swansont

! Moderator Note Post the information here, as required by the rules

No

We have used ion pumps for our clocks since we wanted what is ultimately an oil-free system for long-term operation, though we use a turbo + mechanical pump to get down to the pressure where the ion pump will start. I used a diffusion pump in grad school. Luckily it never vented to air while operating, so I never had to clean up the resulting mess. I put various interlocks in place to shut pneumatically-operated gate valves in case it was exposed to higher pressures (like if there was a serious leak) and shut things down if the pump cooling was interrupted.

I would add that the photon does not require any external field. No photon, E and B have zero amplitude. There is no analogue of the rope present.

Where (i.e. in what context) does this term show up? AFAIK it's not phrasing that's used much in QM. An electron is a wave. The "cloud" in this description is a probability of finding it somewhere if you were to try and localize it; the probability function looks like a cloud. But one has to not try and impose notions of classical physics on this description - it would be incorrect to think of the electron existing at specific points at times when you aren't measuring it, and that it's moving from place to place. Because it is a wave, it exists everywhere.

You said orbit, and said it implied movement. There is no denying that. And by using the terminology and description, you give the impression that you don't actually know the correct model. You suggest that I made an unwarranted conclusion, but I say I made one based on the evidence before me. If it's the case that you misspoke, then all you have to do is say that, and we can move on to the next point about how we had gone from energy to movement; the original claim was about the latter, not the former. That's not what I said, so I will you refer you to your own comment about snarky responses. What I want is for people to be able to back up what they claim, and to have put in the minimal effort of learning the basics, rather than going on some wild conjecture. I will repeat: the claim was not in the OP, and was not phrased as a question. I was presented as a fact. You followed up with "As far as my imagination takes me, if no energy moved in the universe, there would be no time expended." Which is fine as a concept to explore, but you have to be prepared to defend it, or you can accept responses from people who are correcting misconceptions. You've been fighting that.

What's your point? What is it you want to discuss? Just giving us bullet points like this was a powerpoint slide isn't particularly illuminating.

! Moderator Note What we want is for you to write out the text of what you are discussing. Upload of images only in image file. That way we can quote specific parts. If you can't be bothered to do that, then don't expect anyone to put in the time to read or respond to you.

Nit-picking is actually required sometimes. The terminology we use often has specific meaning, which is why "orbital" is used rather than "orbit" because they refer to different things. We can't read your mind to know what you mean, we have to go by what you actually say/write. Orbit, as you wrote, implies motion. QM orbitals do not imply motion within an atom.

You would have to demonstrate that this is relevant to the broader question, that energy causes time. What is the nature of that relationship? I'm pretty sure I can rebut the claim, but I have to know exactly what the claim is. But I have no interest in vague descriptions where the game is to try and find loopholes. People who don't really know what they are talking about might describe electrons as having an orbit; that model went out of fashion ~100 years ago. And we have gone from "energy" to "movement" which was not the claim. At rest means no center-of-mass kinetic energy. If you want to invoke vibration as the energy, I need a more precise model in order to show that it's wrong. this is physics. We quantify things. Something made of matter. If you need these definitions then you are obviously not prepared to defend any of these WAG claims.

The claim was made subsequent to the OP, and was not phrased as a question. Such is the problem of relying on pop-science as your source of information. A photon has energy, and the photon is moving. But if I throw you a red ball, does "the red is moving" make much sense? Or if we agree the ball is small, does "the small is moving" make sense? It is not "composed" of energy, as energy is not a substance.

You shouldn't make claims you can't support I'm not sure what "energy moving" means. Energy is a property of a system, not a substance or particle. An object moves and it has kinetic energy. You toss a ball in the air and its kinetic energy decreases as its potential energy increases; the sum remains constant. Is energy moving? A block of a radioactive material just sits there. Half of its atoms decay in one half-life. Or just one atom sits there, and decays after some time. Where is the "moving energy"? This additional information that's required does not make the information a dimension. Color could then be a dimension. It fits some of the parameters - it's orthogonal, for one, but suffers from some of the other shortcomings I pointed out.

! 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