swansont

So you’re saying this spelling was deliberate

Yes, two PhDs. Glad you agree.

You can check in any college 1st semester physics textbook and confirm that this is the mainstream view. It’s a basic definition. I’m giving you information, and the benefit of my expertise. Not bothering would mean not responding at all. Nobody here owes you any of their time. I gave you an example that shows it does. You are free to recreate it. You can also drop a wet rag or raw egg on the floor. It will have some speed just before it hits the floor (i.e. it has kinetic energy) and then just after the collision, it won’t be moving, so its KE is now zero. You’re working very hard to deny something so trivially easy to observe. Why should the KE change? The real question is why wouldn’t it? TOTAL energy is conserved. Not any particular type of energy, unless you have specific circumstances. Energy can change from one type to another. Lots of devices take advantage of this - a generator takes mechanical energy and converts it to electrical. You want an example of kinetic energy converted to thermal energy, you can see this in a car’s brakes. They heat up as the car slows. Any object sliding along a surface with friction present will heat up. You can check this yourself.

Who has two PhDs, not four https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travis_S._Taylor

Citation needed. For this, and, well, everything. Your claims are considered bogus until substantiated.

It’s so you can upload pictures. You aren’t obligated to use that feature. You are obligated to post material for discussion. Take Phi’s suggestion and do it in parts, so nobody gets bogged down.

Really? Do you think we get to tell nature how it works? I’m sure they aren’t things we can just decide on, independent of comparing with experiment (i.e. nature) We can’t decide that pi=3 and think that our calculations will work. How do you know what I’ve noticed? I’ve only commented on a few of your musings. It makes sense to put physical constants in equations that require them. Which is what we do. Are you not aware of this? You’re moving the goalposts here.Star Trek is fiction. It’s entertainment. They make stuff up. No obligation to investigate underlying patterns. That’s for your other thread. I thought this was about aliens. The evidence for which is…a video from the history channel?

Add the above that e.g. if you aren’t within ~50 light years of earth, you would be unaware of our space travel.

Ah, you need to believe. That explains a lot. Being wrong about some things means you’re wrong about anything built on them, and that can be problematic. And you’ve been told not to discuss this anymore, because you went ~6 pages and refused to address issues people raised, and we decided that’s enough. You aren’t engaging in good faith, and when that becomes obvious we shut threads down. In accordance with the rules you agreed to when you joined. Another nebulous, unsupported claim. You’re all hat and no cattle. See above comment. Which you’ve been asked to identify, specifically, and you don’t. Can’t, probably, but would never admit it.

But there is no interaction. It’s just a particle. Mass energy is mass energy. Interactions can affect it, but they are not the source of energy for fundamental particles.

The problem here is that you don’t get to tell nature how to behave. The science consultant (for a few years) on TNG was a friend of mine. His job was to make things sound plausible, but he would get overruled if the writers liked the story and improving the science interfered with it. There wasn’t more depth because the show was fiction. They made stuff up. (when he joined the writing staff he asked some advice for a script because he didn’t want to make up some new physics, which is why we had a baryon sweep rather than naming some exotic new particle in Starship Mine)

A change in KE means the energy is no longer in the system, or has been added to the system. Where that energy went or where it came from (i.e. the kind of energy) is not accounted for in these examples. It’s not required if these equations apply. Look at the example I gave of the head-on collision. The KE is not lost to another particle even though there was an acceleration. There is zero KE after the collision. Both particles lost KE. Nothing gained KE. KE is not generally a conserved quantity. It’s only conserved in the special case of elastic collisions. I didn’t claim that. I claimed the opposite: KE is not conserved I did not write KE (=KEf). You must have edited the quote, which is grossly dishonest.

What’s your evidence of the bolded statement? Or it’s the energy something has owing to is mass.

Try using the copy and paste functions on your computer to give us the text. Or type it in by hand, if you must. But simply attaching a file is insufficient.

Hypothesized. Might account. Could also be the case. It's not a real phenomenon that has been established with any rigor. UFOs are unidentified. You think you have identified them. But you don't have any actual evidence. By all means, bring up your specific complaints - as long as they are legitimate scientific objections. I'm sure people would like to discuss the actual details. Note that not understanding something is not a legitimate objection. What you presented falls way, way short of being a theory. I'm not going to watch the video (you're supposed to post things for discussion; watching videos can't be required) but corrupted data really isn't evidence of anything.

It's not a question of experiment discerning this distance, it's the theory. An equation with 10^-35 in the denominator (even raised to some power) can have a finite solution. One with a 0 in the denominator cannot. "a point of radius 10^-35 meters" is an inconsistent statement. A point has no size to it. Its radius is zero. In some way not necessarily understood by some, the physics constants are the medium ... How can you be sure that any of your assumptions about physics are correct? ... Or misunderstood. These all sound like you're saying the physics is wrong As for the rest: no math = no model You can't make specific predictions without math. Thus you can't test the idea, and potentially falsify it.

But this energy comes from the material as it is gravitationally compressing, so it doesn't mean that there is extra gravitation beyond what you would get for the mass and size, as compared to matter that has more protons in it.

That was a joke, right? Interest in crystals and "New Age" crystals are not the same thing. Either you knew that, or you were being serious. In either case, that's funny (though not for the same reasons). Thank you for the laugh. It's not an error, as such. It's a known effect and is compensated for by adjusting the oscillator, as your quote indicates. I'm guessing there was a point in bringing this up, but I'm at a loss to discern what it was. I'd say you have one more shot at salvaging some credibility and giving an indication that you want to be taken seriously but discussing matters of substance.

! Moderator Note What you have done does not comply with the rules. From 2.7 of our guidelines: Attached documents should be for support material only; material for discussion must be posted. Documents must also be accompanied by a summary, at minimum.

! Moderator Note Not your thread. Not the right place for you to advance your "theory"

What is the evidence that they have an internal structure? We've found evidence for all the particles we've discovered that have an internal structure - that we can cause excitations, and that we can break them up in some way.

Which is impossible under pure capitalism. If more people have money, that drives prices up. There will always be people who can't afford medical treatments. Tell me, what policies have conservatives implemented to ensure that we are all wealthy enough? They oppose a minimum wage. How do you get wealthy working for $8 an hour? Even if you work 2 jobs, that's $33,280 a year @40 hours a week. Probably less, because I don't think the GOP is a big fan of paid sick leave. How does the right feel about unions, who fight for higher wages? They are opposed to public education, which might allow people to get better jobs. If one hits a stretch of bad luck, what is the conservative stance on help for people out of work and possibly homeless, because they can't work? Sounds more like the conservative want you to have a unicorn, but it's just a talking point. So what? What business is it of yours what other people do in private? Where is your evidence of this? We had much better wealth equality back when taxation was much different. And see my remarks above about working for minimum wage. How successful is that at redistributing wealth? Where is your evidence of this? Of course you might be referring to tax cheats, et.al, as the best criminals, but on a dollar-by-dollar basis, I suspect that the rich are the worst criminals. The IRS estimates tax cheats cost the US $1 trillion a year. https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-04-13/tax-cheats-are-costing-the-us-1-trillion-a-year-irs-estimates Even if you had a million welfare recipients stealing $100,000 each every year, that's only 10% of the tax cheating. (and we could go into other white-collar crime and wage theft as well) Sorry, what? What unequal treatment do white males get? (here is another example of my observation about only dealing in generalities and manufactured outrage) Sorry, these are the fault of liberals in the US? And this suggests that the liberals you seem to dislike were supportive of these regimes. The left attacked the right? What history books are you reading? Since when is slavery a liberal tenet? (also, if you have to delve into history like this, it sounds like you have no arguments to make about politics of the current century) Why 25? If this is some age of responsibility then surely nobody should be able to do other things, like own a gun, before they are 25. Doesn't seem like a conservative view.

That would be in the way that 10^-35, while small, is still not zero It's not graviton; that name is reserved for the spin-2 boson that mediates gravity, or will, once a quantum theory of gravity is developed. You'll get a lot of traction telling the physics community that they don't understand physics, but not to worry, because you're coming to the rescue. Because physics works, and it's based on the mathematical descriptions. It would be quite the phenomenon to do high-precision experiments and have them be successful all while being a happy accident because the physics was wrong. This would include diagnosing the experiments when they weren't working, and being able to correct problems, all based on having the physics be correct. I'm pretty sure the reference was to your musings, rather than established physics. There is only some superficial overlap between the two.

Almost certainly. The thing is, people have been doing physics for quite some time, so the syntax is well-established. What you're doing is similar to showing up in a foreign country and expecting them to speak your language No, not really. KEf being final kinetic energy is fine, if you mean it the same as everyone else: the KE at the end of the example you're analyzing For difference we use ∆, so ∆KE = KEf - KEi So what you are doing is not "extending" the syntax, you are introducing new syntax where it already exists, which is confusing. ∆KE is not a KE that any one particle has, so it's a value for energy, but it's no longer describing the energy of a particle, so calling it a KE isn't correct. Example: Two 1 kg objects moving at 1 m/s collide head-on and stick together, coming to rest. Their change in KE is -1 Joule, but at the end of the example nothing is moving, so saying ∆KE is a kinetic energy is incorrect. There is nothing in that example that has -1 J of kinetic energy. A kinetic energy can't be negative. Yes, energy is conserved, but kinetic is only one form of energy. KE itself is not a conserved quantity. See the above example of a completely inelastic collision. As I have shown, ∆KE is not a value associated with any one particle, or even anything having motion. It is a useful value to know in may problems, but to be useful it must be properly labeled, so one can do a proper accounting of the energy present. Well, that's your problem. Calculus works regardless of your understanding or dislike of it. I agree that ∆KE = 0. That's the problem. You had said KE=m*(vf2-vi2)/2, rather than saying this was ∆KE IOW, you were claiming that some object's KE was described by the equation. And for an object moving at some constant speed, it's kinetic energy is decidedly NOT zero. For an object not starting from rest, this does not give the object's KE. Which makes your equation wrong.

Not really. It's still there, as noisome as ever. But you seem to be confusing freedom of speech and freedom from consequences. And you think your ignorant intuition must be correct? What efforts do you take to check to see if your intuition isn't misguided? Many conservatives also decry education. There's a fix for having to rely on intuition, but they avoid it, fervently. No, I think that nobody has dismissed what you say owing to grouping you in with other conservatives. In your closed thread, I don't think anything there was indicative of a conservative view. It was challenged on the claims you made but refused to substantiate. You had plenty of opportunity to present your case. You failed to do so. But you don't seem to see this as a failure, you blame others for this. In some instances. We're both moderators, and both enforce the law. My moniker (evil liar, or so I'm told) and current avatar came about because someone thought I ran the place. (AFAICT it's consistent with a persecution complex. You focus on whoever is telling to straighten up and fly right) Another common response. Despite the fact that you have broken specific rules, which have been pointed out to you, you choose to see this as "being hassled by the man" because of your views. I suppose it helps preserve your worldview. I will note that you still have not articulated any of your specific beefs with "the left"