swansont

! Moderator Note The sandbox is for testing posts, e.g. seeing if LaTeX renders properly. Responses are not appropriate.

In most cases. But the underlying principle is that you will get the same physics result, regardless of your choice of frame of reference.

Your post was hidden because of the sockpuppet reference. Had it just been a throwaway amusing comment, I would have left it alone. The difference being that a sockpuppet (or troll) accusation is directed at a person, and much more likely to elicit a response, which derails the thread. As Phi notes, we need more than posting on the same topic. We’ve had situations where multiple students from a university class posted on a topic. This isn’t unprecedented.

What other “kinds” of KE are there? I only know of the “kind” that is given by 1/2 mv^2 It can be applied to different particles and be measured/calculated at different times (hence you have initial and final as two common times) Reference frames are incredibly useful for those that actually solve physics problems. No. the difference in kinetic energy represents the change in kinetic energy at two different points in time. It is not a definition of KE.

It’s not math, it’s experimental data.

If you can explain how accusations of sockpuppetry (or trolling) are on-topic, I will restore your post. If mod actions are going to chill such discussion, I count that as a positive.

I’m guessing people with respiratory issues would love this. Like Seattle residents during the forest fires this past summer. What do mean “we”? I personally sacrificed twice as many last year as compared to a decade ago.

How is this known to be the case?

This has an effect on the normal force, which is what we perceive, but not on gravity.

We can see from the pictures that the tank is around 20 cm long, and maybe it’s 12 cm tall and perhaps 8 cm deep. That’s ~2 liters (edit: i.e. a half gallon, as periphery note). 4.4 lbs if it’s all water. So maybe 7 or 8 lbs, plus a few more for the glass. 10 lbs or so.

Can you explain why you think this is the case?

No, that’s not the reason. The ratio for nuclei stable vs beta decay grows larger as Z increases. And that ratio is not the reason for stability, merely an indicator. As Z increases, the electrostatic repulsion increases, as it has an infinite range, but the nuclear attraction saturates, owing to its finite range. You need more neutrons in larger nuclei. What the nuclei are “trying to obtain” is being in the lowest energy state. If a beta decay gets them to a lower energy state, they will decay. Similar to a ball rolling downhill to minimize its potential energy. same as above - spontaneous decay will happen because the final state is lower in energy. The mass is lower.

I’ve seen this claim before, but it’s actually erroneous. It’s true that if the GPS clocks were not adjusted they would accumulate a time difference of ~38 microseconds a day as compared to ground clocks (and ct would be around 10 km), but this would not show up as a positioning error in GPS, since the GPS clocks nominally run at the same rate, and the trilateration uses timing differences between signals from the GPS clocks. These clocks would random walk away from each other, and accumulate differences from orbital variations, if not synched up. But this would be on the scale of nanoseconds, not microseconds, per day. One of the reasons the clocks are adjusted is so that you can do clock corrections from the ground station, which uses time from the USNO master clock. If you didn’t do that, you would be forced to have clocks synchronize within the constellation (whose clocks are less stable than the master clock) which would be less efficient and less precise, so you’d potentially end up with a larger positioning error. But measured in meters, not kilometers

Did you? One can’t help but notice you haven’t provided any calculations in support of your proposal. Must pass all tests, yes. Must conduct all tests, no. As Markus has already noted, there are other ways to test GR, and we would have noticed issues. Nobody has denied this, or even hinted at it.

! Moderator Note Similar threads merged

Yes, it’s just a different scenario, but this range has been tested. Slower and faster speeds, and deeper and shallower locations in a gravitational potential. No new physics is proposed that this would reveal, and no new limits are going to be tested. No compelling reason to spend from a limited budget since that could mean some other science would not take place.

That’s supposed to be the focus: inquiring about claims and/or responding with mainstream material that rebut or support them

But it is about the data range. When you see experimental GR or QM results reported, it’s invariably because the new results cover that new ground. As far as the “proper” calculation goes, you are free to do it.

No, I said you can’t justify spending money on an experiment without some expectation of a novel result. If you can test to a higher level of precision, that’s uncharted territory. Deviations from theory could be detected. The moon does not represent a range of speed or gravitational potential that hasn’t been tested. What experiments with high costs, that are testing some data range that’s already been investigated, can you name?

Clocks (and other hardware) that go to space must be able to withstand the vibrations and acceleration associated with launch, being in vacuum, temperature range/cycling, and the radiation they will be subjected to in space. (plus more) Not commercial off-the-shelf electronics. One example https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIL-STD-883 Since electronics depends on QM being correct, we are already implicitly assuming that QM is correct if we send missions anywhere. But you aren’t suggesting that QM is in question on the moon, and needs to be tested.

It wasn’t addison’s proposal, and it’s their thread.

I should have been more clear. We see objects which occupy space. We don’t experience time the same way.

You don’t directly sense it as you do with the dimensions of space (which are sensed with vision)

That implies there is an equation with a solution that is zero. But there is no equation.

The things that orbit in the disc have collisions. If you don’t, then what would make a particle orbit in that plane?