the field from this effect.

How much is that, compared to the volume of water? Also, muscle is only 6% more dense than water. A difference that may be below the precision being used.

“Attraction to gravity” is an awkward phrase. Things are attracted by gravity. They are attracted to the source of gravity. The mass of a system depends on its energy content. If the source of the current’s energy is external to the system, then the wire and field increase in mass. The electrons have increased KE internal to the wire (but not COM KE) and the field has energy. If you put the whole thing in a magnetically-shielded box, you would see no increase in mass of the box + contents. ( heat loss would result in a decrease in mass)

It’s mostly water, isn’t it? If you know the volume, you can estimate the weight.

The current incarnation of the GOP hates education for most people. It’s problematic when the voting population can see through their BS. Here is one of many links to stories about this, and how it was not always the case. https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/22/democrats-more-educated-republicans-pew-research-c/ The trends you describe may have been the case decades ago, before the right started running away from science.

You misunderstand. The twin paradox is a name given to a particular problem. This is an issue of history. It has nothing to do with whether or not you can come up with other physics problems, though I might disagree they are paradoxes Well, you specified earth, which isn’t an inertial frame, and you went out of your way to point out that non-inertial frames would be involved.

It’s ambiguous.

He said constant speed. Orbiting the earth is a possible approach to the problem; the general framing does not eliminate gravitational effects, and earth rotation can be used (since westbound clocks speed up). Whether or not that was the intent is unknown.

As I said in the post, you can’t separate the field from the source. So it’s a hypothetical, based on a division that you can’t make and can’t directly measure. That’s not the same field, as it will change in time and also generating an electric field. It’s also not in the spirit of the question that was asked. No. Mass is a form of energy. All mass is energy. Not all energy is mass (kinetic energy) The whole thing.

Curious Layman implied a connection Well then, educate yourself, and reduce the bias you have. Even the application of some basic reasoning should tell you this isn’t the case. If “the wealthy” is the top 1%, they can’t make 50% of the college educated, even if all of the wealthy were republicans, which they aren't.

I call bull. Show me the support for this claim. ? How does education depend on the support from big corporations? Do republicans get sponsorships or something?

Yes, it does. The twin paradox has a particular form of how it is framed. If you present a different scenario, it’s not the twin paradox, it’s something else.

First of all, you need to define what you mean by “political nature” Is that party affiliation (how one votes) or level of activity and involvement? The divide for scientists has to be interpreted within the context that educated people in the US tend to vote democrat more than republican. The divide gets larger when they have advanced degrees. So part of this is simply being educated.

You were right. You have no idea. A lot of DoD scientists are government employees, i.e. career. Some are contractors. The specific research is not generally coupled to leadership.

1. Not specific journals. They were all expensive. Most articles are not published in fancy, high-end journals. 2. If they aren’t publicly funded, the policy wouldn’t apply.

That assumes there’s anyone (or anyone left) on his staff who would tell him he had a bad idea.

One possibility: preserve samples for testing that didn’t exist ca. 1970. If you don’t seal them they could become contaminated.

It does? You said “magnetic field of a wire carrying a current” not EMP Once you have interactions it becomes difficult to separate the source. Similarly, e.g. the mass of hydrogen is less than the mass of proton + electron. But you can’t say that the mass came from one particle or the other. It’s one system. Energy is conserved, however. That will tell you what happens to the mass. You can produce a magnetic field of a wire carrying a current without the wire and current?

The field has energy, and thus it would have mass. But the field does not exist independent of that which generates it.

You need to have some science ready to go when you post. This isn’t a 2AM drunken dorm room bull session.

What predictions can you make with this idea? How is it testable/falsifiable? Do you have a model?

Since the requirement comes from the funding agencies, is this a freedom the scientists have/had? The public pays for the research. Don’t they deserve access to the results? That actually sounds democratic to me. Not so different in at least one aspect - the US government funds a lot of research. What’s your take on scientists working for the DoD? Republican or Democrat?

Radioactivity is the process. Radiation is the energetic particles emitted. There’s more to it, and that’s not what critical mass is. None of that is radioactive decay, though decay is one of the processes in the sequence of events in the fusion cycle from H to He please stop, and go learn some physics.

You don’t get heavier isotopes from blowing atoms apart. Unstable atoms emit radiation, not radioactivity. No, that’s not what starts radioactivity

If it takes longer than the expected life of the product, it’s a nonstarter. Make your business case. Let’s see the math.