• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by swansont

  1. swansont

    Is subspecies a vaild concept?

    ! Moderator Note This would be off-topic in any science discussion. Don't go off on any similar tangents in any other discussions on similar topics.
  2. swansont

    Redundant Expressions in Science

    The dictionary is not a technical resource, but even so, the dictionary does not agree with you. The selection criteria are not the same, so this is not so arbitrary.
  3. swansont

    The theory of space /time

    Clocks in orbit can run faster or slower than clocks on earth. It depends on the orbit, since there is kinematic time dilation slowing the clocks down, with gravitational dilation speeding them up. GPS clocks speed up. On the ISS, they run slower. (Scott Kelly spent almost a year on the ISS and is now an additional 5 milliseconds younger than his twin, Mark, as Scott's clock ran slower than those on earth) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation#/media/File:Orbit_times.svg What is your prediction? Is it different than what relativity predicts?
  4. What do you mean they never do? Here's an experiment you could potentially do. 1.Get a coil and run a small current through it. It will produce a magnetic field. It's an electromagnet. 2. Bring a stronger magnet nearby. See how the field changes. (With a probe, or even a compass). Watch the field reverse, inside the coil, if the magnet has a much stronger field. These aren't the same thing. Waves aren't vectors, and magnetic fields have to obey Maxwell's equations. Wave amplitudes add as scalars. Magnetic fields add as vectors. But if you think you can't cancel out a field by adding one in the opposite direction, I have to tell you that you are sadly mistaken. It's a standard practice in my kind of work where you use trim coils to zero out the earth's magnetic field, and use coils in a Helmholtz configuration (a pair of coils with current in the opposite direction) to give you a zero field at the center, because the fields obey superposition. I have years of experience demonstrating what you claim doesn't happen, so you must excuse me if I don't believe you. You need to look at better sources. Anyone expecting interference doesn't understand the physics well enough. That there is no interference shouldn't be a surprise. But there is superposition.
  5. swansont

    Entanglement Spin Direction

    No. They are undetermined when they separate. They do not have a state until one is measured. You must also not be able to tell what state the particles are in. One way of entangling photons is parametric downconversion. Two photons are emitted from an atom, with a definite polarization correlation, but the only ones that are entangled are emitted in the same direction. If they aren’t, then you can tell which photon has which polarization.
  6. swansont

    Time traveling usage for immortality

    This is science fiction, so it can do pretty much whatever you want it to.
  7. swansont

    The theory of space /time

    The change in frequency does not scale with thr firce. Yu are using field, force and energy almost interchangeably, and they are distinct things. One reason why having equations is important. (Another is that you can make quantifiable predictions) You don’t have a theory. A theory would include a mathematical model, and a comparison of data with predictions. And it’s up to you to defend it, and provide evidence for it. We might be able to show it’s wrong, but you don’t actually make testable, specific predictions. Vague yes/no “predictions” are insufficient.
  8. swansont

    Higgs mechanism is abolished

    ! Moderator Note This post isn't science news.
  9. swansont

    A theory of everything. The truth about creation.

    The concepts you present are at odds with the standard model, so you are in fact challenging it. Let's see your experimental evidence. Anything with mass creates gravity, but I don't think that's what you mean, in which case...no.
  10. They are not related. The HUP is an inherent property of nature. The observer effect depends on how you do a measurement.
  11. swansont

    Hypervelocity Supermassive Black Hole

    A million is not 10% of a billion. It is 0.1% of a billion. 10^6/10^9 = 10^-3 That's what conservation of momentum tells us I don't know how long it would take. The much smaller black hole mergers took a few tenths of a second for the final merger, and these would be proportionally larger, but I'm not sure how it scales. That's probably one of the limits on how much recoil you can have, though, since it would take time to accelerate the BH.
  12. Magnetic fields don't obey superposition? Please explain. (and DrP's question is salient here, since if you asked the question just so you could post the video, which is expressly forbidden by the rules) Please reconcile this observation with your claim. (this is what superposition is)
  13. I mentioned the classical electron radius. That is one made using naive assumptions. Using classical physics to deduce quantum behavior is fraught with problems. The electric dipole measurements, if you look at them as a deformation from spherical charge, puts the limit at something like 10^-30 m. I think that is a gross mischaracterization of the g-2 measurement. AFAICT there is no "parabola fit" as you have described. That's not how the result was obtained.
  14. swansont

    The Theory Of Gravitational Field

    If the units are wrong, the equation can't be correct.
  15. On re-reading this thread I see that we are just covering the same ground all over again. Do you have a NEW argument, that does not rely on the scattering cross-section being conflated with the size?
  16. So why are you looking at the cross section of the electrostatic interaction, which does not tell you the size of the electron? scattering cross-section ≠ size How does that remove the effects of the electric field, which does not tell you the size of the electron? That sounds like the classical electron radius, or at least suffers from the same problem: trying to solve a quantum mechanical problem using classical physics.
  17. swansont

    The Theory Of Gravitational Field

    Since you have not, I will do this. G has units of N-m^2/kg^2 (or m^3/kg s^2) so A has units of kg/m GE = MA/g that will have units of kg^2s^2 No, that's not energy, nor gravitational field GE = MA/gd will have units of kg^2 s^2/m That's not energy either. (energy being kg m^2/s^2) So your "energy" cannot possibly be an energy, meaning the equation cannot possibly be correct and this entire "analysis" is consigned to the scrap heap. Time to start over.
  18. I think his argument is backwards. Why would you extrapolate to electrons at rest? The scattering is electrostatic, and the slower they go, the more time they spend near each other, interacting. It's when they go fast, and spend less time interacting, that you are reducing the effect of the electromagnetic interaction. If there were any "hard sphere" scattering, you would see a deviation from the trend. It's not there. The argument about length contraction is suspect. Length contraction is in the direction of motion. It does not "shrink" the electron in all directions. It makes a sphere into a pancake, not a smaller sphere. (and that has ramifications for scattering, as well. For particles with structure, that has to factor into their calculations)
  19. ! Moderator Note I'm not sure what connection the video has to your question, as it does not appear to be an example of the phenomenon you are inquiring about, and posting videos is subject to certain rules we have (specifically rule 2.7). The video has been removed. Magnetic fields obey superposition. The answer is yes, the magnetic field of a strong magnet can pass through the weaker magnet.
  20. swansont

    The theory of space /time

    There are measurements you can make using natural clocks. Carbon dating, for example. Not for atomic clocks. The notion of trajectories/motion doesn't really apply to a spin flip of an electron. Gravitational time dilation has been measured, thus it is safe to say the phenomenon exists. It is not a mechanical effect that changes the workings of a clock.
  21. swansont

    A weird idea to achieve relativistivic speed

    The spot’s motion can exceed c. It’s not a violation of relativity.
  22. swansont

    Redundant Expressions in Science

    I made no statement about the philosophy community. Please sharpen your reading skills. You also said you reject the notion of artificial processes as an evolutionist (evolution is science), not as a philosopher. So I have to wonder why this is in philosophy, or why you brought this up.
  23. swansont

    Is Newton Circular ?

    Perhaps not, but "what is a kilogram" and "what is mass" are two different questions, with two different answers.
  24. swansont

    The Border Wall or Fence

    Perhaps the commerce clause of the constitution? The federal government is empowered to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and this might be seen as usurping that power.
  25. swansont

    A weird idea to achieve relativistivic speed

    The rod will bend, and then break, long before you got anywhere close to c. One of the implications of relativity is that there is no such thing as an infinitely rigid material.