swansont

Yes, increasing linearly is what the equation shows. As I said. I asked you to explain, not just repeat the claim.

Since phase is frequency x time, I’m not sure how this is a revelation of any sort How does it “reveal” this?

What E=mc2 tells us is that mass is a form of energy. The m is mass. It can be converted to other forms of energy, under some circumstances

Which is why boycotts, or otherwise voting with your wallet (like we’re seeing with Disney) is a tool that can actually get results. Similarly, standing up to Trump (or bigotry in general) can be good business when it gets exposure. There was a suggestion on bluesky that you can find news stations owned by Sinclair (who are making demands of Kimmel to put him back on the air and run right-slanted news material) and see who advertises there, and you can pressure those companies to stop the advertising or you will boycott. No, but if it’s known that people who part their hair on the right are getting beat up, that affects everyone who parts their hair on the right — especially if they have been historically persecuted/threatened because of it. You lose the freedom of expression to part your hair the way you want to. You have the mental anguish of fear.

As I hinted above, I think it’s like terrorism laws. Your aim is not just to physically harm the target, but to threaten others on the same group. And legitimate threats (not just “tough talk”) are not protected speech.

One might conclude that they don’t care, and that all of their posturing was a performance to feed the outrage machine and keep the funding coming in. Especially considering the medical/health side of things. But too many people seem to believe the words and not the (in)actions. Doesn’t matter, though. While there are hate crime laws (as pointed out, and for reasons similar to why we have terrorism laws), there are no hate speech laws. Criticism wouldn’t qualify even if there were, except in Trump’s mind. And public figures are treated differently; for defamation the bar is higher.

You brought it up.

Not even political weakness? Showing that the US will not honor its obligations? What’s the chain of events that gets China involved?

Unless you’re communicating via pictograms or hieroglyphics, I don’t see this as a rules violation, and there’s some pot, kettle, black action going on here. Do we really need to spell out a rule about not being an ass when people introduce themselves?

I think that, in the context of what’s been discussed, you can say that imagination is a necessary but insufficient condition for doing science. You have to take the next steps - make testable predictions, have falsifiability, has to agree with evidence. To echo the message of the Feynman quote, one is constrained by how the universe actually behaves.

The scientifically accurate statement is that there’s no evidence that they exist. (evidence in the scientific sense) To paraphrase Laplace, we have no need for that hypothesis - deities add nothing, as anything ascribed to them would be ad hoc. Saying whether deities exist is purely a matter of belief.

Yes. I responded to the comment where you wrote “not joking”

Mass isn’t a conserved quantity, but conservation laws stem from symmetries (energy from time translation symmetry, i.e. the laws of physics don’t vary) What symmetry is responsible for ”time conservation”? What testable predictions come from your hypothesis? Time is a dimension, like length. Is there length conservation, too? How does that manifest itself?

Repeating this does not address the issues I pointed out. Which, if you did, would underscore the problems with your idea. As it is, you’re just soapboxing, and showing no interest in learning the details of the physics involved (I spent ~30 years working in this area of physics. I think it’s quite interesting) Don’t bring it up again

Flawed logic and reason can be countered with better logic and reason, and the “fanaticism” is based on the fact that science actually works. Or did the device and infrastructure you’re using to post your discussion appear from divine intervention? Science is about what can be demonstrated to be true, not what you believe to be true. The former leaves the door open open to better evidence and explanations. The latter, not so much.

How does an atom know if the radiation pressure is positive? Let’s say you start with atoms all in the ground state (1). How will you decrease N2? It’s zero. Even if you have atoms in state 2, how will N2 decrease when you have photons hitting atoms that are in state 1, causing them to go to state 2? In the two state system Einstein describes, N2 doesn’t decrease. If it did, you’d know time was running backwards, which is not supposed to happen if you had a good symmetry. One of several things you don’t seem to get here is both equations are in play at the same time. The equations tell you what happens to N1 and N2 when you shine a flux of resonant photons on them. N1 goes down and N2 goes up until you are in steady state. (N1+N2 is constant). CPT wasn’t even proposed until decades after Einstein did this work.

Any equation can be switched by reversing time, but that doesn’t make them symmetric. N1 and N2 refer to different states, and if the system isn’t in steady-state you can discern the direction of time. But those surfaces aren’t in the equation. “The absortpion equation is consequence of positive radiation pressure of photons.” is not an accurate statement. And pressure is a scalar.

It’s a consequence of a resonant photon flux. The direction doesn’t matter, and there’s no way to calculate a pressure or force from the information. There’s no direction, so there is no “positive”

Those equations don’t tell you the strength of the radiation pressure, they tell you population change rates (dN/dt), and they are not time symmetric unless N1=N2, which is steady state. If N1>N2, you’ll see N2 increasing when time runs forward and decreasing when it runs backward. Sorry, what neutral atoms would these be? I asked about this before.

Why does this matter? i.e. how does this affect the formation of the BH? How big is this effect going to be? Stimulated emission results in a force on the atom in the opposite direction of the photon direction, so I don’t see the connection. I guess you missed where it points out that H-theorem violates T symmetry.

But you have a paper with an abstract. Are you prepared to defend his work and answer questions about it?

Termite walks into a bar, looks around and asks, “Hey, is the bartender here?”

Since you’re apparently unable to read what I wrote, there’s entropy and why you think radiation pressure is a significant contributor to BH formation.

Moderator NoteThis is not an acceptable tactic. Things for discussion need to be posted here, Not links, not uploads, and not “go Google this”

Which mode requires power input, while the other creates it? Analogies are limited because they fail to account for all details, and this analogy doesn’t account for the critical concept that makes white holes impossible Are you going to address the issues I raised, or does this get closed?