Bufofrog

My dad use to say a benign dictatorship is the best form of government, but unfortunately there is no way to keep it benign over time.

No light is not 'deflected' by gravity. Spacetime is warped by gravity and a photon travels in a straight line through the warped spacetime. Do you have citation for this claim.

Don't hijack threads to discuss your own ideas.

My vote is that you are the worst communicator on this site

No, it obviously was not.

I guess that is your problem in a nut shell. This site is not about winning anything, this site is about understanding and learning about science. Your conjectures have been refuted and if refusing to acknowledge that means you 'won', then I guess all I can say is congratulations.

You think that refusing to accept that you have a misunderstanding about science is somehow a win for you? How odd.

This boils down to, "I can't understand how a brain can be conscious, therefore this is not true". That is simply a belief without evidence. Science deals with observation and evidence, religion deals in faith and belief.

I think this wiki article is pretty helpful for explaining the acceleration: expanding universe.

The acceleration is speeding up. "Does cosmic expansion ever end?" It doesn't look like it will ever end (but who is to say for sure?).

So the moon landing was a hoax, but you think there might be ET's buzzing around in their saucers? Marvelous...

That isn't science, that is philosophy. You are positing a belief that the future is set and there is no way to change it. There is no experiment, that I am aware of that could possibly disprove that, so it is not science, it is a belief. You are being arrogant about a subject that you yourself have stated you are ignorant of, that is an absurd way to behave. The mistake here is that you think your philosophical beliefs are science and they are not.

That sounds like you may be running into an issue with the conservation of energy, if you mean by 'compounding' you can get more energy out than you put in. If you are just talking about increasing efficiency, then the limitations that Swansont brought up will be an issue.

I would say yes there is an effect but it is tiny. The gravity of the sun can can be modeled as a point source corresponding with the center of the sun. in a case where all the planets are more or less lined up on one side of the sun the point source for the combined gravity would be slightly offset from the center of the sun.

I don't think you're going to get a lot of takers with this vague description.

You ran an experiment, made a mistake and are now disregarding the flawed results. That doesn't sound stupid at all (+1).

Seriously? Questionably? Maybe bigfoot is involved too.🙄

Nope that is as direct as I can get. Any reference frame that measures the objects speed at 10 m/s meets the requirement for the measurement of the KE.

Because we are talking about a constant velocity. That would be the reference frame that measures the objects velocity at 10 m/s.

Sure, your equation is: KE=m*(vf2-vi2)/2. Let's plug in some numbers into your equation. Assume a mass of 10 kg is moving at 10 m/s. KE = 10 kg ( 100 m^2/s^2 - 100 m^2/s^2)/2 = 0. That is the wrong answer. The correct answer is 500 J.

Anyone with fusion bombs and a way to deliver them is a threat, IMO.

I have never had that experience. If I return to a room I left earlier I will still move forward in time. I guess when you are talking about 'Time' it is something different than when I talk about time. It sounds like you believe the future is set and cannot be changed sort of like in Kurt Vonnegut's novel Slaughterhouse-Five, is that correct?

No.

This like the rest of your posts is wrong. Cl- has 18 electrons and Na+ has 10 electrons. So you are just playing a silly semantics game. You could just as easily say there are no positively charged bodies, just more positive than previously. Quite disingenuous in my opinion. You're wasting every ones time.

This does not make sense to me. Could you write this with normal mathematical symbols? Because you certainly don't mean this: \(\frac{1}{Action} + \frac{2}{Reaction} = Retrodynamic\) , do you?