swansont

If you mean the point about passing through shadow, it may be an issue of temperature fluctuations from doing so, and that you’d want to avoid that, so you don’t have to deal with returning to equilibrium Perhaps the angular momentum of being in such an orbit is an advantage.

I imagine the point of launching is that it doesn’t get in the way of doing things on the ground.

Geostationary orbit is equatorial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_orbit The tilt is why it won’t block the sun except when the sun is lined up over the equator

It only works a very small fraction of the time (near noon near the equinoxes), because it’s only over the equator The sun’s rays are very nearly parallel, so it’s about a square km A shield that was perpetually blocking the sun would heat up and radiate, reducing the effectiveness of the shield.

Marius has been banned for repeated refusal to engage in discussion in good faith, and for not giving any indication that things would improve if they were permitted to stay

! Moderator Note You were told not to bring this up again, and we can also do without such a characterization of people

! Moderator Note From rule 2.7 Advertising and spam is prohibited. We don't mind if you put a link to your noncommercial site (e.g. a blog) in your signature and/or profile, but don't go around making threads to advertise it. …. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone You were made aware of this last time you posted a video link.

Which was not presented as the example in the OP. You are substituting other arguments, to which I did not object.

That's not the same as saying "If God did it, then it's OK for me to do it"

One is the topic of discussion, the other is not

The behavior of the laws of physics, as per the OP Behavior being different is not the same as the behavior not following laws/being described by math

Does that mean the behavior is not following mathematical relationships?

You either believe in them and follow their rules, or you don't.

I don't see how this follows. Surely there are punishments reserved for an omnipotent being that fallible mortals should not be dabbling in. IOW, just because God does it does not mean it is moral when it comes to humans doing it.

If that's how you read it, I'm afraid I can't help. True. And a non-sequitur. It's unrelated to my point. OK, so let's say the cost of uranium went up. What impact is that going to have on the cost of electricity from nuclear power? https://atomicinsights.com/nuclear-energy-is-cheap-and-disruptive-controlling-the-initial-cost-of-nuclear-power-plants-is-a-solvable-problem/ The cost of the fuel when the report was written was about a half-cent per kwh, and "This cost is based upon the amortized costs associated with the purchasing of uranium, conversion, enrichment, and fabrication services along with storage and shipment costs, and inventory (including interest) charges less any expected salvage value." So even if the raw uranium cost went way up, this will have a minimal effect on the overall cost of the electricity, since the processing costs would be fixed. The infrastructure is the main driver of cost

On the one hand, it is amazing that math describes these basic laws of nature, but on the other hand, it seems required, by the very definition of what we mean by a law of nature. What would physics look like if certain phenomena were not following some mathematical description? Are there examples of such? Would we even recognize the behavior if it didn't follow some pattern that could be described with math?

! Moderator Note The rules require that you post information here for discussion; the discussion can't rely on outside links

A model would allow one to quantify the frequency drop. It is because we have models for different scattering processes that we know that scattering does not match observation of the redshift. I didn’t say the model isn’t possible (you’re not doing too well on reading comprehension here), I said you haven’t provided one. But if you’re going to invoke unknown particles, you need to have a really good model. Which you don’t have, since you don’t have a model of any kind. For example, the model for Compton scattering says the wavelength shift and angle of scattering are related. There’s an equation, and it follows other laws of physics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_scattering (but we also know Compton scattering isn’t responsible for the redshift)

! Moderator Note As I pointed out before, you were asked for a model, not a mechanism. The mechanism you offered had been falsified. What is so hard to understand?

You implied it by bringing up fuel costs.

! Moderator Note To be precise you were asked for a model and evidence for your proposal, which is not the same thing as a mechanism. You did offer a mechanism, and several people pointed out that the mechanism (scattering) does not account for observations. It is therefore falsified. (Newtonian gravity lacks a mechanism, but that is not sufficient to discard it; gravity really does depend on the masses and distance^2, at the level of precision where we use Newtonian gravity) Lacking a model that matches the evidence means your proposal was unsupported. What is required, then, is to show that expansion is what matches the evidence. ! Moderator Note The thread was closed because you were asked for a model and evidence to support it, and not only failed to do so, you attempted to distract from your failure. In short, the thread was closed because you didn’t follow the rules. Reading more into it is an issue of your motivations, not mine. Others will point out the role of dark energy, and evidence of expansion, but it’s telling that you are not familiar with all of this already

The “plane” has an extent of several degrees, which is much, much larger than any geometry introduced by GR. There is no contradiction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_inclination#Observations_and_theories ! Moderator Note The approach of “I don’t understand GR, therefore it is wrong” is fatally flawed. There are two options: 1. Present evidence to support your claims, and an alternate model if you are proposing an alternative 2. Ask questions to fix your knowledge deficiencies What you can’t do is merely assert that mainstream physics is wrong. Not here, at least.

How expensive is uranium, though? $100/kg or thereabouts? How does that compare to the cost of the plant? Which is the primary driver of the cost of the electricity nuke plants produce. Sun and wind are free. The cost of “green” energy is largely driven by infrastructure costs. And that’s a problem? (Biofuels are the product, not the raw material)

! Moderator Note Trying to be cute instead of following the rules is not a winning play. You were asked for a model and evidence, you failed to provide any. Don’t bring this subject up again.

! Moderator Note You do not explain how scattering leads to the observed redshift. You are merely asserting that it will.