• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by swansont

  1. swansont

    Oh no! Not another conjecture!

    ! Moderator Note At almost 300 posts in, you should know where “I have a conjecture” should go, and that we need a model and/or evidence - some way to test it. Most of the universe is already a vacuum.
  2. swansont

    A small problem with the whole of physics

    ! Moderator Note No, the physics answer is not that it's magic. It's you want the philosophy lecture hall, two buildings down. You don't have a testable idea. No model, no evidence. All you have is some kvetching about your dissatisfaction with some aspects of physics, and it's clear you don't have much of an understanding about what you're complaining about. We're not under any obligation to indulge you. Go start up a blog somewhere.
  3. swansont


    It undergoes interference and diffraction, which are wave behaviors
  4. swansont

    Frequency multipliers

    Sorry, I was being a bit snarky. USNO, which where I work, is the source of time for GPS. IOW, the standard way for us to get time is to measure it locally, since that measurement is better than what you can get from GPS.
  5. One should note (and perhaps be concerned) that we have people who are ostensibly scientists/professionals who are providing anecdotes rather than data in their critique of the system.
  6. swansont

    Frequency multipliers

    There are exceptions to this, of course.
  7. To put something Phi said in another way: the whole point of the speculations forum, for anyone other than the presenter of the idea, is to critique that idea. Critical analysis of it is a feature, not a bug.
  8. swansont

    Some Thoughts on Air Conditioning

    You can do this, but only as long as there is a reservoir at a lower temperature. Then heat will flow, and you can make it do work, though not at 100% efficiency, since the rejected heat will be at some temperature. As mentioned before, the issue is often that you want to cool the room down without that reservoir, and that requires that you do work, as it will not happen spontaneously.
  9. swansont

    Some Thoughts on Air Conditioning

    Bodies are in equilibrium with other bodies, not with themselves. You don't have to assume that heat flows in a particular way. The only requirement is that no heat is flowing. Heat could flow from cold to hot and the law still works because the law is not about the details of heat flow. It is merely to define the transitive property of equilibrium (i.e. it's about temperature, not heat)
  10. I see modnotes about not posting links without explanation, about not soapboxing and moving the thread to speculations. These are rules enforcement, not attacks. Further, you were asked to report any posts where you think personal attacks are happening Impede? How? It is a place to discuss science, but it has rules to facilitate discussion. You agreed to follow them when you joined. Perhaps you can understand the linear nature of time, and that people are not on the forum 24 hours a day. Posts are made only when one is online and visiting, and only after reading the posts one is responding to. Excuse me? Asking you to follow the rules is not a personal attack. I'm not involved in the discussion in any way, so I don't see how I could be "losing ground". Further, it is not up to you to dictate how the staff deals with rules violations. You might consider that you are a guest in this house, and have the courtesy to follow the house rules. Losing the huge chip on your shoulder would improve matters greatly. We have requirements for anyone who wished to present their own theories. It would behoove you to familiarize yourself with them. And also recognize that disagreement or calls for evidence are not personal attacks.
  11. ! Moderator Note Rigor was requested and not supplied
  12. swansont

    Some Thoughts on Air Conditioning

    The zeroth law doesn’t address how you get to equilibrium. Doesn’t address heat transfer at all.
  13. swansont

    Some Thoughts on Air Conditioning

    You made that clear. I gave a more rigorous description Heat associated with warm water? Heat is energy transfer. No, it’s not. There are several ways to present the second law, and one is that spontaneous heat transfer from cold to warm is not possible (i.e. without work being done, or colloquially "of its own accord") is one of them. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html
  14. swansont

    Gravity (split from Infinite gravity)

    Any evidence of Newton’s 3rd law not holding? Unsupported assertions that the “observations may be incorrect” is the weakest of weak tea. If e changes then the light being absorbed and emitted by atoms must change, since the interaction strength has changed. Is there any evidence of this? You can derive Kepler from Newton. If one is wrong, so is the other. But we have evidence that they work just fine, which is inconsistent with your claims Also, why would light emitted by an atom at one place be absorbed by another somewhere else, if the interaction strength was different? Do atoms make mistakes?
  15. swansont

    Some Thoughts on Air Conditioning

    Heat doesn’t spontaneously flow from cold to hot.
  16. ! Moderator Note Please review and adhere to the speculations guidelines. This level of rigor won’t cut it. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/
  17. swansont

    Gravity (split from Infinite gravity)

    No. Kepler is consistent with Newtonian physics, not your conjecture. You have the situation where the spheres don't have to overlap the other body, which makes Newton's third law fail. Evidence? GM and µ are the same thing No. You can look at spectral lines from the sun. They are emissions or absorptions from elements that reside on the sun. Same thing for much more distant objects — they are from atoms that reside far away from the earth. Very hard. Impossible, even. So exactly how do these vary with the location? You have e^2/hbar*c Either hbar or e has to change, or they both change. And this presumes that you can show that c is actually changing, and we have evidence that it doesn't. Relativity depends on c being invariant, and we have experiments that rely on other planetary bodies that confirm relativity (Gravitation deflection of light and Shapiro delay, to name two) OTOH, if it's right, we can use the equation to send rockets to other bodies in the solar system, which we have done. Why does that work, if the equations are wrong? It's not enough to claim that people are wrong, when the theories they are discussing have tons of evidence to support the theories. You have to actually show it. You own the burden of proof. Then how about providing this evidence? Where are these equations derived? Does your planetary radius formula work for other planets?
  18. swansont

    Mental Momentum (short essays about mind and brain)

    ! Moderator Note That is what is in question, and the solution to this is not to continue posting more of the idea, it is to clarify that which is being questioned. (and if you think that you, personally, have been attacked, you should use the "report post" link at the top right of the post to report it, rather than bring it up here) You were already asked to do this; it falls under our rule against soapboxing. As was hinted at earlier: this is not your blog. To be clear: if you continue along this path, the thread will be closed.
  19. You’ve been resisting learning thus far. Tenaciously.
  20. You should stop making claims you can’t back up.
  21. And the upshot of this is that an elevator that is stationary in a gravitational field is in an accelerating frame of reference, and the location in the field (the gravitational potential) is what dictates time dilation. IOW, v=0, and the Lorentz factor is absent from the problem. And besides, as you stated, the curvature of the light depends on acceleration ... not velocity. So for a vehicle away from any gravitational field, it would still not be a function of the Lorentz factor. The BH in SMBH LITERALLY stands for "black hole" What does this have to do with massive objects moving near c?
  22. That wasn't the question that I asked. Are you going to address the one that I did? You said (emphasis added): "In the equations, they ended up dividing by the Lorentz factor, and at the event horizon of a black hole, time becomes zero from a frame of reference outside the black hole. Then they end up dividing by zero. The result is then infinity, from what I have read about it." I want to know in what equation(s) you end up dividing by the Lorentz factor, and thus end up dividing by zero. It's not gravitational time dilation.
  23. Oh my. Quantum field theory is famous for its infinities and how it deals with them (Renormalization). You will forgive me if I do not take your word on this, owing to your track record thus far. Did you not understand the question, or are you just being obtuse?
  24. "the Lorentz factor has this denominator"? What does "this" refer to? I was asking what equations have the Lorentz factor in the denominator. The Lorentz factor equation does not have itself in the denominator. And, as I pointed out, it never gets to infinity, and is not part of gravitational calculations. You "learned" something that's baloney. But that description is not limited to this one instance
  25. Velocity of a massive object never reaches c The Lorentz factor does't show up in gravitational time dilation The question was about the equation where you get an infinity, i.e. where does the Lorentz factor appear in a denominator? A law in physics/science is relationship that is (or can be) expressed mathematically, usually a reasonably simple relationship. It has nothing to do with the body of evidence, or any explanation of why the relationship holds. Laws are typically components (subsets) of theories Use of "law" has fallen out of favor — we don't name things as laws much anymore in physics.