joigus

Love every pixel of it! It reminds me of the Impressionists...

Oh! Such a good question! +1

And I applaud your applause. Truth be said, there are few members who are more willing to offer a helping hand.

GR, obviously. Newtonian gravity is perfectly linear. Real gravity is much more like GR... Or GR fits much better real gravity, NG being a suitable approximation for weak fields and slow velocities. A badger is similar to a skunk, and the probability of them being identical is 0%. I hope there's a point to this...

What is controversial, that gravity is non-linear, or that sources of gravitational waves do not have a unique signature? Doesn't seem to me like any of those things are controversial.

Oh, I see. I was thinking more of short distances rather than longer ones, as Lorentz contraction makes the accelerated body shorter and shorter. But the OP, as well as other members have been talking about cosmological distances too, now that you mention it. I must confess I haven't figured out how both are related. It seems like some combination of length contraction and time dilation (contraction relative to the traveller relative to the observers tied to the planets?). What I fail to see is how one is supposed to use these effects to achieve interstellar space travel. It could be that OP is trying to combine effects happening in different frames... This happens often.

I have. 🥹 It's so statistically significant that feels like troll farming. As soon as one is done, there's another one that seems to be saying, 'ok, I'll take over from here'.

That's a pattern of behaviour that you see in insects often, IMO.

I didn't know that, TikTok or X not being my sources for evolutionary biology. Quora has considerably better standards, but still...

Ok, I'm far too rusty on magnetohydrodynamics to be of more concrete help, but maybe I can be used as an "educated sounding board" of sorts here. For problems involving wires it's often the case that you cannot "dimensionally close" the formulas because you're missing a fiducial length. (The theoretically well-defined limit is often a wire of indefinite length). Other way of seeing it is that rather than force, Reynolds number, etc, the relevant quantities be force per unit length, Reynolds number per unit length, and so on. Could that be just the nudge that you need?

As I understand, the mods sometimes let the troll keep trolling long after the trolling behaviour has been spotted, as long as enough members find the topic interesting or worthy enough that they keep bringing up good-quality arguments, as is the case from Peterkin and exchemist.

Read The Selfish Gene. Your statements prove hands down that you're not familiar with the arguments there. And no, there are no genetic theories, as opposed to environmental ones. Genes interact with the environment from the get-go. In fact, they do during the perinatal stage already. You just made that up. It's a bit like saying you've heard an argument about electrostatics based on positive charges and another based on negative ones. Silly to say the least.

I second the motion.

As @KJW said, the aliquot sum: of any prime number is 1, so no prime number can be perfect. Example: 6=1+2+3=1*2*3

What do you mean by a distance becoming "reachable"? In the sense of being able to probe it? In the sense of making it fit through some kind of physical system in the perpendicular direction playing the role of a slit (like a couple of high-energy photons, etc...)? Or perhaps in the purely kinematical sense of it being proven that short by means of telemetry of some kind?

Ahem... no atheist in their right mind...? Be honest when quoting me, please. Of course atheists can do horrible things, but not out of belief. Viral ideas can be lethal. Religion is but one example of a viral idea with no logic or evidence to substanciate it. Religion can make an otherwise perfectly functional mind do horrible things. That was my point. Disfunctional minds can do what we all know they can do. Of course. Don't be disingenuous.

Tens[?], hundreds[?], of thousands of Tlaxcaltecs who were sacrificed by Aztec devotees every year would disagree with that. No atheist in their right mind would extract the beating heart of a living innocent person from their body. A religious person might. For those Aztecs, killing thousands of people as a sacrifice to their gods was totally moral. That's what god-fearing people can do.

I wholeheartedly agree.

The concept of "nothing" is but a phantom, I think. If quantum physics has taught us anything for export in the philosophical realm, I think these two nuggets are the most interesting ones: 1) "Identity" is an illusion. 2) "Nothing" is an illusion

I agree 100%. I don't consider this a serious proposal.

As said, no way in hell that photons can "look like" muons in another frame of reference. This is incompatible with conservation of charge and covariance of 4-momentum to mention but the most outrageous. Repeat: No way in hell. Maybe in parallel hells, as @KJW suggests. Very good points. Photons lead long lives; gluons live cryptic ones. And muons, blink and you missed them.

I'm not saying that you are against GR. Sorry if it came across that way. Let me be a tad clearer about what I said. Some of these effects you could simulate with a linear theory. Eg, you could simulate the precession of Mercury's perihelion by assuming that, instead of the 1/r law for the potential, you had a 1/r1+something law. This has been tried, and has failed. Also, perturbations with another object which simply is not there. The thing is you cannot concoct a spherically-symmetric field equation as simple as Poisson's field equation for gravity that gives you solutions differing from 1/r law. You simply cannot. Einstein already observed this. Analogously, you could perhaps concoct a modification of Newton's gravity (and the corresponding generalised Poisson field equation) that gave you all the other effects, like Lense-Thirring, gravitational lensing, etc. So the best explanation we have for all these effects is that the equations are non-linear. A Taylor expansion g=η+h as Mordred has suggested will give you a host of first-order corrections that will do the job.

Sorry. @MigL beat me to the punch, although I had read your comment. I was pre-configuring the answer in my mind as something like "degeneracy pressure is more of a statistical consequence (of general principles of quantum mechanics) rather than an actual interaction". (Something like that.) But MigL's answer is actually much better.

All of them? Deviations of trajectories at intense field values explained Prediction of black holes confirmed Lense-Thirring effect Gravitational time dilation confirmed Gravitational waves confirmed Gravitational lensing confirmed etc. All of those are consequences of the non-linear structure of GR. Arguably BH's can be sensibly talked about with a linear theory (Laplace). Gravity is not renormalisable. I don't understand. Why do you need a limit in order to adds things up? Maybe you're referring to a continuous spectrum? Easier said than done.

"Gravity gravitates" does not lead to circular thinking, as far as I know. It only means the equations for the gravity field are non-linear in the gravity field. So the gravity field couples to itself. Gluons "gluate" too, if you will. The equations become incredibly more difficult to solve, because gluons couple to themselves. But no logical circularity. True. I think @MJ kihara is mixing up "normalisation" with "renormalisation", which are two very different things. Normalisation is about probabilities adding up to one. Renormalisation is about some observables growing arbitrarily large when other observables grow arbitrarily large (or small), so you must declare a cutoff for the actual laboratory condition. So it's about asymptotics of observables. Those are different things.