swansont

! Moderator Note So it's falsified and also not a claim that energy is a dimension.

It's an upper limit - you'd lose energy to scattering and absorption in the atmosphere - but I was also pointing out that it would not be like a "continuous nuclear explosion." Thermodynamics limits you to the surface temperature of the sun. As uncool has already noted, this would be much bigger than the ISS, which was assembled in parts over a long period of time. So the mirror assembly would be known and an easy target - big, trackable, and on a well-defined orbital trajectory.

Some of them calculate it daily on the lowest balance of the day (i.e. a deposit is credited to the next day for such calculations)

Thermodynamics limits you to transferring heat from a higher temperature to a lower one, so you’re limited to the sun’s surface temperature, which is about 6000 degrees.

! Moderator Note Then present it. Post the material here.

Yes. It could raise the temperature of the focused spot up to about 6000 degrees C.

Energy being a dimension implies that it is somehow orthogonal to the spacetime dimensions. How does that work? How do you reconcile the units? How do you have “energy in motion” if it’s a dimension? What is the evidence that energy causes time? What is that relation? How much time does an energy E0 cause?

Is that the form of your modification? Everything is doubled? That isn’t what you wrote earlier.

I would think a quinoa fillet would be easier, but I really don't go for those Australian marsupials.

But it must be a deviation from 1/r^2 since it's a modification of Newton's law. So how do we have closed orbits? But if the earth's gravity exerted on the sun depends on its size, then how does the earth exert the same force on the sun, as the sin does on the earth? (this is required by Newton's third law)

What peer-reviewed science journal was that published in?

Yes, this is what physics tells us. But you have claimed the moon is not subject to gravity. If the moon were subject to gravity (was not weightless) it would collide with earth. As I pointed out earlier, the moon's velocity is less than that of a satellite in geostationary orbit (by about a factor of 3) and yet these objects are in orbit. Low-earth orbits are even faster. It's almost as if there was a force being exerted that drops off with the distance. And that circular orbits require specific velocities that depend on the radius of the orbit.

Citation(s) needed

I've had this problem with ground beef that's been in the fridge for a few days. Not so much with freshly-ground.

"The leaf is green" means that the light that reflects off of a leaf (from a white-ish source) is predominantly green, as in it's centered around 500 nm, and is lacking in light at the far ends of the visible spectrum. So the photons are actually green photons, i.e. it is a property of the photons that bounced off the leaf. There are other color perceptions that depend on how the eye processes the light, as well. To some people the leaf might not be green, because of problems in the eyes or in the optic nerve, or the brain. Color perception is a little more complicated at times. But it's safe to say it's not just in the leaf.

You just told me that having various velocities on the earth's surface does not. You said "this is insufficient to make the slightest bit of difference" So what is sufficient? A geostationary orbit is about 7,000 mph. Which is a lot smaller than 1.3 million. An X-15 traveled almost 5,000 mph, but was not in orbit. The moon's speed is under 2,500 mph, but it is in orbit. Seems to me this isn't the criterion you think it is, and the stumbling block is something I'm pointing out. It's your own creation. Oh, please.

In Galilean relativity, velocity addition is linear. Only? There are, quite notably, the Lorentz transforms.

It's 1.3 million, and you need to explain why this is the number that matters. It's both. In GR it's not a force, but you really haven't elevated the discussion to the point where GR is pertinent. You don't seem to understand the basics of Newtonian gravity. I can't ignore something that hasn't been presented. Actually you do have such an obligation, if it's relevant to the discussion. Sticking with what you've said is part of the problem. Repetition is not the same as clarification. Repetition is not "answering" in any meaningful sense. I thought you were advocating a position that says time doesn't actually exist. Which you say doesn't exist. So you're visualizing...nothing?

Yes, if you’re talking about a gravitationally bound system. You can calculate the work one needs to do to remove some mass from the system. That would be its gravitational binding energy. The quark binding MigL discussed is of a different nature; you can’t remove quarks from a nucleon. Because of the mass and smaller radius. What’s the evidence that the down quarks result in even more gravity than an identical mass and radius with fewer down quarks?

That would make this a science fiction discussion.

The image of a solar flare going back to the sun show matter traveling that path, not light. The matter emits or scatters light into your eye (or the camera’s lens) But yes, gravity would be involved, along with the sun’s magnetic field.

You can state anything you want. The issue is demonstrating it in an unambiguous fashion. How do you propose doing that?

Both sides? No, I don’t think so. There aren’t valid points for the conspiracy, only misinformed ones. They have been debunked countless times, including the “flag waving” nonsense https://www.rmg.co.uk/stories/topics/moon-landing-conspiracy-theories-debunked What is your evidence that the flag was waving back and forth, anyway? What reasoning leads you to think things don’t move because you have a vacuum, and also, are you looking at a still image or a video? The only video I’ve seen is while they are setting it up, and shaking the whole apparatus. The special kind of idiocy of thinking only wind would cause the flag to wave when people are shaking it is why moon landing conspiracies aren’t taken seriously. (you can do an experiment in a windless environment to see this, but that’s apparently too high of a hurdle for conspiracy fetishists) Your post is the worst aspect of this kind of argument - not only are you invoking a conspiracy, you haven’t even presented any evidence, and somehow expect the pro and con points to be treated on equal footing. We discuss science here, and demand some level of rigor in doing so.

What's your evidence that the gravity is greater?

I found this, which has our galaxy moving at 1.3 million mph wrt the cosmic microwave background. https://www.businessinsider.in/science/news/earth-is-screaming-through-space-at-1-3-million-mph-a-simple-animation-by-a-former-nasa-scientist-shows-what-that-looks-like-/articleshow/71542580.cms Earth orbits the sun at 66,600 mph, and the sun orbits the Milky Way at 514,500 mph, our solar system's speed relative to the CMB is about 827,000 mph. Zoom out further, and our entire galaxy is zipping through the CMB at about 1.3 million mph. Of course, the earth orbiting the sun means sometimes the speed adds to the speed of the solar system's morion, and sometimes it's subtracted from it. Similarly, the speed of the solar system in the galactic rotation would sometimes add to or be subtracted from the speed of the galaxy WRT the CMB. Note that our speed WRT the CMB is not the same as the galaxy's speed. It also doesn't let you check to see if you are wrong. And yet when people who have studied these matters tell you that you are, you continue to insist that you are right. Without giving details such a discussion is pretty much worthless, and it also would have to do with how society works rather than the nature of time. Your refusal to share the prediction is why it's irrelevant. That decision is under your control, not anyone else's involved in this discussion. It's clear that you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to physics, so how you come to this conclusion might fall under the Dunning-Kruger effect. I dismiss what you have to say because it is trivially wrong, and I've given feedback on how this is so. All you've done is tap-dance around and try to move the goalposts. The only question here is whether you really believe what you're peddling, or if you're just trolling. Every attempt to deflect inquiry rather than clarify points to the latter.