swansont

Only if there were actions they could take that would do something. Other than 50+ years of experience and advances in technology

But we’re dealing with the ones who would not. It’s not like these people are doing this against their will. Presumably they are properly informed of the risks. The question is what events on a flight like this requires expert human intervention, and what is the risk of those things happening? And what events would an astronaut be able to recover from? But you’re not on the flight.

! Moderator Note It still violates rule 2.7 ! Moderator Note This isn’t a treasure hunt site, it’s a discussion board.

! Moderator Note Please stop posting such questions. This is not a search engine.

I don't think that answers the question

They had already solved it, so it's all good

That was not your claim. You said "The square of speed is the gravitational potential." with no caveats.

Yeah, I don't think I asked any in this thread. Just some small comments.

If the speed of the car is variable then so is the square of the speed. I thought that would be self-evident. I did mention the gravitational potential; it is constant on the surface of the sphere of the earth. If the square of the speed is variable, then it cannot be equal to a constant. Sorry, G is taken already, and this is a new fudge factor you have added because your original claim is wrong. It's still not the force, because the gravitational potential does not include the mass of the object, and the force does. Squaring the potential will not make the mass of the object magically appear. Using unit analysis gives you proportionalities, at best. Not equalities. No, it's not. There's a pesky factor of 2 that need to be included. It has no units, so unit analysis and manipulation would not reveal it.

What? A car moving on the surface of the earth can have a wide range of speeds without changing its gravitational potential. If you square GM/r you get G2M2/r2 which is not the force (GmM/r2)

Davy_Jones has been banned as a sockpuppet of Reg Prescott

! Moderator Note These arguments seemed eerily familiar, and after some digging the staff has determined that Davy_Jones is Reg Prescott, a previously banned user. The feeling of deja vu was because we had, in fact, done this before. Right down to the citing of Frank Sinatra in a thread title. If you find merit in the discussion please continue, but Davy/Reg will not be participating

How do you know that charge isn't 1/L^4 and the force drops off as 1/r^4? IOW if it's ad-hoc, then there's no science in it. Using only dimensional analysis leads you to draw incorrect conclusions, such as "the square of speed is the gravitational potential. And the square of the gravitational potential is the force."

Don’t continue posting unit conversions.

Not the point the analogy is addressing, though. It’s showing the curvature away from the mass. Possibly, but more mass would cause more distortion, so this is avoidable They’d be asking what you mean by manifold, which is the kind of thing you’re trying to avoid if you use an analogy. Demos I’ve seen use a smaller ball to show an orbit. Showing curvature by itself doesn’t really demonstrate anything

If you're asking if the earth was to a large degree molten in its remote past, and the crust solidified as it cooled, the answer is yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Earth

Please, no. I think everybody understands that you can make a self-consistent substitution of independent units. It's precisely because you can't validly substitute length for charge because they describe different things (they are, in a sense, orthogonal) that you can make this swap without a contradiction in unit consistency. Everybody can be named Bruce. So what? Where's the science? Where is your model that can be used to predict behavior?

What do you mean by "keeps it going"?

Time does not have dimensions of L^4 You can't just make stuff up

! Moderator Note Your "rebuttal" to previous posts contained no science. Now we have trolling. Seeing as your original question was adequately answered, there is no reason to continue this - thread closed.

But you said: Dirac used the classic radius. But he did not pretend to be accurate. He only noticed that the ratio of the classical radius to the radius of the Universe gives a value of 10 ^ 40. The same value is given by the ratio of the roots of the masses of the electron and the Universe. r -radius must be gravitational. If you make the comparison, you are using the classical electron radius Also the radius of the observable universe is not constant, so any comparison to constants that one deems meaningful has to just be accidental, since that ratio changes in time.

Neither of these are true. And none of your post addresses the use of the classical electron radius.

I don’t see how that’s a valid conclusion. How can you determine that the levels wouldn’t be even higher if we were not attempting to reduce emissions by looking at the graph?

I think there are questions about whether there was interference from non-experts.

My plan is to let the experts do their thing. As usual.