swansont

! Moderator Note Chatbots are not reliable technical resources. This response is horrendous. If you want to discuss the errors, you should make that clear. (that's true in general for your posts: make clear what you wish to discuss)

I’m not going to watch a 1:47 video to parse the context of the statement.

It’s a dangerous thing when people give pop-sci explanations, and from it people think they understand the underlying science.

As I said, your analogy is exaggerated. Some of us understand how a finite c works, and your example ain’t it.

This suggests you don’t know what entanglement is, or what was being proposed. How do you entangle space? What properties would be entangled? How would entanglement create spacetime?

Yes. We know this. Is there a problem? (other than the difficulty in seeing through our galaxy)

! Moderator Note Links are meant for supportive material, not as a substitute for discussion. You don’t make it clear if you asking if these things can be done, or are claiming it.

Same experience with military folks working on weapons systems, thinking we had a science budget like they had, when it was about 1% or less

IIRC you were insisting on a certain viewpoint without supporting the position, another behavior that’s frowned upon (as in, soapboxing is against the rules). The bottom line is that staff felt the reports that were filed on your posts were valid.

But not in the exaggerated way you presented it. Astronomers and cosmologists are well aware of the finite value of c, and how it impacts theory and observation.

Seems low to me, too, but not more than an order of magnitude low. You’d probably be living at the site, but you need food and water, and equipment. And it would depend on the duration of the expedition. Even it’s it more, there’s still a huge divide between that and a trip to the moon.

If you’re going to discuss commerce you could at least do some rudimentary cost analysis. “Usually, museums and research institutions spend about $10,000 for big excavations, which covers the cost for scientists to travel to the field and dig up fossils, as well as properly excavate and prepare them” (it helps that you can get volunteers, or even people that pay for the privilege, to work on the digs) https://www.livescience.com/62745-dinosaur-auction-paleontologists-angry.html#:~:text=Usually%2C museums and research institutions,and prepare them%2C Polly said. Even at ten times that, if you can find a million dollars in fossils, it’s quite profitable. Now compare that with the cost of a trip to the moon. And consider whether the market would saturate and drive the value of a moon rock down if the focus was on hailing back moon rocks.

My mistake. You don’t get to derail a thread just because you decide it’s nonsense.

Getting to that elevation is somewhat of a problem, unless you think sherpas can haul everything up. And “significantly thinner” is still significant; it’s about a third of an atmosphere.

There was a recent article documenting how the rate of bigfoot sightings correlates with black bear population. “The results suggest that there's a strong correlation between sightings and the local black bear population—for every 1,000 bears, the frequency of bigfoot sightings goes up by about 4 percent.” https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/01/study-finds-bigfoot-sightings-correlate-with-black-bear-populations/ “It's easy to see how black bears and bigfoot could be mistaken for each other. Despite their name, the bears come in a wide range of colors, from a golden brown through to a deep reddish one, as well as their namesake black. They're also large animals and will frequently stand on their hind legs to get a better view of their surroundings. They also frequent the forested areas that are supposedly bigfoot's favored terrain.”

Does applying the time dilation formula to a radial value less than the Schwarzschild radius have any physical meaning? The imaginary result suggests not

There are “patrons of science” that fund museums and researchers. I recall funding of his paleontology digs being discussed in Johanson’s book “Lucy” (Australopithecus afarensis). The “return” they get is a successful dig and maybe a part of a museum named after them. Others fund digs to get a share of the proceeds when the fossils are sold, like those who fund hunts for sunken treasure. In the US the NSF funds research, but the amount for paleontology is a very small slice of their budget

I don’t see why not. It only needs to be wide enough to fit the card, and long enough to accommodate a row of the holes, and read the rows sequentially

Yes; this is how laser cooling works. You have to adjust the laser’s or atom’s frequency if you want the interaction to continue as the atom slows down (by “chirping” the laser frequency for the former, or by exploiting the zeeman shift with an external magnetic field for the latter) Otherwise the change in speed eventually shifts the atom out of resonance.

Not really. Twenty million spent on lobbying is a pittance for a company doing >20 billion in sales. Buying congress is relatively cheap. Pfizer, for example, spent almost $2.8 billion on advertising in 2022, but "only" $12.6 million on lobbying https://www.zippia.com/answers/how-much-does-pfizer-spend-on-advertising/# https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/lobbyists?cycle=2022&id=D000000138

Do you have any evidence that spacetime is a substance that could rupture? Can you show the math that led to these negative time dilation values?

All science is provisional. But until there’s an experimentally-verified model, this is just appealing to magic.

When I see drug ads I sometimes try and assess how prevalent the condition is and how much marketing there is for the drug. It speaks to the profit margin and also the fact that you're often treating but not curing an affliction, so if it's chronic any new customer is going to be paying for repeated treatments for some period of time. It also explains how they have these coupon programs to lower out-of-pocket costs. If you're going to be buying ~30 pills a month for the next ten years, they can eat the co-pay and still make a big profit.

Any ones that don't require new physics?

Yes, as I mentioned; Doppler broadening and collisional broadening are two of the prominent ones. Energy is conserved, and if you have a polyatomic molecule or your gas has collisions, there's a ready reservoir for both energy and momentum conservation. I don't know if anyone has looked at a single neutral atom absorbing and emitting photons in an isolated situation, trying to see if e.g. a red-detuned photon was absorbed and resulted in a red-detuned emission, because how would you do that?