swansont

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.

! Moderator Note Link deleted. No advertising, please.

Not being able to handle a concept isn’t very persuasive; it’s argument from incredulity. And you aren’t going to get any traction if you don’t address all of the evidence that’s out there, and only look at one bit of it. People have looked at classical solutions and they don’t fit the evidence. This includes scattering experiments which put a pretty stringent limit on the electron size.

! Moderator Note You can discuss it here. (you can discuss it elsewhere, too, but driving traffic there is advertising and that’s a no-no)

It was apparently corroborated by Cippolone’s testimony. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/cipollone-corroborated-virtually-everything-hutchinson-jan-6-panel-mem-rcna37742 The alleged destruction of phone records (there are conflicting reports as to whether the records still exist) sounds like obstruction, and you generally don’t do that unless there’s something to hide

He knew they were armed, wanted the magnetometers taken down so the crowd would be bigger, and said he wasn’t in danger. “I don’t f---ing care that they have weapons,” Trump fumed in urging aides to take down magnetometers near the White House before he addressed a “Stop the Steal” rally, Hutchinson testified. “They’re not here to hurt me. Take the f---ing mags away.” https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/jan-6-panel-looks-trump-white-house-cassidy-hutchinson-testimony-rcna35550

And yet there’s a fair amount of murder, some of which uses proxies. So the evidence is that it happens. One might consider if narcissists and/or sociopaths (descriptions that have been attached to TFG) are more prone to that.

Pence, as VP, was president of the senate and certified the election. In his absence, Chuck Grassley would have presided. In fact there were reports that Pence would not be present on Jan 6. Grassley said “we don't expect him to be there.” https://www.stormlake.com/articles/editorial-what-did-grassley-mean/ The calls to hang the VP came after he showed up to certify the election, betraying the coup conspirators. Do you have any compelling argument that Trump didn’t want him dead? He knew Pence was in danger. Was there any overt act to stop the mob?

Is there a model out there that says that time propagates, so that it might require a medium? How does length propagate? What medium does it travel through?

Democrats are not as close to being monolithic in policy views as republicans are, and not as susceptible to pressure to align with a platform

! Moderator Note This is off-topic for this discussion. Please focus on whatever physics might be happening. Or lack thereof.

Gravity as a push has been proposed before, but it fails as a model. Do you have a more detailed argument to present? Evidence to support your hypothesis?

! Moderator Note As we have explained to you, this is not how our site works. You must post the material for discussion. I don't think this is a particularly complicated rule; adhering to it should be straightforward.

A hydrogen atom is not a dipole, unless you have an external field of some sort. IOW you can induce a dipole moment, but the intrinsic/permanent dipole moment in the ground state is zero. It's related to CPT symmetry. Having a permanent dipole moment implies a violation of time-reversal symmetry https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.1595052

It's not enough to explain. We already have that, and more. We have an actual theory, which makes quantitative predictions, and allows for ideas to be falsified. If you want to supplant that, you need to explain and predict even more phenomena, and/or do it to a higher precision, along with what we can already do, without contradicting existing experimental evidence. But negative ions have been observed, so you absolutely must consider them. Any theory on the subject has to be able to account for them.

The thing is, Tapper is correct. We're just lucky that Trump and gang fall under the same umbrella as the Watergate crowd, as Hal Holbrook said as Deep Throat in All the President's Men, "Forget the myths the media's created about the White House. The truth is, these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand." If they had been marginally more competent, they might very well have succeeded. Also: Bolton should probably be in jail for his efforts - to use his words - "not here, but, you know, other places"