swansont

! 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

I've had this problem with ground beef that's been in the fridge for a few days. Not so much with freshly-ground.

"The leaf is green" means that the light that reflects off of a leaf (from a white-ish source) is predominantly green, as in it's centered around 500 nm, and is lacking in light at the far ends of the visible spectrum. So the photons are actually green photons, i.e. it is a property of the photons that bounced off the leaf. There are other color perceptions that depend on how the eye processes the light, as well. To some people the leaf might not be green, because of problems in the eyes or in the optic nerve, or the brain. Color perception is a little more complicated at times. But it's safe to say it's not just in the leaf.

You just told me that having various velocities on the earth's surface does not. You said "this is insufficient to make the slightest bit of difference" So what is sufficient? A geostationary orbit is about 7,000 mph. Which is a lot smaller than 1.3 million. An X-15 traveled almost 5,000 mph, but was not in orbit. The moon's speed is under 2,500 mph, but it is in orbit. Seems to me this isn't the criterion you think it is, and the stumbling block is something I'm pointing out. It's your own creation. Oh, please.

In Galilean relativity, velocity addition is linear. Only? There are, quite notably, the Lorentz transforms.

It's 1.3 million, and you need to explain why this is the number that matters. It's both. In GR it's not a force, but you really haven't elevated the discussion to the point where GR is pertinent. You don't seem to understand the basics of Newtonian gravity. I can't ignore something that hasn't been presented. Actually you do have such an obligation, if it's relevant to the discussion. Sticking with what you've said is part of the problem. Repetition is not the same as clarification. Repetition is not "answering" in any meaningful sense. I thought you were advocating a position that says time doesn't actually exist. Which you say doesn't exist. So you're visualizing...nothing?

Yes, if you’re talking about a gravitationally bound system. You can calculate the work one needs to do to remove some mass from the system. That would be its gravitational binding energy. The quark binding MigL discussed is of a different nature; you can’t remove quarks from a nucleon. Because of the mass and smaller radius. What’s the evidence that the down quarks result in even more gravity than an identical mass and radius with fewer down quarks?

That would make this a science fiction discussion.