swansont

You could measure the effect of varying braking but simply subtracting or extrapolating that effect wouldn’t give you the answer, since there is air resistance as well, so you haven’t accounted for all of the dissipative losses.

Yes, but why would you do this? What insight does it provide? You don’t always simplify units. Torque and energy are both N-m in metric units, and N-m is a joule, but it’s not considered proper to express torque in joules, because it’s not energy.

27 Scaramuccis

Gravitons would be virtual particles, not limited by the same restrictions as real particles under classical rules of physics

When you have some physics to add, you can request this be unlocked.

Nothing suggests you have to subtract or add anything to the Bohr radius to form a torus. There’s nothing physical attached to this (you’ve acknowledged the classical radius has no physical significance), you’ve suggested no experimental repercussions of it, and have admitted you haven’t looked at ramifications that have been brought up which would confirm there’s nothing physical to this. It’s up to you to make an experimental connection to show that this isn’t more numerology.

You could pick another small increment to add and subtract, and you would have a different torus. So what? There’s no physics here. It’s still just playing around with numbers.

The Bohr radius and Compton radius and are related to each other by a factor of the fine structure constant, as you note, so beta and gamma are still terms you’ve defined; one is a little bigger than half of the Bohr radius, one is a little smaller.

Right. So instead of 1 kg payload, you have 9 kg you need to initially accelerate for each 1 kg of actual payload.

Laplace’s analysis assumed one would use the retarded position of the sun that dictates the direction of the attraction if there were a finite speed of propagation. AFAIK it does show that a planet would spiral outward. It requires a very large (though not infinite) speed of propagation for stable orbits.

You don’t have a mathematical model to show what your idea predicts, and you have not shown what the mainstream model would predict.

That can only be a statement about Newtonian gravity. How could Laplace show anything about relativity? IOW, Laplace showed something about a model known to be incorrect. So what?

Examples have been given that disprove your hypothesis.

Laws that preceded relativity and are known to be approximations. Static fields have no speed of propagation so there it’s incorrect to say they are instantaneous. Are you going to address the objections raised?

Ilya has been banned as a sockpuppet of Ilya Geller and IlGeller

Not sure why you would use the spoiler feature, on that, but it doesn’t explain why that’s a predicted result. There really isn’t much about this that would let anyone else predict outcomes to support or reject the idea. The solutions to the Schrödinger equation are orthogonal to each other. A salient point to this is that there is a mathematical model involved, which allows for prediction and testing.

Any further thought on an experiment that would support your conjecture?

It’s not enough information. The moon could be large and close to the sun, or small and close to earth, or anywhere in between. You just know that the angular size is about the same.

Why would they? If they aren’t moving in a straight line, there must be a force.

But beta and gamma are terms that you’ve defined, related to the Bohr radius; these are not tied to anything outside your model. Your model doesn’t “show” this; that’s a tautology, i.e. circular reasoning. How does this compare with the experimentally observed charge distribution of the electron (electric dipole moment no larger than ~4 x 10^-30 e-cm)

You can’t transfer heat to a body at a higher temperature. (a consequence of the second law of thermodynamics) You have to have another, hotter, heat source, or do work on the stone.

Life being out there is a significantly different proposition than encountering it face-to-face (or whatever passes for a face), since that also requires temporal and physical proximity.

As the quote says, electron orbitals tell you where you might find an electron, not their shape.

Targeted ads are based on information that’s been collected. Ads in general are meant to influence behavior.

It hadn’t been answered experimentally. Theory has to be confirmed. Science has had some surprises that required adjustments in the models.