swansont

The body does move up. And down. edit to add: the velocity vector changes, so there is an acceleration.

! Moderator Note Advertising your own personal theory in someone else’s thread is a violation of rule 2.5. If you want to discuss this, post a new thread in speculations. Be prepared to defend it, though. “No material can have a net negative charge” is trivially false.

Ethan Siegel has written a number of blog posts on the topic. There are more than just these two https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/the-death-of-dark-matters-1-competitor-98edff3a066f https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/could-dark-matter-not-exist-at-all-b0e69fd41848

Been there many times. It's always so interesting to dive into these scenarios. Even when the basic description covers most of what's going on, the rabbit hole always goes deeper.

But it doesn't blow the rest of the gas away. For example, our sun has much more mass in it than just the core, which has only about 10% of the sun's mass in it. Radiation pressure is relatively weak; you need a large photon scattering rate to cause appreciable acceleration. So you will blow gas away, but it depends on the luminosity of the star and what the gravitational acceleration is. At some luminosity you blow gas away at some distance from the star because gravity drops off, but gas inside that point still feels a net attraction. "The Eddington limit is the point beyond which a star ought to push itself apart, or at least shed enough mass to reduce its internal energy generation to a lower, maintainable rate. The actual limit-point mass depends on how opaque the gas in the star is, and metal-rich Population I stars have lower mass limits than metal-poor Population II stars." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_massive_stars#Eddington_mass_limit

I'm guessing the thieves would be blamed. As they are not a government entity, why is this relevant to a discussion of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (i.e. action of a sovereign state)?

! Moderator Note You already have a thread to discuss "Retrodynamic Dextrogiro => vs <= Levogiro Phenomenon Effect" As this appears to be a new engineering/physics concept, it needs to be established as valid before you can discuss phenomena based on it. Focus on the other thread and provide clarification and support.

! Moderator Note Moved out of science news because this is not news Put another way: you can't just look at galaxy rotation curves, i.e. MOND fails when you look at a wider range of phenomena. It can only be part of an answer if you get rid of dark matter. This is discussed in the link MigL provided

Yeah, I doubt that's a valid quote. The only places I find it with a search are posts like this. No, it's not. Linear motion and rotational motion are distinct. Newtonian action reaction pairs act on different objects. It is not the sum of forces in any meaningful application of Newton's laws. For example "And in this case of 2Two Forces: 1Action + 2Reaction" Adding an action/reaction force pair makes no sense, as they act on different objects. They are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction, so as vectors they would sum to zero anyway. Are these actual phenomena, or is this just renaming something in Spanish/Portuguese/Italian? If it's the former, please provide links.

! Moderator Note You’ve been told not to do this; supporting speculation with other speculation isn’t permitted, and neither is advertising your speculation threads links have been removed

! Moderator Note It’s a controlled substance in Australia & US, and prescription-only in Russia. A such discussion violates rule 2.3

Upgraded to permanent ban, since the trolling and thread hijacking have continued

In some instances, circuits are connected to objects (stakes or pipes) that literally go into the ground. This dates back to telegraphs circuits, ~200 years ago. The terminology isn’t going to change; that it doesn’t make sense to one (or a few) people doesn’t carry much weight against something that’s been used for so long. ”Mass” is a term from mechanics, and I’d wager that a lot of people would be confused by its use in electrical descriptions. Especially in some scenarios where both were present and you wouldn’t know which mass was meant.

! Moderator Note Links to video with no discussion violates rule 2.7 You’ve been told this before

What are the values of k1 and k2? How are they determined? How would you determine the force the sun exerts on the earth, and on the moon? Neither of these are asteroid impact or Deccan Traps. If you would answer questions instead of moving the goalposts, this might go better.

You don't have a theory. There is no model I can use to make specific predictions, and you haven't provided evidence that the idea is true. What you have is a guess that sounds good to you, but it doesn't look like there has been any critical analysis of it until now.

Some wisdom about English I've read over the years: English was a language invented by Norman invaders to pick up Anglo-Saxon barmaids. It retains much of this character. --- Either from H. Beam Piper or Paul Drye's English professor Peter Newman English doesn't "pick up" loan words, it consciously stalks them. --- Andrew Moffatt-Vallance The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that the English language is as pure as a crib-house whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary. --- James D. Nicoll

There are elements of quantum mechanics that can't be explained using classical mechanics, so your dynamic gravity can't explain quantum mechanics in these terms. It can't explain everything, but it can explain everything? You are making lots of promises, and yet you haven't delivered on any of them. Soon it will be time to put up or shut up.

That's one equation you need to show; the gravity on the moon is not the same as on earth. The trend of gravity varying from one planet to another is not obvious, other than being proportional to its mass. If you can't show this, then the notion of it varying is moot. Telling us what it isn't, isn't particularly helpful. Especially when "substance" typically means it is made of particles. Is there any other substance that isn't? So it's 1/r^2, which is what Newton's law already says. And Newtonian gravity explains almost all of what we observe (GR explains the small deviations from Newtonian gravity). So what does your conjecture bring to the table? If this is a correction, you should be able to point to phenomena that don't fit with Newtonian gravity. Same comment as above - what about these are unexplained, and how exactly (i.e. not hand-waving) does your idea fix this? This all seems consistent with the fallacy of personal incredulity - that because you don't understand something, nobody does.

Yes, but perhaps you've had the experience of knowing something is A or B, but the topic is sufficiently esoteric, and encountered so infrequently that you can't remember which one is correct. (and then the 50/50/90 rule comes into play) I've had this happen to me on several topics

"It's wrong" is the one that matters. All else is theatre As you see. But this requires expertise in geology and biology as well as physics. Are you, in fact, and expert in all of these fields? Or is it possible that you simply aren't aware of the mainstream science that accounts for each of these?

Formulas, which allow for specific predictions. Explaining how it works is a start, but you need more detail. What are the details of how this substance gets from the sun to a planet? What happens when a body blocks the sun, or otherwise interrupts the flow of this substance? We've done experiments on how time changes owing to gravitational effects. Can you come up with the same formula based on this approach? This is unclear to me. It suggests that gravity of a planet/body only depends on its distance from the sun Which is no evidence, since that's already explained by mainstream science. You're getting way ahead of yourself. You can't explain anything without the underlying hypothesis being demonstrated. You have three different explanations here. Are they compatible with each other, or are you just using a shotgun approach, hoping that something in here is on target?

1. No, it doesn't. This is far too lacking in detail to make such a claim. 2. Who is CM? QM is far more nuanced than this. The basic model this corresponds to - the Bohr model - is incorrect. Even so, can you derive the energy levels of the hydrogen atom starting only with your material? Can you explain the Lamb shift with your "model"? The hyperfine splitting of the ground state of hydrogen? The fact that the ground state has no orbital angular momentum?

Or maybe it's because he's not a lawyer. Every profession has its own nomenclature, and people outside of that profession won't be as well-versed in the language that is peculiar to it. As Peterkin notes, "quash" is likely one of those terms.

At best this would be a (regional) dialect. Similar to someone “aksing” a question. I’m bothered by the British tendency to drop the “h” that starts a word, or drops an “r” at the end, etc. (oh, that’s not all Brits who do this? Imagine that!) I’d go with that, rather than assigning a motive without evidence. What we learn when we’re young is hard to change. Consider how some people can’t overcome this when they try to speak another language (“shibboleth” story from the Bible, or the stereotypical scene of a Japanese or Chinese speaker pronouncing “L” and substituting “R” e.g. “lollipop” as “rorrypop”)