swansont

! Moderator Note There’s not much science here; this falls well short of what we require for a discussion in speculations. You should be asking questions, not guessing solutions

Why would they differ? You said you wanted to keep this simple.

I didn’t say it was random. You have not connected it with anything. It’s not like it’s the volume of the proton that keeps it from decaying. Free neutrons decay.

The simplest is an observer is fixed with respect to the sun, since the sun is stationary. Less time to cover what?

You say that but then quote “The horizontal axis here is some x, e.g., ellipse's major axis” My summary refined it somewhat; since the major axis of an ellipse is just some number it doesn’t vary in time, so the only way for the graph and description to make sense is that it’s a projection. But Genady has clarified that it’s supposed to be the asteroid’s x-position. No, since that observer would be in motion relative to both. A velocity discerned from the graph would be of the asteroid relative to the sun.

Per Genady’s description, it’s a graph showing how the x-projection of the major axis varies in time. The major axis is a constant value for an ellipse, so if it varies, it’s because the ellipse is precessing.

What you’ve described is convenience, not something based on either experiment or theory. There’s nothing wrong with picking a convenient reference up until you assert there’s something physically meaningful about it.

It’s not something that the graph definitively shows. The graph depicts the precession of an orbit.

In the beginning of the thread I asked about the path to experimental confirmation. If you’re going to appeal to this, let’s see the evidence of these SU(3) atoms or the superconducting nature of dark energy.

Musk’s secret talks with Putin that just came to light are a likely violation of his security clearance. I’m wondering if he gets his clearance yanked on Nov 6. (Before then might seem politically motivated)

And there are people in this thread that disagree. Acting as a cheerleader does not bring any rigor to the discussion.

Bezos also owns the Washington Post, and ensured the paper made no presidential endorsement

How is that implied? I see some assertions in the paper, but nothing that backs them up. No math.

Another common trick is focusing on distractions such as this. OK. Derive this SU(3) confinement scale number, with these solid physical principles, rather than giving hand-wavy arguments for it. i.e. give a rigorous calculation, rather than “implies” or “suggests” (later on you can provide the evidence that dark energy acts like a superconductor, rather than relying on hints or suggestions)

A wavy line extending from the mass would not illustrate the path of the orbit. It might illustrate something else.

As I recall what I was taught was in terms of the number line. Positive to the right. Negative meant “opposite” so it was to the left. Addition/subtraction was “jumps” and multiplication was like an expansion or magnification, but the negative meant in the opposite direction.

Or it just didn’t go through the translation algorithm. Accusing someone of misquoting but also saying you’re giving them the benefit of doubt aren’t consistent. It’s also off-topic.

Or they voted for Jill Stein as a “protest” because it made them feel better Some (not all) in the media are finally calling it racism (vs controversial, or other lame labeling) which might wake some low-information voters up. And Puerto Ricans living in states can vote, so this might shift a few votes.

It’s still going to take time to get up to speed, and you should look at what orbital radius you’ll have as you approach c. Hope you like it warm! (i.e. the orbital speed at the surface is a lot smaller than c)

Quantum pseudo-telepathy suffers from the same problem as quantum teleportation: the name evokes an unfortunate response in lay audiences. p-t is not actual telepathy (which is pseudoscience, and unfortunately that actually exists) Don’t hang your hat on the cute/quirky naming habits of physicists. Such names are not chosen to be literal, they are often puns or analogies. (A big one in my field is ‘“optical molasses” because the effect involves a large damping force, i.e. it appears viscous, not because it’s literally molasses or shares other properties of that substance)

Maybe it’s microplastics https://www.earthday.org/plastics-the-kingpin-of-the-fertility-crisis/ Or some other contributing effects. Blaming it on low power, non-ionizing radiation requires more than anecdotes. Appeal to post hoc ergo propter hoc won’t cut it

If it’s the right parameter there should be some other physics showing that, not just getting the answer you want.

More like QM is everywhere, but a lot of the time it doesn’t matter. The issue I have with some of these QM in biology stories is that they’re built on multiply-stacked hypotheses, individually without experimental confirmation. And the top-level proposal, of course, also lacks such evidence. Show me the actual entanglement and what the effects are.

If it’s wrong, it’s wrong. It’s not much of an achievement to be wrong.

Given that nervous systems are ultimately comprised of particles, which are subject to quantum mechanics, it’s impossible for this to be false. The relevant issue is if any quantum effects survive in any measurable way. People diffract when they walk through a doorway, owing to the wave nature we know exists, but I don’t think anyone is foolish enough to assert that it has any measurable effect.