swansont

As a force between objects with mass, if we're looking at things through a Newtonian lens. As a curvature of spacetime owing to energy-momentum (recall that mass is a form of energy) if we are considering general relativity If it has energy it does. But generally speaking the energy of an electric field is small and gravity is a very weak interaction, so it can be safely ignored in most cases. But it needs to be correct to be helpful, and you have to demonstrate that it is correct. Your model appears to imply there is a deviation from the 1/r^2 force of Newtonian gravity (you've thus far declined the opportunity to show details of this). But if so, this causes problems. Newton's third law, for one - you have an action force that's not the same magnitude as the reaction force. Also Bertrand's theorem says that bound orbits are only closed if you have a 1/r or 1/r^2 force. So how do we have what appear to be closed orbits? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand's_theorem

If you have a solid material, how do the atoms move to result in differentiation? It's possible if the material is molten, and perhaps if it's able to undergo plastic deformation. Otherwise they just don't move all that much. Heat isn't converted to cold. Heat is energy transfer due to a temperature difference. Cold is a concept of not having a high temperature, but it's not a thermodynamic parameter.

Velocity with respect to what? Where did you get 13 million mph? You haven't explained why this would be insufficient. All you've said is that we move the same rate as the earth, and that's not a meaningful statement I am considering what you've said, and am pointing out how imprecise the statements are. Perhaps you should check your intellectual arrogance and consider that your explanations are not clear, consistent and detailed enough to stand up to scrutiny by scientists. And since you won't tell us what the prediction is, it's irrelevant to the discussion. You can dispense with the melodrama.

Precision test implies that this is very small. How small? What kind of test? You haven't provided an equation that depends on relative speed or velocity

It's trivial to show that an object moving in a circle can only do so if there is a force pulling it towards the center. It's done in first semester physics. They are not scientific facts. They run contrary to what we know about physics. Because we chose a system where that's the case. You don't have to use metric. There are imperial units, which is a mess of a system because they were not chosen with any of these relationships in mind. We do not. As I pointed out before, if we use our orbit as a reference, at noon someone at the equator is moving faster than the this reference, and at midnight they are moving slower, because the earth rotates. There is no one value for "the rate the earth moves through space" if you are looking at the surface. Someone at the equator at noon is moving faster than someone at 45 degrees of latitude. Have you ever moved east or west, ever? Because if you did I guarantee you moved either faster or slower than the point where you started, and yet you still remained tethered to the earth. You were not left behind, nor were you in orbit.

There are a number of experiments that confirm that our understanding of gravity is correct, to the level of precision it can be tested. If this is contrary to general relativity, then why does the theory work so well? If it's not, then what does your idea bring to the table?

And yet you seem quite comfortable telling people who do know more than a little about physics that they are wrong, and continue to make some outlandish claims without supporting them. This is contrary to the rules - speculations must be supported by a model and/or evidence. But you could increase the length of the meter and adjust other units, and everything would still work. The length of the meter's tie into the other units is a fairly recent development. Like the kilogram, it used to be based on a physical artifact (in this case a platinum-iridium bar) and it's only with advances in technology that we've been able to make these connections with other standards. The meter was later defined in terms of the wavelength of a transition in Kr-86, and then was defined in terms of the speed of light and the second (which is defined in terms of a transition in Cs-133) You're the one making the claims, which means you own the burden of proof. You have to show that time depends on motion. And I've already shown your claim about "traveling at the same rate as earth" to be false. That you ignored it doesn't mean that it's not there.

If it's a situation with friction, like an object sliding across a floor, the more massive object will have a larger frictional force; this is because the normal force would be equal to the weight, and the frictional force depends on the normal force. This will require a larger force to counteract friction to maintain constant speed.

So it’s not a “dynamical force which appears only between moving particles” as you stated in the first sentence of this thread? What’s the equation for this force? And why does an electric field levitate a charge, like in the Millikan oil drop experiment, if the interaction is gravitational? I can’t parse this word salad. Give me an equation for this additional force on moving bodies.

Your claims don’t appear to be consistent with Newton’s law of gravitation. If they are, you need to demonstrate that this is the case.

You need a way for the various elements to move toward the center of the body and displace others. Being hot enough to be pliable, if not actually molten, on the interior. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_differentiation

Repeating this does not make it true. Or anybody that has studied Newtonian physics No, it was in response to “We conclude gravity(a product of time) as a force is an illusion” and the way you could tell is that in the very next sentence, I made it clear that this was what I was asking about. I’d document this, but frankly you’re just not worth the effort More than a little. And you got a lot wrong. (you admit to not knowing physics, so one might wonder where the confidence that you know what you’re talking about comes from) Timekeeping hasn’t been based on earth rotation for 50 years, and the notion that there is some universal time went out the window more than 100 years ago. Forward, not backward.If you don’t think so, post a response to this yesterday I chose SI units. The length of a meter is arbitrary, as is the number of charges that make up a coulomb of charge, and also the length of the second. Units are a convention, used for convenience. The length of a solar day isn’t constant, which is why it was discarded and replaced by the mean solar day. But that’s not constant, either. The length of an hour was also variable in some timekeeping systems, where there were always 12 hours of sunlight and 12 of darkness. It’s interesting stuff.

Depends on what model you’re using. “Time is a measure of motion through space” suggests no motion = no time

If they were found along with other parts of a skeleton, possibly with multiple skeletons, it would be pretty obvious. Neanderthal skulls had a distinctive shape with prominent brow ridges, along with other features that differentiated them from H. sapiens.

The GOP will have put legislation in place, and people in key positions loyal to the party rather than the country, such that violence need not be part of the plan.

The total energy or power incident on the device does not increase. If the collector is 4m^2 and the intensity is 250 W/m^2, you have 1 kW. You can “concentrate” this to make a spot that’s 1 m^2, and the intensity jumps to 1 kW/m^2, but the power is still 1 kW There might be applications where using this energy is more efficient at higher intensity, but you will never exceed the 1 kW value in whatever mechanical conversion you do. (You will always be lower than that, since y]that conversion can’t be 100% efficient) True, but “photon energy” ≠ “a photon’s energy” Sensei’s point is correct.

A) the transit of Venus is not about “understanding society” B) Making predictions about society/behavior is very much possible; it would be more like gas laws, where you describe behavior of the ensemble, and not so much like mechanics, where you describe single objects. It is very much not. Why were you claiming otherwise? No, it’s not a medium Who are these other people claiming gravity is an illusion? WTF does that have to do with anything? Another reversal of your previous claim. In Newtonian physics, gravity is a force. The moon is weightless (to the extent that it is) because it’s in freefall, which happens in an orbit. In any non-circular orbit, the object speeds up and slows down. “velocity greater than earth” points to a profound misunderstanding of the physics involved in such motion, and orbits. You should learn about the history of timekeeping. And your point is? They’re all still chosen. Notice how you referred to one second - a unit of time.

! Moderator Note Evidence didn't suddenly take on a new definition. If there is actual evidence, you (and everyone else making similar claims) will kindly comply with rule 2.12 and point to it

To a very good approximation it's given by GM/r^2 where M is the mass of Jupiter. For the field of the solar system, you'd get a good approximation using the mass of the sun, and the corresponding distance. The mass of Saturn is less than 0.0003 solar masses, so outside the solar system, the difference would be small. But you are free to calculate how small the effect is.

! Moderator Note This isn't about your opinion. If you have relevant information to share, do so, but in threads like this we're here to discuss science.

That's a good point; I know there have been past discussions that show a voltaic panel solar-powered vehicle is impractical for operating with real-time propulsion, and some new method that doubled or tripled the efficiency still doesn't get you there edit to add: power output of 100 kW here for an EV https://www.renaultgroup.com/en/news-on-air/news/understanding-the-power-output-of-an-electric-motor/ 250 W/m^2 insolation and 2 m^2 area of a car is just 500 Watts. Quite a gap.

A significant strength of science is that it allows one to make predictions, often with astonishing precision and accuracy. You have yet to convey what the real problem is with this. No, I asked you to provide evidence that your description of time exists - that's it's something that requires a medium. The underlying concept you used to deny the existence of time. I want to know how time would require a medium, were it to exist. Because otherwise this is just the straw-man fallacy. Who is "we"? Mainstream physics has a perfectly good explanation for why someone would begin to orbit if they traveled fast enough, and it doesn't involve concluding that gravity is an illusion. Years are just part of a reference system. All measurements are made in reference to some standard. they are all human concepts, so this isn't a mark against time. There is a standard meter, there is a standard kilogram, a standard ampere, a standard Kelvin...

! Moderator Note Soliciting funding and people without actually delving into discussion of the science violates rule 2.11. “We are here to discuss science, in the open”

Age is typically determined by the rocks in/around which it was found. Typically younger rock is deposited on older rock (exceptions are typically fairly obvious). There are a couple of different methods, depending on the geology. One method: volcanic deposits will contain materials that crystallize as it cools. It can contain Potassium-40, which decays to Argon-40, which is trapped in the crystal. The ratio of the two tells you when the deposit cooled. There are other isotope combinations that can be used, as well. If the material is geologically young there are some other methods - if it's under ~40-50,000 years and contains terrestrial matter that was once alive, you can do carbon dating (amount of C-14 as compared to the rest of the sample, since the C-14 stops being taken in when the being dies). Some samples found in lake beds can be dated by counting the annual layers of sediment deposited (varves), and you can also count tree rings (dendrochronology)

It's fairly easy to find the absorption and transmission curves for various glasses You can see here that the transmission drops to basically zero between 250 nm and 300 nm. So these let UVA through but blocks some of UVB (depending on the glass), and it looks like they block all of UVC https://www.ssi.shimadzu.com/industries/automotive-materials-testing/ceramics-glasses/measurement-of-solar-transmittance-through-plate-glass/index.html