swansont

If it were a quote I’d want to know the context of it. In regards to this discussion, it’s flawed. And I notice you didn’t answer the question, or invite any discussion as to why it’s flawed (and it’s things like this that gets your threads closed; it’s soapboxing, which is against the rules) It’s trivially wrong, as Newton had a model for gravity that did not invoke curvature. It also contains a tautology, since the currently accepted model is spacetime curvature, but is it the only evidence? Models make specific predictions. Time dilation and bending light depend on a particular model, and not merely the existence of gravity. And to echo what Markus says above, models are accepted based on all the evidence, not just one data point. Same goes for rejection of flawed models.

Energy is conserved, so the total energy of the system remains constant. Any decrease in PE would show up as an increase in KE. There is no change in the binding energy. The minimum energy of the system at annihilation is the ground state energy of positronium.

The positronium ground state energy is known, which allows for some knowledge of the potential energy.

1. I don’t see how Jesus is in any way connected to the movie. 2. Asserting that anyone “never once” did anything a ludicrous assertion when you don’t have a full record of their history, and when any given day is full of acts that simply don’t fit in the category. Is scratching an itch a selfless act? Coughing? Trimming one’s nails? Eating a meal? Going to the loo? Please spare us the hyperbole.

Is that an actual quote from someone? If so, who? Or is it your summary of the situation? In which case it’s flawed.

Agree. This is all extrapolating from a value that’s got a very large uncertainty https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/33_Polyhymnia “For example, the 68 km (42 mi)-diameter asteroid 675 Ludmilla was originally measured to have a density of 73.99±15.05 g/cm3 in Carry's study,[5] but improved orbit calculations in 2019 showed that it had a much lower density of 3.99±1.94 g/cm3” If it’s right, someone needs to explain how superheavy elements are found on an asteroid but not elsewhere, as Ken points out.

Is it that you can’t answer the question, or just won’t answer the question? I didn’t ask for a hand-wave. I want the equation. This is a science forum. If you can’t provide this, you aren’t doing science.

Being wrong is part of doing science. The average person doesn’t see a lot of this, because the first thing one tends to do is check for errors/problems, and the second is to have colleagues do that. Even the act of publishing doesn’t mean an idea is in its final form. Einstein published several papers, refining general relativity as he went. He was also wrong about QM. If your temperament is to discredit people for disagreeing, maybe it’s a good thing you aren’t in the field.

And why is their momentum different at the same velocity? Yes. So close… And you lost it. If it plays a role, it plays a role. It’s not omitted. It just isn’t explicitly written out, because it’s simple to write “p” than the equation for it.

The Gossamer Albatross, winning one of the Kremer prize competitions. But that wasn’t by flapping wings, as described in the OP.

A particle at rest has energy, so I don’t see how that would work. A particle at rest has a momentum of mc? DeBroglie wavelength of an electron and proton moving at the same speed is not the same. Mass definitely play a role.

You clearly identify it as velocity in your first post

Why on earth would the momentum change if you observed wave vs particle behavior? p = E/c applies to both

For something with mass.

In classical mechanics, this would be the case. Physics is more than classical mechanics. EM radiation possesses momentum. This was predicted by Maxwell (i.e. before relativity and QM) and experimentally confirmed in 1903 by Nichols and Hull.

What is x? If it’s the direction of propagation of a plane wave, why do you expect lensing?

Information that does not mention the cause of the sleep issues does not support your hypothesis. It just doesn’t falsify it. This is the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc (happened after, therefore was caused by)

I will ask again: If the speed of light is infinite, what is the dependence on various parameters that allegedly slow it down? i.e. how to you get from infinite, to c, in laboratory vacuum and the earth’s gravity or gravitational potential, or whatever the proposed dependence is? It’s not enough to assert that gravity slows light down. You need to quantify this effect, similar to how relativity quantifies time dilation.

IOW you can measure it. Arguing that it’s a defined quantity is pretty much meaningless in the context of a claim that it has some different value (infinite, in this case) and/or that it’s variable in ways other than ways that mainstream physics says (e.g. in a medium, with an index other than 1). Claims are falsified by experiment. Defining c is a choice, albeit a logical one, not some mandate. Which is irrelevant, seeing as nobody mentioned planck length or time.

The photon is not at rest. There is a standing wave in the classical picture. but the photon is bouncing back and forth. There is no rest frame for a photon - no way to transform between an arbitrary frame and this proposed rest frame and back.

But it can still be measured. That it is defined means other constants don’t need to depend on the measurement. —- If the speed of light is infinite, what is the dependence on various parameters that allegedly slow it down? i.e. how to you get from infinite, to c, in laboratory vacuum and the earth’s gravity or gravitational potential, or whatever the proposed dependence is?

How would you test this? We can have EM radiation produce a pretty strong field.

You were asked specifically about special relativity.

Yes, there are things that are not matter and have no mass that have energy. Such as photons. That doesn’t follow. If X exists, everything is X, is faulty logic

Not to me. “Unnamed Democrat” has no specific weaknesses and is for whatever the person polled is for. But no real candidate would match up, or measure up, to this.