swansont

This is just replacing one fabrication with another, without getting us closer to a solution. This is clearly BS, including the fact that it's not particularly rigorous, as there is no equation presented to tell us how the weight would change with velocity, so specific predictions can't be made. If the description were less vague this would be trivial to refute. One traveling in a car or a plane does not see their weight change, much less see it increase if they travel west and less if they travel east. Our orbital speed is ~30 km/s, and during the daytime we're moving slower and in the nighttime faster (by up to 1 km/s) owing to our rotation, so it's not even clear what "moving faster than the earth" even means, since the surface does not have a fixed velocity. An object in orbit travels both with and against the motion of the earth's orbit, and yet its weight does not fluctuate. Objects orbit in directions that are not parallel to the equator and once again, their weight is not dependent on the velocity. Since this is your claim to evidence that velocity is a medium, then I consider that refuted. But by all means, come up with a better test, and we can go through how that can also be refuted. And yet we have experiments that show exactly this. If you reject time, what other motion is there? Motion through/in space corresponds to a velocity. What is this new mystical category of motion that slows down?

! Moderator Note And that’s irrelevant to the discussion. Split to the trash

Please don’t play games. If you have relevant information, post it.

Yes, I get that. But you stated the reason for this is that there is no medium for it. I’m not aware that anyone thinks that time requires a medium, and so this seems like you’re making up a reason to not believe in time, which isn’t a particularly solid foundation for an argument Yes, linear and angular velocity are different things, but this isn’t the same as what you claimed. So you have asserted. How do we detect this medium? So you agree it’s velocity-dependent Slowing of motion that increases with velocity? What?

What are the values of the magnetic and electric field?

I’m not a lawyer, but I imagine such a suit would be immediately tossed

I don't think asteroids are differentiated to the point that they have crusts and cores, so I think differences from collisions of them forming meteoroids wouldn't be caused by this. The ones that form from collisions with planets would likely be made of the crust of the planet https://www.space.com/51-asteroids-formation-discovery-and-exploration.html https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/meteoroid

What right is allegedly being violated? The one that SCOTUS just said doesn't exist?

But it's how the example worked that you gave. When you solve a problem, you use the appropriate physics for the problem, so if the speed is constant, you can use an equation for constant speed. And there are lots of problems where speed is constant, or that's a reasonable approximation of a situation. And yet you use average speed, which makes assumptions as well. Indeed. Nothing theoretical about it. It's the value of the speed at a particular time. So this is based on a mistrust of math, and as a result you use math that's less appropriate. If you can show that math is inconsistent that's a purely mathematical issue and has nothing to do with physics. In the example given they were the same, because speed was constant. Changing the parameters of someone else's example and then complaining about a problem that arises is not an argument made in good faith. They can be, but the point was that if they aren't your equation quite obviously fails. It's wrong. But you're ignoring that. Nobody else is fooled by the distraction. Really? You only mentioned collisions in passing until now. No, really, that's not how it's pronounced. They are pronounced "Kinetic Energy" and "Potential Energy" and they are sometimes equal to each other. Those who study and understand physics know the limitations; KE is not a conserved quantity in collisions except in a special case (elastic collision) because there are other possible forms of energy (e.g. thermal, sound, deformation)

Chemical differentiation plays a role, so one would not expect a great match between planets where the contributing factors are different. Some of the sources of metals came from impact events after planet formation (e.g. the iridium layer from the K-T impact event) And if the processes are the same (as they should be), one could have many similarities even if they are quite distant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_differentiation One can identify e.g. meteorites that came from Mars, based on composition differences with what we find on earth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martian_meteorite These meteorites are interpreted as Martian because they have elemental and isotopic compositions that are similar to rocks and atmospheric gases on Mars, which have been measured by orbiting spacecraft, surface landers and rovers.

Do you have a link for where the photo came from?

The velocity describes the motion. In standard physics these are not separate things. What are the equations that would let us test this? And show how velocity is a "medium" And yet we have length contraction, which tells us that length is relative to the observer, which means it depends on velocity.

I will ask again what model requires this. What is the evidence that this is the case?

Radium does not glow. In those watches and other similar uses, radium decays and the emitted alpha particle strikes a phosphor, which is what emits the light. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_paint#radioluminescent_paint

The velocity addition formula is not the reason that relativity says light speed is invariant, it's a result of it. And you haven't actually derived the formula here.

If the speed is constant, then why all the commotion about average speed? It's constant! There's no reason to worry about initial and final speed, since it doesn't change. Speed is always relative to the frame of reference to which it is measured. As is kinetic energy. What's your point?

So then my request still stands for you to offer up some kind of citation for these alleged issues the Standard Model has with relativity.

I guess I was confused by the fact that you said this "The Standard Model includes "force carriers" travelling at c velocity of light. Isn't this a condition imposed to match with Relativity?" Don't call your model the Standard Model; that name is taken.

What if there is no acceleration?

Your assertion of Watt's equation is questionable, and this last equation is not quite correct There's a difference between instantaneous power and average power Instantaneous power is given by P = dW/dt, which can be rewritten as F.ds/dt = F.v Force dot product with velocity is the instantaneous power. It's not a velocity difference. It's the velocity at the moment you are calculating the power. Because they are saying the speed is constant. Your equation says the KE is zero, which is wrong. As I said before, your equation is for the change in KE, not for KE

"Dark matter is wrong" does not equate to "MOND is correct" as is suggested by the article. If DM is wrong, then it's wrong. That's as far as it goes. And also, as Markus points out, the author is simply ignoring issues with MOND. Such argument is trash, from a scientific standpoint. The objection that "The theory of dark matter makes no predictions as to what the particles ought to be and what to look for" reminds me of the search for the neutrino/antineutrino. A particle that was proposed because the behavior shown in experiments didn't match up with theory - energy was missing, you had a continuous spectrum of electron energy, and angular momentum wasn't being conserved. There was no theory that said a neutrino should exist but the observation said something had to be there, and also said that any such particle wouldn't be interacting electromagnetically. (it was "dark" even though this is not what we call dark matter). Lo and behold, it was eventually detected, more than a decade after being proposed. The theory to explain it also came after, and the original proposal had to be refined over the course of time. It took decades to work all of this out.

No, I know that relativity limits information to lightspeed. I am interested in your claim that there is some issue with the standard model owing to relativity.

They are virtual particles. They don’t violate causality or relativity. https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/virtual_particles.html No, I was referring to Maxwell’s equations. You need to provide citations for your claims.

You have a reference for this? I was under the impression that it was a relativistic quantum field theory. And electrodynamics - even classical electrodynamics- is inherently relativistic

And its great success is a problem? What problems does it have with relativity? The standard model doesn’t incorporate gravity.